Search

Background: Oxaliplatin is a chemotherapeutic agent used to treat malignancies of the gastrointestinal tract. Neuropathy is a frequent dose-limiting side-effect of oxaliplatin therapy, without preventive or curative strategies. Concomitant administration of intravenous lidocaine could be a promising treatment. However, the effect of intravenous lidocaine on oxaliplatin pharmacokinetics was never studied before. We evaluated the effect of lidocaine on the area under the curve and C max of oxaliplatin as a part of a larger study addressing the prevention and treatment of oxaliplatin induced peripheral neuropathy with lidocaine. Methods: In this prospective cross-over trial, patients received an oxaliplatin cycle with and without lidocaine (bolus 1.5 mg kg−1 followed by 1.5 mg kg−1 h−1 in 3 h). Levels of oxaliplatin, measured as ultrafiltrable platinum were determined at 10 min after cessation of oxaliplatin infusion and hourly thereafter. Outcomes are the difference in area under the curve of oxaliplatin (primary) and the difference in the C max of oxaliplatin (secondary). Results: No difference in the %Δ area under the curve of oxaliplatin (–2.40 ± 7.66, 90% CI +10.50 to –15.31) was found. However, %Δ C max of oxaliplatin (–28.72 ± 6.01, 90% CI –18.59 to –38.85) was lower to a statistically significant extent in the chemotherapy cycle with lidocaine. No (serious) adverse events were reported. Conclusions: Lidocaine does not affect the area under the curve of oxaliplatin, which is the most important parameter in drug interaction studies and for oxaliplatin treatment effect. The lower C max in the chemotherapeutic cycle with lidocaine is significant and remarkable, but with an unknown exact mechanism or clinical significance, making further research desirable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the large amount of human and experimental studies no effective (prophylactic) treatment exists for chemotherapy induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN), a disabling side effect of many cancer treatments. One of the underlying reasons for this could be that often the preclinical animal models used are not the best representation of the clinical situation. We therefore present a systematic summary and comparison of all animal models currently described in literature for CIPN focusing on stimulus evoked pain-like behaviour and neurophysiological alterations in nerve function (650 included papers, and a comparison of 183 models), that resulted in a clear overview of the most effective and robust CIPN models using an administration route used in clinical practice. Using our three-step approach (step 1: efficacy; step; 2 robustness and step 3: mimicking the clinical situation) we show that all mice CIPN models treated with either paclitaxel or cisplatin using an administration route used in clinical practice seem suitable models. Three specific models using paclitaxel or cisplatin that stand out are 1) C57BL/6 female mice receiving paclitaxel and 2) CD1 male mice receiving paclitaxel and 3) C57BL/6 male mice receiving cisplatin. This overview may help scientists selecting suitable CIPN models for their research. We hypothesize that by using effective and robust animal models that mimic the clinical situation as much as possible, the translational value of preclinical study results with respect to the potential of identifying promising treatments for CIPN in the future, will prove. The methodology described in this paper, aimed at comparing animal models, is novel and can be used by scientist in other research fields as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]