-
Health Technology Assessment... Oct 2022The mainstay of treatment for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain is pharmacotherapy, but the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline is not... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
The mainstay of treatment for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain is pharmacotherapy, but the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline is not based on robust evidence, as the treatments and their combinations have not been directly compared.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the most clinically beneficial, cost-effective and tolerated treatment pathway for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain.
DESIGN
A randomised crossover trial with health economic analysis.
SETTING
Twenty-one secondary care centres in the UK.
PARTICIPANTS
Adults with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain with a 7-day average self-rated pain score of ≥ 4 points (Numeric Rating Scale 0-10).
INTERVENTIONS
Participants were randomised to three commonly used treatment pathways: (1) amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, (2) duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin and (3) pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline. Participants and research teams were blinded to treatment allocation, using over-encapsulated capsules and matching placebos. Site pharmacists were unblinded.
OUTCOMES
The primary outcome was the difference in 7-day average 24-hour Numeric Rating Scale score between pathways, measured during the final week of each pathway. Secondary end points included 7-day average daily Numeric Rating Scale pain score at week 6 between monotherapies, quality of life (Short Form questionnaire-36 items), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score, the proportion of patients achieving 30% and 50% pain reduction, Brief Pain Inventory - Modified Short Form items scores, Insomnia Severity Index score, Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory score, tolerability (scale 0-10), Patient Global Impression of Change score at week 16 and patients' preferred treatment pathway at week 50. Adverse events and serious adverse events were recorded. A within-trial cost-utility analysis was carried out to compare treatment pathways using incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-years from an NHS and social care perspective.
RESULTS
A total of 140 participants were randomised from 13 UK centres, 130 of whom were included in the analyses. Pain score at week 16 was similar between the arms, with a mean difference of -0.1 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.5 to 0.3 points) for duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, a mean difference of -0.1 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.5 to 0.3 points) for pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline compared with amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin and a mean difference of 0.0 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.4 to 0.4 points) for pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin. Results for tolerability, discontinuation and quality of life were similar. The adverse events were predictable for each drug. Combination therapy (weeks 6-16) was associated with a further reduction in Numeric Rating Scale pain score (mean 1.0 points, 98.3% confidence interval 0.6 to 1.3 points) compared with those who remained on monotherapy (mean 0.2 points, 98.3% confidence interval -0.1 to 0.5 points). The pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline pathway had the fewest monotherapy discontinuations due to treatment-emergent adverse events and was most commonly preferred (most commonly preferred by participants: amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, 24%; duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin, 33%; pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline, 43%; = 0.26). No single pathway was superior in cost-effectiveness. The incremental gains in quality-adjusted life-years were small for each pathway comparison [amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin -0.002 (95% confidence interval -0.011 to 0.007) quality-adjusted life-years, amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline -0.006 (95% confidence interval -0.002 to 0.014) quality-adjusted life-years and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline 0.007 (95% confidence interval 0.0002 to 0.015) quality-adjusted life-years] and incremental costs over 16 weeks were similar [amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin -£113 (95% confidence interval -£381 to £90), amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline £155 (95% confidence interval -£37 to £625) and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline £141 (95% confidence interval -£13 to £398)].
LIMITATIONS
Although there was no placebo arm, there is strong evidence for the use of each study medication from randomised placebo-controlled trials. The addition of a placebo arm would have increased the duration of this already long and demanding trial and it was not felt to be ethically justifiable.
FUTURE WORK
Future research should explore (1) variations in diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain management at the practice level, (2) how OPTION-DM (Optimal Pathway for TreatIng neurOpathic paiN in Diabetes Mellitus) trial findings can be best implemented, (3) why some patients respond to a particular drug and others do not and (4) what options there are for further treatments for those patients on combination treatment with inadequate pain relief.
CONCLUSIONS
The three treatment pathways appear to give comparable patient outcomes at similar costs, suggesting that the optimal treatment may depend on patients' preference in terms of side effects.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The trial is registered as ISRCTN17545443 and EudraCT 2016-003146-89.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme, and will be published in full in ; Vol. 26, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Pregabalin; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Amitriptyline; Quality of Life; Neuralgia; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Diabetes Mellitus
PubMed: 36259684
DOI: 10.3310/RXUO6757 -
Neurology Sep 2019To provide updated evidence-based recommendations for migraine prevention using pharmacologic treatment with or without cognitive behavioral therapy in the pediatric... (Review)
Review
Practice guideline update summary: Pharmacologic treatment for pediatric migraine prevention: Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society.
