-
Ideggyogyaszati Szemle Jan 2019Tension type headache, the most common type of primary headaches, affects approximately 80% of the population. Mainly because of its high prevalence, the socio-economic... (Review)
Review
Tension type headache, the most common type of primary headaches, affects approximately 80% of the population. Mainly because of its high prevalence, the socio-economic consequences of tension type headache are significant. The pain in tension type headache is usually bilateral, mild to moderate, is of a pressing or tightening quality, and is not accompanied by other symptoms. Patients with frequent or daily occurrence of tension type headache may experience significant distress because of the condition. The two main therapeutic avenues of tension type headache are acute and prophylactic treatment. Simple or combined analgesics are the mainstay of acute treatment. Prophylactic treatment is needed in case of attacks that are frequent and/or difficult to treat. The first drugs of choice as preventatives of tension type headache are tricyclic antidepressants, with a special focus on amitriptyline, the efficacy of which having been documented in multiple double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. Among other antidepressants, the efficacy of mirtazapine and venlafaxine has been documented. There is weaker evidence about the efficacy of gabapentine, topiramate, and tizanidin. Non-pharmacological prophylactic methods of tension type headache with a documented efficacy include certain types of psychotherapy and acupuncture.
Topics: Amitriptyline; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Humans; Tension-Type Headache
PubMed: 30785242
DOI: 10.18071/isz.72.0013 -
JAMA Network Open May 2022Amitriptyline is an established medication used off-label for the treatment of fibromyalgia, but pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran are the only pharmacological... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Amitriptyline is an established medication used off-label for the treatment of fibromyalgia, but pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran are the only pharmacological agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat fibromyalgia.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the comparative effectiveness and acceptability associated with pharmacological treatment options for fibromyalgia.
DATA SOURCES
Searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov were conducted on November 20, 2018, and updated on July 29, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing amitriptyline or any FDA-approved doses of investigated drugs.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
This study follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline. Four independent reviewers extracted data using a standardized data extraction sheet and assessed quality of RCTs. A random-effects bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted. Data were analyzed from August 2020 to January 2021.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Comparative effectiveness and acceptability (defined as discontinuation of treatment owing to adverse drug reactions) associated with amitriptyline (off-label), pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran (on-label) in reducing fibromyalgia symptoms. The following doses were compared: 60-mg and 120-mg duloxetine; 150-mg, 300-mg, 450-mg, and 600-mg pregabalin; 100-mg and 200-mg milnacipran; and amitriptyline. Effect sizes are reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% credible intervals (95% CrIs). Findings were considered statistically significant when the 95% CrI did not include the null value (0 for SMD and 1 for OR). Relative treatment ranking using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was also evaluated.
RESULTS
A total of 36 studies (11 930 patients) were included. The mean (SD) age of patients was 48.4 (10.4) years, and 11 261 patients (94.4%) were women. Compared with placebo, amitriptyline was associated with reduced sleep disturbances (SMD, -0.97; 95% CrI, -1.10 to -0.83), fatigue (SMD, -0.64; 95% CrI, -0.75 to -0.53), and improved quality of life (SMD, -0.80; 95% CrI, -0.94 to -0.65). Duloxetine 120 mg was associated with the highest improvement in pain (SMD, -0.33; 95% CrI, -0.36 to -0.30) and depression (SMD, -0.25; 95% CrI, -0.32 to -0.17) vs placebo. All treatments were associated with inferior acceptability (higher dropout rate) than placebo, except amitriptyline (OR, 0.78; 95% CrI, 0.31 to 1.66). According to the SUCRA-based relative ranking of treatments, duloxetine 120 mg was associated with higher efficacy for treating pain and depression, while amitriptyline was associated with higher efficacy for improving sleep, fatigue, and overall quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
These findings suggest that clinicians should consider how treatments could be tailored to individual symptoms, weighing the benefits and acceptability, when prescribing medications to patients with fibromyalgia.
Topics: Amitriptyline; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Fatigue; Female; Fibromyalgia; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Milnacipran; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain; Pregabalin; United States; United States Food and Drug Administration
PubMed: 35587348
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.12939 -
Lancet (London, England) Nov 2023Most patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are managed in primary care. When first-line therapies for IBS are ineffective, the UK National Institute for Health... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Amitriptyline at Low-Dose and Titrated for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as Second-Line Treatment in primary care (ATLANTIS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.
BACKGROUND
Most patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are managed in primary care. When first-line therapies for IBS are ineffective, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline suggests considering low- dose tricyclic antidepressants as second-line treatment, but their effectiveness in primary care is unknown, and they are infrequently prescribed in this setting.
