4.6 Article

Preclinical Toxicity Screening of Intrathecal Oxytocin in Rats and Dogs

期刊

ANESTHESIOLOGY
卷 120, 期 4, 页码 951-961

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000000148

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Health, Bethesda, Maryland [GM48805]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Anatomic, physiologic, and behavioral studies in animals suggest that spinally released oxytocin should produce analgesia in humans and may also protect from chronic pain after injury. In this article, the authors report preclinical toxicity screening of oxytocin for intrathecal delivery. Methods: Intrathecal oxytocin, 11 g (6 U) or vehicle, was injected intrathecally in 24 rats, followed by frequent behavioral assessment and histologic examination of spinal contents 2 or 14 days after injection. In three dogs, a range of intrathecal oxytocin doses (18 to 550 g in 0.5 ml) was injected followed by physiologic, biochemical, and behavioral assessments. Ten dogs were then randomized to receive five daily injections of intrathecal oxytocin, 550 g in 0.5 ml, or vehicle with similar assessments and, necropsy and histologic analysis were conducted 2 days later. Results: In rats, intrathecal oxytocin resulted in transient scratching and itching behaviors, without other differences from vehicle. There was no behavioral, gross anatomic, or histologic evidence of neurotoxicity. Dose ranging in dogs suggested mild effects on motor tone, blood pressure, and heart rate at the 550 g dose. Repeated boluses in dogs did not produce behavioral, biochemical, neurological, gross anatomic, or histologic evidence of neurotoxicity. Conclusions: Substances, including natural neurotransmitters, may be toxic when administered in pharmacologic doses in the spinal cord. This preclinical toxicity screen in two species suggests that bolus injections of oxytocin in concentrations up to 1,100 g/ml are unlikely to cause neurotoxicity. The authors also support cautious clinical application of intrathecal oxytocin under regulatory supervision.

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