ArticleNeurotoxicity research2025
Assessment of Intramuscular Verapamil as Pharmacological Countermeasure in a Rat Model of Organophosphate DFP-induced Status Epilepticus.
Article in Neurotoxicity research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Lethal organophosphate (OP) exposure leads to status epilepticus (SE), which, despite standard-of-care (SOC) therapy, is associated with acute mortality and long-term morbidities. Neuronal injury and inflammation are reported following OP-SE, and drugs targeted at these processes have produced beneficial outcomes. Verapamil (VPM) is a calcium-channel blocker used as an antihypertensive drug and has been shown to exhibit neuroprotective and anti-inflammatory actions in experimental models of CNS injuries. Here, we investigated the feasibility of an adjunctive intramuscular (i.m.) VPM therapy in OP Diisopropyl Fluorophosphate (DFP)-induced SE. We also investigated the safety and toxicity of i.m. VPM and compared its pharmacokinetic (PK) profile to oral (p.o.) administration. Rats were injected with DFP (4 mg/kg, s.c.). One minute later, SOC treatment consisting of atropine (0.5 mg/kg, i.m.) and pralidoxime chloride (2-PAM; 25 mg/kg, i.m.) were administered, and at 1-hour post-SE, midazolam (1.78 mg/kg, i.m.) was given. Rats that met the behavioral SE severity criteria (Racine 4-5) were randomized into two treatment groups: those receiving saline (SAL) or VPM (10 mg/kg, i.m. bid, 3 days). Histological analysis was conducted to assess neuronal injury and injection-site pathology. In a separate group of rats, PK studies were conducted on blood and brain homogenates treated once with saline or VPM (10 mg/kg, p.o. or i.m.). Our data demonstrated that following DFP-SE, i.m. VPM achieved higher blood and brain levels and exhibited a favorable PK profile compared to p.o. route. VPM therapy did not cause significant muscle pathology and produced a robust neuroprotective response. Neuroinflammatory markers and long-term behavioral outcomes were not included in this study. Our studies provide evidence that the i.m. route is an effective method for delivering VPM following SE, producing significant neuroprotective outcomes compared to treatment with the standard-of-care alone in OP-SE.
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.