METHODS
This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (Amitriptyline at Low-Dose and Titrated for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as Second-Line Treatment [ATLANTIS]) was conducted at 55 general practices in England. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, with Rome IV IBS of any subtype, and ongoing symptoms (IBS Severity Scoring System [IBS-SSS] score ≥75 points) despite dietary changes and first-line therapies, a normal full blood count and C-reactive protein, negative coeliac serology, and no evidence of suicidal ideation. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to low-dose oral amitriptyline (10 mg once daily) or placebo for 6 months, with dose titration over 3 weeks (up to 30 mg once daily), according to symptoms and tolerability. Participants, their general practitioners, investigators, and the analysis team were all masked to allocation throughout the trial. The primary outcome was the IBS-SSS score at 6 months. Effectiveness analyses were according to intention-to-treat; safety analyses were on all participants who took at least one dose of the trial medication. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN48075063) and is closed to new participants.
FINDINGS
Between Oct 18, 2019, and April 11, 2022, 463 participants (mean age 48·5 years [SD 16·1], 315 [68%] female to 148 [32%] male) were randomly allocated to receive low-dose amitriptyline (232) or placebo (231). Intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome showed a significant difference in favour of low-dose amitriptyline in IBS-SSS score between groups at 6 months (-27·0, 95% CI -46·9 to -7·10; p=0·0079). 46 (20%) participants discontinued low-dose amitriptyline (30 [13%] due to adverse events), and 59 (26%) discontinued placebo (20 [9%] due to adverse events) before 6 months. There were five serious adverse reactions (two in the amitriptyline group and three in the placebo group), and five serious adverse events unrelated to trial medication.
INTERPRETATION
To our knowledge, this is the largest trial of a tricyclic antidepressant in IBS ever conducted. Titrated low-dose amitriptyline was superior to placebo as a second-line treatment for IBS in primary care across multiple outcomes, and was safe and well tolerated. General practitioners should offer low-dose amitriptyline to patients with IBS whose symptoms do not improve with first-line therapies, with appropriate support to guide patient-led dose titration, such as the self-titration document developed for this trial.
FUNDING
National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (grant reference 16/162/01).
Topics: Humans; Male; Female; Middle Aged; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Amitriptyline; England; Double-Blind Method; Primary Health Care; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37858323
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01523-4 -
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 -
BMJ Case Reports Aug 2012A 48-year-old immunosuppressed woman presented to a rheumatology follow-up clinic after suffering from herpes zoster infection. She had manifestations of foot drop 3...
A 48-year-old immunosuppressed woman presented to a rheumatology follow-up clinic after suffering from herpes zoster infection. She had manifestations of foot drop 3 months after the initial infection. She was diagnosed with motor radiculopathy following herpes zoster infection that was effectively managed by physiotherapy and amitriptyline.
Topics: Amitriptyline; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Female; Gait Disorders, Neurologic; Herpes Zoster; Humans; Middle Aged; Physical Therapy Modalities; Radiculopathy
PubMed: 22891019
DOI: 10.1136/bcr-2012-006246 -
American Journal of Men's Health Mar 2018Amitriptyline is an old drug but is still prevalently used as the first-line treatment for a variety of common diseases. Surprisingly, knowledge of sexual risks with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Amitriptyline is an old drug but is still prevalently used as the first-line treatment for a variety of common diseases. Surprisingly, knowledge of sexual risks with amitriptyline comes from only one clinical trial and several case reports from three decades ago. In the current study, a systematic review of the literature following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) related to amitriptyline and sexual dysfunction (SD) was performed. The frequency, gender-difference, types, disease-specificity and time course of SD, and the relationship between SD and nonsexual adversity were studied. A total of 14 publications, including 8 qualified randomized clinical trials, were eligible. The frequency of SD in overall, male and female patients was 5.7, 11.9 and 1.7%, respectively. SD was six-fold higher in men than women. The frequency of SD was 6.9% in depressive patients compared with 0.8% in non-depressive patients ( p = .008), and gradually decreased at 8 weeks after treatment ( p = .02). Amitriptyline impacted arousal and libido more than orgasm and ejaculation in male patients but mainly libido in female patients. SD was significantly correlated with insomnia linearly whereas somnolence and nausea dually. Therefore, amitriptyline-associated SD mainly occurs in depressive and male patients, disturbs each phase of the sexual response cycle in men but mainly libido in women, gradually decreases under long-term treatment, and can be predicted by the co-existence of insomnia, somnolence or nausea during treatment. Clinicians should caution and tailor the gender and disease vulnerability of amitriptyline in their practice.
Topics: Amitriptyline; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Depression; Humans; Male; Sexual Dysfunctions, Psychological
PubMed: 29019272
DOI: 10.1177/1557988317734519 -
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 -
Annals of the Academy of Medicine,... Apr 2020Amitriptyline (AMT) is a tricyclic antidepressant. In this review, we evaluate the clinical and epidemiological profile, pathological mechanisms and management of... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Amitriptyline (AMT) is a tricyclic antidepressant. In this review, we evaluate the clinical and epidemiological profile, pathological mechanisms and management of AMT-associated movement disorders.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A search for relevant reports in 6 databases was performed. Studies that reported patients developed only ataxia or tremor after AMT use were excluded.