OBJECTIVE
To provide updated evidence-based recommendations for migraine prevention using pharmacologic treatment with or without cognitive behavioral therapy in the pediatric population.
METHODS
The authors systematically reviewed literature from January 2003 to August 2017 and developed practice recommendations using the American Academy of Neurology 2011 process, as amended.
RESULTS
Fifteen Class I-III studies on migraine prevention in children and adolescents met inclusion criteria. There is insufficient evidence to determine if children and adolescents receiving divalproex, onabotulinumtoxinA, amitriptyline, nimodipine, or flunarizine are more or less likely than those receiving placebo to have a reduction in headache frequency. Children with migraine receiving propranolol are possibly more likely than those receiving placebo to have an at least 50% reduction in headache frequency. Children and adolescents receiving topiramate and cinnarizine are probably more likely than those receiving placebo to have a decrease in headache frequency. Children with migraine receiving amitriptyline plus cognitive behavioral therapy are more likely than those receiving amitriptyline plus headache education to have a reduction in headache frequency.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The majority of randomized controlled trials studying the efficacy of preventive medications for pediatric migraine fail to demonstrate superiority to placebo. Recommendations for the prevention of migraine in children include counseling on lifestyle and behavioral factors that influence headache frequency and assessment and management of comorbid disorders associated with headache persistence. Clinicians should engage in shared decision-making with patients and caregivers regarding the use of preventive treatments for migraine, including discussion of the limitations in the evidence to support pharmacologic treatments.
Topics: Academies and Institutes; Adolescent; Analgesics; Anticonvulsants; Child; Decision Making, Shared; Headache; Humans; Migraine Disorders; Neurology; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Research Report; Societies, Medical; Treatment Outcome; United States
PubMed: 31413170
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008105 -
PloS One 2015To compare the effectiveness and side effects of migraine prophylactic medications. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To compare the effectiveness and side effects of migraine prophylactic medications.
DESIGN
We performed a network meta-analysis. Data were extracted independently in duplicate and quality was assessed using both the JADAD and Cochrane Risk of Bias instruments. Data were pooled and network meta-analysis performed using random effects models.
DATA SOURCES
PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Trial Registry, bibliography of retrieved articles through 18 May 2014.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
We included randomized controlled trials of adults with migraine headaches of at least 4 weeks in duration.
RESULTS
Placebo controlled trials included alpha blockers (n = 9), angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (n = 3), angiotensin receptor blockers (n = 3), anticonvulsants (n = 32), beta-blockers (n = 39), calcium channel blockers (n = 12), flunarizine (n = 7), serotonin reuptake inhibitors (n = 6), serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (n = 1) serotonin agonists (n = 9) and tricyclic antidepressants (n = 11). In addition there were 53 trials comparing different drugs. Drugs with at least 3 trials that were more effective than placebo for episodic migraines included amitriptyline (SMD: -1.2, 95% CI: -1.7 to -0.82), -flunarizine (-1.1 headaches/month (ha/month), 95% CI: -1.6 to -0.67), fluoxetine (SMD: -0.57, 95% CI: -0.97 to -0.17), metoprolol (-0.94 ha/month, 95% CI: -1.4 to -0.46), pizotifen (-0.43 ha/month, 95% CI: -0.6 to -0.21), propranolol (-1.3 ha/month, 95% CI: -2.0 to -0.62), topiramate (-1.1 ha/month, 95% CI: -1.9 to -0.73) and valproate (-1.5 ha/month, 95% CI: -2.1 to -0.8). Several effective drugs with less than 3 trials included: 3 ace inhibitors (enalapril, lisinopril, captopril), two angiotensin receptor blockers (candesartan, telmisartan), two anticonvulsants (lamotrigine, levetiracetam), and several beta-blockers (atenolol, bisoprolol, timolol). Network meta-analysis found amitriptyline to be better than several other medications including candesartan, fluoxetine, propranolol, topiramate and valproate and no different than atenolol, flunarizine, clomipramine or metoprolol.
CONCLUSION
Several drugs good evidence supporting efficacy. There is weak evidence supporting amitriptyline's superiority over some drugs. Selection of prophylactic medication should be tailored according to patient preferences, characteristics and side effect profiles.
Topics: Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Migraine Disorders; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26172390
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130733 -
Zhejiang Da Xue Xue Bao. Yi Xue Ban =... Aug 2022To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants in treatment of depression disorder in children and adolescents by network meta-analysis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants in treatment of depression disorder in children and adolescents by network meta-analysis.
