ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2014
Impact of aminophylline on the pharmacodynamics of propofol in beagle dogs.
Article in Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Aminophylline and Ephedrine, but Not Flumazenil, Inhibit the Activity of the Excitatory Amino Acid Transporter 3 Expressed inBioMed research international · 2018Article
- Novel Methods for Measuring Depth of Anesthesia by Quantifying Dominant Information Flow in Multichannel EEGs.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2017Article
- Propofol target-controlled infusion modeling in rabbits: Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis.Journal of Huazhong University of Science and Technology. Medical sciences = Hua zhong ke ji da xue xue bao. Yi xue Ying De wen ban = Huazhong keji daxue xuebao. Yixue Yingdewen ban · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to characterize pharmacodynamic interaction between propofol and aminophylline. Nine beagle dogs were randomly allocated at the propofol rates of 0.75 (group A), 1.00 (group B), and 1.25 (group C) mg/kg/min. During period 1, propofol only was infused, while during period 2, aminophylline only, at the rate of 0.69 (group A), 1.37 (group B), and 2.62 (group C) mg/kg/h. During periods 3-5, the two drugs were co-administered. The aminophylline infusion rate was 0.69 (period 3), 1.37 (period 4), and 2.62 (period 5) mg/kg/h. The aminophylline was infused from 0 to 30 h, and the propofol was infused at 24 h for 20 min. Blood samples and electroencephalograms were obtained at preset intervals. In the linear regression between log-transformed doses of aminophylline and AUC inf, the slope was 0.6976 (95% CI 0.5242-0.8710). Pharmacokinetics of aminophylline was best described by a one-compartment, with enzyme auto-induction, model. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of propofol were best described by a three-compartment model and a sigmoid Emax model, respectively. Pharmacodynamic parameter estimates of propofol were: k(e0) = 0.805/min, E0 = 0.76, Emax = 0.398, Ce(50 na) = 2.38 μg/mL (without aminophylline-exposure), C(e50 wa) = 4.49 μg/mL (with aminophylline-exposure), and γ = 2.21. Propofol becomes less potent when exposed to aminophylline. Pharmacodynamic antagonistic interaction of aminophylline with propofol sedation, may occur, not in a dose-dependent manner, but in an all-or-none response.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.