神经保护剂无法有效缓解实验性脊髓损伤后的自主神经反射障碍。

IF 4.6 2区 医学 Q1 NEUROSCIENCES Experimental Neurology Pub Date : 2024-10-10 DOI:10.1016/j.expneurol.2024.114993
Tamila Kalimullina , Rahul Sachdeva , Kiran Pawar , Steven Cao , Arshdeep Marwaha , Jie Liu , Ward Plunet , Jordan Squair , Christopher R. West , Wolfram Tetzlaff , Andrei V. Krassioukov
{"title":"神经保护剂无法有效缓解实验性脊髓损伤后的自主神经反射障碍。","authors":"Tamila Kalimullina ,&nbsp;Rahul Sachdeva ,&nbsp;Kiran Pawar ,&nbsp;Steven Cao ,&nbsp;Arshdeep Marwaha ,&nbsp;Jie Liu ,&nbsp;Ward Plunet ,&nbsp;Jordan Squair ,&nbsp;Christopher R. West ,&nbsp;Wolfram Tetzlaff ,&nbsp;Andrei V. Krassioukov","doi":"10.1016/j.expneurol.2024.114993","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and objectives</h3><div>Loss of supraspinal cardiovascular control and secondary damage following spinal cord injury (SCI) lead to cardiovascular dysfunction, where autonomic dysreflexia (AD), triggered by stimuli below the injury, can cause uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) surges, posing severe health risks such as stroke and seizures. While anti-inflammatory neuroprotective agents have been studied for motor recovery, their impact on cardiovascular function remains under investigated. The objective was to assess the efficacy of four clinically approved neuroprotective agents in promoting cardiovascular recovery following SCI.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Male Wistar rats received contusion at the third thoracic spinal segment (T3). Fluoxetine, Glyburide, Valproic acid, and Indomethacin were first administered at 1 h or 6 h post-SCI, and every 12 h for two weeks thereafter. Four weeks following SCI, hemodynamics were measured at rest and during colorectal distension. Locomotor function was assessed prior to SCI and weekly for four weeks after SCI, using the Basso-Beattie-Bresnahan (BBB) locomotor scale. Quantitative comparisons of lesion area were performed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Contrary to the published literature, Indomethacin and Valproic acid resulted in high morbidity and mortality rates 60 % and 40 % respectively) within 2–3 days of administration. Fluoxetine, and Glyburide were well-tolerated. There were no differences in change in systolic BP with colorectal distension compared to control i.e., all experimental groups experienced severe episodes of AD [F(6, 67) = 0.94, <em>p</em> = 0.47]. There was no significant difference in BBB scores in any experimental group compared to control [F(18, 252) = 0.3, <em>p</em> = 0.99]. No between-group differences were observed in tissue sparing at the lesion epicentre [F(6, 422) = 6.98, <em>p</em> = 0.29].</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>Despite promising beneficial effect reported in previous studies, none of the drugs demonstrated improvement in cardiovascular or motor function. Indomethacin and Valproic acid exhibited unexpected high mortality at doses deemed safe in the literature. This emphasizes the necessity for reproducibility studies in pre-clinical research and underscores the importance of publishing null findings to guide future investigations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12246,"journal":{"name":"Experimental Neurology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Neuroprotective agents ineffective in mitigating autonomic dysreflexia following experimental spinal cord injury\",\"authors\":\"Tamila Kalimullina ,&nbsp;Rahul Sachdeva ,&nbsp;Kiran Pawar ,&nbsp;Steven Cao ,&nbsp;Arshdeep Marwaha ,&nbsp;Jie Liu ,&nbsp;Ward Plunet ,&nbsp;Jordan Squair ,&nbsp;Christopher R. West ,&nbsp;Wolfram Tetzlaff ,&nbsp;Andrei V. Krassioukov\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.expneurol.2024.114993\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background and objectives</h3><div>Loss of supraspinal cardiovascular control and secondary damage following spinal cord injury (SCI) lead to cardiovascular dysfunction, where autonomic dysreflexia (AD), triggered by stimuli below the injury, can cause uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) surges, posing severe health risks such as stroke and seizures. While anti-inflammatory neuroprotective agents have been studied for motor recovery, their impact on cardiovascular function remains under investigated. The objective was to assess the efficacy of four clinically approved neuroprotective agents in promoting cardiovascular recovery following SCI.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Male Wistar rats received contusion at the third thoracic spinal segment (T3). Fluoxetine, Glyburide, Valproic acid, and Indomethacin were first administered at 1 h or 6 h post-SCI, and every 12 h for two weeks thereafter. Four weeks following SCI, hemodynamics were measured at rest and during colorectal distension. Locomotor function was assessed prior to SCI and weekly for four weeks after SCI, using the Basso-Beattie-Bresnahan (BBB) locomotor scale. Quantitative comparisons of lesion area were performed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Contrary to the published literature, Indomethacin and Valproic acid resulted in high morbidity and mortality rates 60 % and 40 % respectively) within 2–3 days of administration. Fluoxetine, and Glyburide were well-tolerated. There were no differences in change in systolic BP with colorectal distension compared to control i.e., all experimental groups experienced severe episodes of AD [F(6, 67) = 0.94, <em>p</em> = 0.47]. There was no significant difference in BBB scores in any experimental group compared to control [F(18, 252) = 0.3, <em>p</em> = 0.99]. No between-group differences were observed in tissue sparing at the lesion epicentre [F(6, 422) = 6.98, <em>p</em> = 0.29].</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>Despite promising beneficial effect reported in previous studies, none of the drugs demonstrated improvement in cardiovascular or motor function. Indomethacin and Valproic acid exhibited unexpected high mortality at doses deemed safe in the literature. This emphasizes the necessity for reproducibility studies in pre-clinical research and underscores the importance of publishing null findings to guide future investigations.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12246,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Experimental Neurology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Experimental Neurology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014488624003194\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Experimental Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014488624003194","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:脊髓损伤(SCI)后脊髓上心血管控制的丧失和继发性损伤会导致心血管功能障碍,损伤下方的刺激会引发自主神经反射障碍(AD),导致血压(BP)飙升失控,带来严重的健康风险,如中风和癫痫发作。虽然抗炎神经保护剂已被用于研究运动恢复,但其对心血管功能的影响仍未得到充分研究。本研究旨在评估四种临床认可的神经保护剂在促进 SCI 后心血管恢复方面的功效:雄性 Wistar 大鼠第三胸椎节段(T3)受到挫伤。在脊髓损伤后 1 小时或 6 小时首次给药氟西汀、格列本脲、丙戊酸和吲哚美辛,之后每 12 小时给药一次,持续两周。脊髓损伤后四周,测量静息时和结肠扩张时的血液动力学。使用巴索-巴蒂-布雷斯纳汉(Basso-Beattie-Bresnahan,BBB)运动功能量表,在脊髓损伤前和脊髓损伤后四周内每周对运动功能进行评估。对病变区域进行了定量比较:与已发表的文献相反,吲哚美辛和丙戊酸在用药后 2-3 天内的发病率和死亡率较高,分别为 60% 和 40%。氟西汀和格列本脲的耐受性良好。与对照组相比,结肠直肠胀气时收缩压的变化没有差异,即所有实验组都出现了严重的急性肠梗阻发作[F(6, 67) = 0.94, p = 0.47]。与对照组相比,所有实验组的 BBB 评分均无明显差异 [F(18, 252) = 0.3, p = 0.99]。在病灶中心组织疏松方面,没有观察到组间差异[F(6,422)= 6.98,P = 0.29]:讨论:尽管之前的研究显示了良好的疗效,但没有一种药物能改善心血管或运动功能。在文献认为安全的剂量下,吲哚美辛和丙戊酸表现出意想不到的高死亡率。这强调了在临床前研究中进行可重复性研究的必要性,并突出了公布无效研究结果以指导未来研究的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Neuroprotective agents ineffective in mitigating autonomic dysreflexia following experimental spinal cord injury

