4.6 Article

Atorvastatin May Have No Effect on Acute Phase Reaction in Children After Intravenous Bisphosphonate Infusion

期刊

JOURNAL OF BONE AND MINERAL RESEARCH
卷 24, 期 2, 页码 334-337

出版社

AMER SOC BONE & MINERAL RES
DOI: 10.1359/JBMR.081016

关键词

acute phase reaction; Atorvastatin; bisphosphonate; musculoskeletal pain

资金

  1. The Sam and Helen Kaplan Research Fund in Pediatric Nephrology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Intravenous bisphosphonate therapy is associated with acute phase reaction characterized by fever and musculoskeletal pain. Bisphosphonates have been shown in vitro to activate gamma delta T-cells to proliferate and produce cytokines, suggesting a role in acute phase reaction, which can be effectively blocked by statins. We conducted a double-blind randomized crossover placebo controlled study in 1.2 children (12.1 +/- 4.2 yr; 10 girls and 2 boys) receiving intravenous bisphosphonates to evaluate whether statins can be used to prevent acute phase reaction associated with therapy. Children received two cycles given 3-4 mo apart of intravenous bisphosphonate given on 2 consecutive days in each cycle. Atorvastatin 10 mg or placebo was given orally once a day for 3 days, starting the day before intravenous bisphosphonate therapy and on the 2 infusion days. We measured pain using a visual analog pain scale at five time points in 0-48 h, oxycodone use for pain, acetaminophen for fever, C-reactive protein (CRP), and total and percent gamma delta T-cells. There was a nonsignificant decrease in pain, oxycodone use, and acetaminophen use with Atorvastatin compared with placebo. There was no difference in CRP and total or percent gamma delta T-cells between the two groups. The results remained unchanged after adjustment for Atorvastatin versus placebo given with the first cycle. We conclude that in vivo Atorvastatin may not be as effective in modulating the acute phase reaction associated with intravenous bisphosphonate as would have been anticipated from in vitro studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据