METHODS
Databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CBM, CNKI and Wanfang Data were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) related to antidepressants in treatment of children and adolescents with depression from inception to December 2021. Quality assessment and data extraction from the included RCTs were performed. Statistical analyses of efficacy and tolerability were conducted with Stata 15.1 software. Surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCAR) was used to rank the value of the antidepressants.
RESULTS
A total of 33 RCTs were included in 32 articles, involving 6949 patients. There are 13 antidepressants used in total, including amitriptyline, vilazodone, fluoxetine, selegiline, paroxetine, imipramine, desipramine, sertraline, nortriptyline, escitalopram, citalopram, venlafaxine and duloxetine. The results of network meta-analysis showed that the efficacy of duloxetine ( =1.95, 95% 1.41-2.69), fluoxetine ( =1.73, 95% 1.40-2.14), venlafaxine ( =1.37, 95% 1.04-1.80) and escitalopram ( =1.48, 95% : 1.12-1.95) were significantly higher than that of placebos (all <0.05); the probability cumulative ranks were duloxetine (87.0%), amitriptyline (83.3%), fluoxetine (79.0%), escitalopram (62.7%), etc. The results showed that the intolerability of patients receiving imipramine ( =0.15, 95% 0.08-0.27), sertraline ( =0.33, 95% 0.16-0.71), venlafaxine ( =0.35, 95% 0.17-0.72), duloxetine ( =0.35, 95% 0.17-0.73) and paroxetine ( =0.52, 95% 0.30-0.88) were significantly higher than that of placebos (all <0.05), and the probability cumulative ranks were imipramine (95.7%), sertraline (69.6%), venlafaxine (68.6%), duloxetine (68.2%), etc. Conclusion: Among 13 antidepressants, duloxetine, fluoxetine, escitalopram and venlafaxine are significantly better than placebo in terms of efficacy, but duloxetine and venlafaxine are less well tolerated.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Humans; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Fluoxetine; Sertraline; Paroxetine; Amitriptyline; Imipramine; Depression; Escitalopram; Network Meta-Analysis; Depressive Disorder, Major; Antidepressive Agents
PubMed: 37202104
DOI: 10.3724/zdxbyxb-2022-0145 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Feb 2016Chronic tension-type headache (CTTH) is a disorder that evolves from episodic tension-type headache, with daily, or very frequent, episodes of headache lasting hours or... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Chronic tension-type headache (CTTH) is a disorder that evolves from episodic tension-type headache, with daily, or very frequent, episodes of headache lasting hours or they may be continuous. It affects up to 4% of the general population, and is more prevalent in women (up to 65% of cases).
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic overview, aiming to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of drug treatments for CTTH? What are the effects of non-drug treatments for CTTH? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to December 2013 (Clinical Evidence overviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this overview).
RESULTS
At this update, searching of electronic databases retrieved 125 studies. After deduplication, 77 records were screened for inclusion in the overview. Appraisal of titles and abstracts led to the exclusion of 56 studies and the further review of 21 full publications. Of the 21 full articles evaluated, three systematic reviews and one RCT were included at this update. We performed a GRADE evaluation for 15 PICO combinations.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic overview, we categorised the efficacy for 12 interventions based on information about the effectiveness and safety of non-drug treatments acupuncture and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), as well as the drug treatments amitriptyline, anticonvulsant drugs (sodium valproate, topiramate, or gabapentin), benzodiazepines, botulinum toxin, noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressants (mirtazapine), NSAIDs (e.g. ibuprofen); opioid analgesics (e.g. codeine), paracetamol, serotonin re-uptake inhibitor antidepressants (SSRIs, SNRIs), and tricyclic antidepressants (other than amitriptyline).
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antidepressive Agents; Chronic Disease; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Humans; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Tension-Type Headache
PubMed: 26859719
DOI: No ID Found -
Current Pain and Headache Reports Mar 2017Topical therapeutic approaches in localized neuropathic pain (LNP) syndromes are increasingly used by both specialists and general practitioners, with a potentially... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
Topical therapeutic approaches in localized neuropathic pain (LNP) syndromes are increasingly used by both specialists and general practitioners, with a potentially promising effect on pain reduction. In this narrative review, we describe the available compounds for topical use in LNP syndromes and address their potential efficacy according to the literature.