RESULTS
A total of 48 reports on 200 cases were found. AMT-associated movement disorders included myoclonus (n = 26), dyskinesia (n = 11), dystonia (n = 8), stutter (n = 5), akathisia (n = 3) and restless legs syndrome (n = 1). For less well-defined cases, 99 patients had dyskinesia, 19 had psychomotor disturbances, 3 had myoclonus, 11 had dystonia, 12 had Parkinsonism and 1 each had akathisia and extrapyramidal symptoms. Mean and standard deviation (SD) and median ages were 45.40 years (SD 16.78) and 40 years (range 3.7-82 years), respectively. Over half were women (58.13%) and the most common indication was depression. Mean and median AMT doses were 126 mg (SD 128.76) and 75 mg (range 15-800 mg), respectively. In 68% of patients, onset of movement disorders was <1 month; time from AMT withdrawal to complete recovery was <1 month in 70% of cases. A weak negative linear correlation (r = -0.0904) was found between onset of movement disorders and AMT dose. AMT withdrawal was the most common treatment.
CONCLUSION
Amitriptyline is associated with various movement disorders, particularly myoclonus, dystonia and dyskinesias. Stutters and restless legs syndrome are some of the less common associations.
Topics: Amitriptyline; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Humans; Movement Disorders
PubMed: 32419008
DOI: No ID Found -
PloS One 2023Half the US population uses drugs with anticholinergic properties. Their potential harms may outweigh their benefits. Amitriptyline is among the most frequently... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Half the US population uses drugs with anticholinergic properties. Their potential harms may outweigh their benefits. Amitriptyline is among the most frequently prescribed anticholinergic medicinal products, is used for multiple indications, and rated as strongly anticholinergic. Our objective was to explore and quantify (anticholinergic) adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in patients taking amitriptyline vs. placebo in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults and healthy individuals.
METHODS
We searched electronic databases from their inception until 09/2022, and clinical trial registries from their inception until 09/2022. We also performed manual reference searches. Two independent reviewers selected RCTs with ≥100 participants of ≥18 years, that compared amitriptyline (taken orally) versus placebo for all indications. No language restrictions were applied. One reviewer extracted study data, ADRs, and assessed study quality, which two others verified. The primary outcome was frequency of anticholinergic ADRs as a binary outcome (absolute number of patients with/without anticholinergic ADRs) in amitriptyline vs. placebo groups.
RESULTS
Twenty-three RCTs (mean dosage 5mg to 300mg amitriptyline/day) and 4217 patients (mean age 40.3 years) were included. The most frequently reported anticholinergic ADRs were dry mouth, drowsiness, somnolence, sedation, fatigue, constitutional, and unspecific anticholinergic ADRs. Random-effects meta-analyses showed anticholinergic ADRs had a higher odd's ratio for amitriptyline versus placebo (OR = 7.41; [95% CI, 4.54 to 12.12]). Non-anticholinergic ADRs were as frequent for amitriptyline as placebo. Meta-regression analysis showed anticholinergic ADRs were not dose-dependent.
DISCUSSION
The large OR in our analysis shows that ADRs indicative of anticholinergic activities can be attributed to amitriptyline. The low average age of participants in our study may limit the generalizability of the frequency of anticholinergic ADRs in older patients. A lack of dose-dependency may reflect limited reporting of the daily dosage when the ADRs occurred. The exclusion of small studies (<100 participants) decreased heterogeneity between studies, but may also have reduced our ability to detect rare events. Future studies should focus on older people, as they are more susceptible to anticholinergic ADRs.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO: CRD42020111970.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Humans; Amitriptyline; Cholinergic Antagonists
PubMed: 37018325
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0284168 -
In Vivo (Athens, Greece) 2022Amitriptyline is a major tricyclic antidepressant that is also used to relieve chronic orofacial pain. Recently, alterations in gut flora due to various antidepressants...
BACKGROUND/AIM
Amitriptyline is a major tricyclic antidepressant that is also used to relieve chronic orofacial pain. Recently, alterations in gut flora due to various antidepressants have been demonstrated. However, it remains unknown how antidepressants affect the oral environment, including microbiota and innate immunity. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of amitriptyline on oral microflora and antimicrobial peptides.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Sprague-Dawley rats were intraperitoneally injected with amitriptyline for 2 weeks. The DNA extracted from the oral swabs were used to perform 16SrRNA sequencing to evaluate the oral microbiome. Quantitative RT-PCR was performed to evaluate the mRNA levels of antimicrobial peptides in the buccal tissues.
RESULTS
No significant differences in salivary flow rates were observed between the amitriptyline and control groups. Taxonomic analysis showed significant alterations in bacteria such as Corynebacterium, Rothia, and Porphyromonas due to amitriptyline administration. The beta diversity showed significant differences between the amitriptyline and control groups. Additionally, the predicted metagenome functions were significantly different between the two groups. The mRNA expression levels of antimicrobial peptides in the amitriptyline group were significantly higher as compared to controls.
CONCLUSION
Systemic administration of amitriptyline may affect the oral environment, including oral microbes and innate immunity in the oral mucosa.
Topics: Amitriptyline; Animals; Antidepressive Agents; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Rats; Rats, Sprague-Dawley
PubMed: 36099099
DOI: 10.21873/invivo.12939