Background and objectives

Loss of supraspinal cardiovascular control and secondary damage following spinal cord injury (SCI) lead to cardiovascular dysfunction, where autonomic dysreflexia (AD), triggered by stimuli below the injury, can cause uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) surges, posing severe health risks such as stroke and seizures. While anti-inflammatory neuroprotective agents have been studied for motor recovery, their impact on cardiovascular function remains under investigated. The objective was to assess the efficacy of four clinically approved neuroprotective agents in promoting cardiovascular recovery following SCI.

Methods

Male Wistar rats received contusion at the third thoracic spinal segment (T3). Fluoxetine, Glyburide, Valproic acid, and Indomethacin were first administered at 1 h or 6 h post-SCI, and every 12 h for two weeks thereafter. Four weeks following SCI, hemodynamics were measured at rest and during colorectal distension. Locomotor function was assessed prior to SCI and weekly for four weeks after SCI, using the Basso-Beattie-Bresnahan (BBB) locomotor scale. Quantitative comparisons of lesion area were performed.

Results

Contrary to the published literature, Indomethacin and Valproic acid resulted in high morbidity and mortality rates 60 % and 40 % respectively) within 2–3 days of administration. Fluoxetine, and Glyburide were well-tolerated. There were no differences in change in systolic BP with colorectal distension compared to control i.e., all experimental groups experienced severe episodes of AD [F(6, 67) = 0.94, p = 0.47]. There was no significant difference in BBB scores in any experimental group compared to control [F(18, 252) = 0.3, p = 0.99]. No between-group differences were observed in tissue sparing at the lesion epicentre [F(6, 422) = 6.98, p = 0.29].

Discussion

Despite promising beneficial effect reported in previous studies, none of the drugs demonstrated improvement in cardiovascular or motor function. Indomethacin and Valproic acid exhibited unexpected high mortality at doses deemed safe in the literature. This emphasizes the necessity for reproducibility studies in pre-clinical research and underscores the importance of publishing null findings to guide future investigations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Experimental Neurology
Experimental Neurology 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
10.10
自引率
3.80%
发文量
258
审稿时长
42 days
期刊介绍: Experimental Neurology, a Journal of Neuroscience Research, publishes original research in neuroscience with a particular emphasis on novel findings in neural development, regeneration, plasticity and transplantation. The journal has focused on research concerning basic mechanisms underlying neurological disorders.
期刊最新文献
Corrigendum to "Validation of optimised intracranial spectroscopic probe for instantaneous in-situ monitoring and classification of traumatic brain injury" [Experimental Neurology, 382 (2024) 1-12, 114960]. Mechanisms of time-restricted feeding-induced neuroprotection and neuronal plasticity in ischemic stroke as a function of circadian rhythm. Anesthesia/surgery leads to blood-brain barrier disruption via the transcellular and paracellular pathways, and postoperative delirium-like behavior: A comparative study in mice of different ages. Connecting the dots in neuroscience research: The future of evidence synthesis. Temporal development of seizure threshold and spontaneous seizures after neonatal asphyxia and the effect of prophylactic treatment with midazolam in rats.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1