RECENT FINDINGS
Local anaesthetics (e.g., lidocaine, bupivacaine and mepivacaine), as well as general anaesthetic agents (e.g., ketamine), muscle relaxants (e.g., baclofen), capsaicin, anti-inflammatory drugs (e.g., diclofenac), salicylates, antidepressants (e.g., amitriptyline and doxepin), α2 adrenergic agents (e.g., clonidine), or even a combination of them have been tested in various applications for the treatment of LNP. Few of them have reached a sufficient level of evidence to support systematic use as treatment options. Relatively few systemic side effects or drug-drug interactions and satisfactory efficacy seem to be the benefits of topical treatments. More well-organized and tailored studies are necessary for the further conceptualization of topical treatments for LNP.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Analgesics; Anesthetics, Local; Humans; Neuralgia; Pain Management
PubMed: 28271334
DOI: 10.1007/s11916-017-0615-y -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022Treatment of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is challenging for clinicians, and many clinical trials and meta-analyses on CIPN are controversial....
Treatment of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is challenging for clinicians, and many clinical trials and meta-analyses on CIPN are controversial. There are also few comparisons of the efficacy among drugs used to treat CIPN. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to study the efficacy of drugs in treating CIPN using existing randomized controlled trials. Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving any pharmaceutical intervention and/or combination therapy of treating CIPN. Seventeen RCTs investigating 16 drug categories, duloxetine, pregabalin, crocin, tetrodotoxin, venlafaxine, monosialotetrahexosyl ganglioside (GM1), lamotrigine, KA (ketamine and amitriptyline) cream, nortriptyline, amitriptyline, topical (bitter apple) oil, BAK (baclofen, amitriptyline hydrochloride, and ketamine) pluronic lecithin organogel, gabapentin, and acetyl l-carnitine (ALC), in the treatment of CIPN were retrieved. Many of the included RCTs consisted of small sample sizes and short follow-up periods. It was difficult to quantify due to the highly variable nature of outcome indicators. Duloxetine, venlafaxine, pregabalin, crocin, tetrodotoxin, and monosialotetrahexosyl ganglioside exhibited some beneficial effects in treating CIPN. Duloxetine, GM1, and crocin showed moderate benefits based on the evidence review, while lamotrigine, KA cream, nortriptyline, amitriptyline, and topical (bitter apple) oil were not beneficial. Further studies were necessary to confirm the efficacy of gabapentin in the treatment of CIPN because of the controversy of efficacy of gabapentin. Furthermore, BAK topicalcompound analgesic gel only had a tendency to improve the CIPN symptoms, but the difference was not statistically significant. ALC might result in worsening CIPN. Most studies were not of good quality because of small sample sizes. Therefore, standardized randomized controlled trials with large samples were needed to critically assess the effectiveness of these drugs in treating CIPN in the future.
PubMed: 36618919
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.1080888 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2016This review is one of a series on drugs used to treat fibromyalgia. Fibromyalgia is a clinically well-defined chronic condition of unknown aetiology characterised by... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This review is one of a series on drugs used to treat fibromyalgia. Fibromyalgia is a clinically well-defined chronic condition of unknown aetiology characterised by chronic widespread pain that often co-exists with sleep problems and fatigue affecting approximately 2% of the general population. People often report high disability levels and poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Drug therapy focuses on reducing key symptoms and disability, and improving HRQoL. Cannabis has been used for millennia to reduce pain and other somatic and psychological symptoms.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy, tolerability and safety of cannabinoids for fibromyalgia symptoms in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE to April 2016, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, three clinical trial registries, and contact with trial authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised controlled trials of at least four weeks' duration of any formulation of cannabis products used for the treatment of adults with fibromyalgia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted the data of all included studies and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies by discussion. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence was derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for drop-outs; at least 200 participants in the comparison, eight to 12 weeks' duration, parallel design), second tier evidence from data that did not meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers (i.e. data from at least 200 participants) in the comparison, and third tier evidence from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both. We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).
