Cartas al director
Reply to article “Actualización práctica sobre la palmitoiletanolamida (peaum) oral en el manejo del dolor crónico. Revisión narrativa”
Reply to article “Actualización práctica sobre la palmitoiletanolamida (peaum) oral en el manejo del dolor crónico. Revisión narrativa”
2024;4:1-1. DOI: 10.20986/mpj.2023.1065/2023
David Briskey1
1The University of Queensland (St Lucia)
Recepción: 30 noviembre 2023
Aceptación: 30 noviembre 2023
Publicación: 12 enero 2024
Resumen
The following is a reply to a recently published manuscript that in our view contains several incorrect references and misleading information. The manuscript has misrepresented data and misled readers with the content in relation to the evidence/references that it has provided to support statements made within the manuscript. In particular, the PEA formulation Levagen+ has been referenced as having inferior absorption. To date, no studies have been conducted comparing Levagen+ to other formulations and therefore this statement is currently unsupported by evidence.
Palabras clave: Réplica, carta al director
Abstract
The following is a reply to a recently published manuscript that in our view contains several incorrect references and misleading information. The manuscript has misrepresented data and misled readers with the content in relation to the evidence/references that it has provided to support statements made within the manuscript. In particular, the PEA formulation Levagen+ has been referenced as having inferior absorption. To date, no studies have been conducted comparing Levagen+ to other formulations and therefore this statement is currently unsupported by evidence.
Keywords: Réplica, carta al director
Artículo Completo

In response to the paper published by Rafael Gálvez Mateos and Antonio Aguilar Ros entitled Practical update on oral palmythopylethanolamide (PEAum) in the management of chronic pain. Narrative review, I would like the following noted. The paper states “Micronised and ultra-micronised PEA have demonstrated faster dissolution and absorption rates, better bioavailability and pharmacokinetics and superior efficacy compared to the original form, which has a larger and more variable particle size (25,26)”. But the papers they have referenced are not absorption studies. They then go on to say that micronized PEA is better absorbed than the published study using the PEA formulation Levagen+. However, the references used to make this comparison are not human absorption papers like our published formulation. Therefore, I do not see how this claim can be made.

Rafael Gálvez Mateos and Antonio Aguilar Ros also state “In addition to micronisation, other dosage forms that improve the bioavailability of PEA have been tested, such as the LipiSperse® system. In the latter case, the addition of surfactants to a lipophilic molecule such as PEA, with a high particle size (> 100 microns), does not seem to favour an effective and prolonged dispersion of the active substance in the aqueous phase. Further studies are undoubtedly necessary to confirm the advantage in bioavailability of the LipiSperse® system over the use of non-micronised PEA. On the other hand, the appearance of twin plasma peaks after a single administration of PEA indicates the existence of an enterohepatic cycle (27).” This is also incorrect. Our manuscript shows LipiSperse achieved a superior absorption over a standard formulation. The paper appears to be trying to make comparisons between absorption studies and efficacy studies. We do not argue that other formulations may have efficacy, but they have not shown the same absorption and therefore cannot be compared. We also confirm that there is no study published comparing our published formulation to a micronized formulation. Therefore, such statements as above cannot be made.

Nuevo comentario
Comentarios
No hay comentarios para este artículo.
Bibliografía
Contenido no disponible.
Multimedia
Contenido no disponible.
Instrucciones para citar
Briskey D. Reply to article “Actualización práctica sobre la palmitoiletanolamida (peaum) oral en el manejo del dolor crónico. Revisión narrativa”. MPJ. 2024;4:1-1 DOI: 1020986/mpj20231065/2023


Descargar a un gestores de citas

Descargue la cita de este artículo haciendo clic en uno de los siguientes gestores de citas:

Métrica
Este artículo ha sido visitado 330 veces.
Este artículo ha sido descargado 9 veces.

Estadísticas de Dimensions


Estadísticas de Plum Analytics

Compartir
Valoración del lector:
Valora este artículo:
Los artículos más leídos
20 mayo 2021
Artículo Especial
Esperanza Regueras Escudero1, José López Guzmán1
1Universidad de Navarra. Pamplona
5 abril 2021
Revisiones
Borja Mugabure Bujedo1, Miguel Marín Paredes1, Deiene Lasuen Aguirre2, María Luisa Franco Gay2
1Unidad del Dolor. Servicio de Anestesiología, Reanimación y Tratamiento del Dolor. Hospital Universitario de Donostia. San Sebastián, 2Unidad del Dolor. Hospital Universitario de Cruces. Barakaldo
5 abril 2021
Original
Esperanza Regueras Escudero1, José López Guzmán1
1Universidad de Navarra. Pamplona