MAIN RESULTS
We included two studies with 72 participants. Overall, the two studies were at moderate risk of bias. The evidence was derived from group mean data and completer analysis (very low quality evidence overall). We rated the quality of all outcomes according to GRADE as very low due to indirectness, imprecision and potential reporting bias.The primary outcomes in our review were participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) much or very much improved, withdrawal due to adverse events (tolerability) and serious adverse events (safety). Nabilone was compared to placebo and to amitriptyline in one study each. Study sizes were 32 and 40 participants. One study used a cross-over design and one used a parallel group design; study duration was four or six weeks. Both studies used nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid, with a bedtime dosage of 1 mg/day. No study reported the proportion of participants experiencing at least 30% or 50% pain relief or who were very much improved. No study provided first or second tier (high to moderate quality) evidence for an outcome of efficacy, tolerability and safety. Third tier (very low quality) evidence indicated greater reduction of pain and limitations of HRQoL compared to placebo in one study. There were no significant differences to placebo noted for fatigue and depression (very low quality evidence). Third tier evidence indicated better effects of nabilone on sleep than amitriptyline (very low quality evidence). There were no significant differences between the two drugs noted for pain, mood and HRQoL (very low quality evidence). More participants dropped out due to adverse events in the nabilone groups (4/52 participants) than in the control groups (1/20 in placebo and 0/32 in amitriptyline group). The most frequent adverse events were dizziness, nausea, dry mouth and drowsiness (six participants with nabilone). Neither study reported serious adverse events during the period of both studies. We planned to create a GRADE 'Summary of findings' table, but due to the scarcity of data we were unable to do this. We found no relevant study with herbal cannabis, plant-based cannabinoids or synthetic cannabinoids other than nabilone in fibromyalgia.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no convincing, unbiased, high quality evidence suggesting that nabilone is of value in treating people with fibromyalgia. The tolerability of nabilone was low in people with fibromyalgia.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Amitriptyline; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Cannabinoids; Dronabinol; Fibromyalgia; Health Status; Humans; Middle Aged; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27428009
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011694.pub2 -
Respiratory Research Oct 2023The standard therapy for bronchial asthma consists of combinations of acute (short-acting ß-sympathomimetics) and, depending on the severity of disease, additional...
INTRODUCTION
The standard therapy for bronchial asthma consists of combinations of acute (short-acting ß-sympathomimetics) and, depending on the severity of disease, additional long-term treatment (including inhaled glucocorticoids, long-acting ß-sympathomimetics, anticholinergics, anti-IL-4R antibodies). The antidepressant amitriptyline has been identified as a relevant down-regulator of immunological T2-phenotype in asthma, acting-at least partially-through inhibition of acid sphingomyelinase (ASM), an enzyme involved in sphingolipid metabolism. Here, we investigated the non-immunological role of amitriptyline on acute bronchoconstriction, a main feature of airway hyperresponsiveness in asthmatic disease.
METHODS
After stimulation of precision cut lung slices (PCLS) from mice (wildtype and ASM-knockout), rats, guinea pigs and human lungs with mediators of bronchoconstriction (endogenous and exogenous acetylcholine, methacholine, serotonin, endothelin, histamine, thromboxane-receptor agonist U46619 and leukotriene LTD4, airway area was monitored in the absence of or with rising concentrations of amitriptyline. Airway dilatation was also investigated in rat PCLS by prior contraction induced by methacholine. As bronchodilators for maximal relaxation, we used IBMX (PDE inhibitor) and salbutamol (ß-adrenergic agonist) and compared these effects with the impact of amitriptyline treatment. Isolated perfused lungs (IPL) of wildtype mice were treated with amitriptyline, administered via the vascular system (perfusate) or intratracheally as an inhalation. To this end, amitriptyline was nebulized via pariboy in-vivo and mice were ventilated with the flexiVent setup immediately after inhalation of amitriptyline with monitoring of lung function.
RESULTS
Our results show amitriptyline to be a potential inhibitor of bronchoconstriction, induced by exogenous or endogenous (EFS) acetylcholine, serotonin and histamine, in PCLS from various species. The effects of endothelin, thromboxane and leukotrienes could not be blocked. In acute bronchoconstriction, amitriptyline seems to act ASM-independent, because ASM-deficiency (Smdp1) did not change the effect of acetylcholine on airway contraction. Systemic as well as inhaled amitriptyline ameliorated the resistance of IPL after acetylcholine provocation. With the flexiVent setup, we demonstrated that the acetylcholine-induced rise in central and tissue resistance was much more marked in untreated animals than in amitriptyline-treated ones. Additionally, we provide clear evidence that amitriptyline dilatates pre-contracted airways as effectively as a combination of typical bronchodilators such as IBMX and salbutamol.
CONCLUSION
Amitriptyline is a drug of high potential, which inhibits acute bronchoconstriction and induces bronchodilatation in pre-contracted airways. It could be one of the first therapeutic agents in asthmatic disease to have powerful effects on the T2-allergic phenotype and on acute airway hyperresponsiveness with bronchoconstriction, especially when inhaled.
Topics: Mice; Rats; Humans; Animals; Guinea Pigs; Bronchoconstriction; Methacholine Chloride; Amitriptyline; Histamine; Bronchodilator Agents; Serotonin; Acetylcholine; Sympathomimetics; 1-Methyl-3-isobutylxanthine; Dilatation; Lung; Asthma; Albuterol; Endothelins; Thromboxanes
PubMed: 37907918
DOI: 10.1186/s12931-023-02580-6