Preclinical Profile of Combinations of Some Second‐generation Antiepileptic Drugs: An Isobolographic Analysis
Purpose: The need for an efficacious treatment of patients with intractable seizures is urgent and pressing, because ∼30% of epilepsy patients worldwide are still inadequately medicated with current frontline antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). This study sought to determine the interactions among some newe...
Saved in:
Published in | Epilepsia (Copenhagen) Vol. 45; no. 8; pp. 895 - 907 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
350 Main Street , Malden , MA 02148 , U.S.A
Blackwell Science Inc
01.08.2004
Blackwell |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | Purpose: The need for an efficacious treatment of patients with intractable seizures is urgent and pressing, because ∼30% of epilepsy patients worldwide are still inadequately medicated with current frontline antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). This study sought to determine the interactions among some newer AEDs [topiramate (TPM), felbamate (FBM), oxcarbazepine (OXC), and lamotrigine (LTG)] in the maximal electroshock‐induced seizures (MES) and chimney test (motor performance) in mice, by using the isobolographic analysis.
Methods: Evaluation of the anticonvulsant and acute adverse (neurotoxic) effects in mice produced by the AEDs in combinations at the fixed ratios of 1:3, 1:1, and 3:1 allowed the assessment of their preclinical profile and the determination of benefit indices (BIs) for all individual combinations.
Results: Combinations of TPM+FBM at the fixed ratios of 1:3, 1:1, and 3:1 offered supraadditive (synergistic) interactions against electroconvulsions and subadditivity (antagonism) in terms of acute neurotoxic effects in the chimney test (BIs ranged between 1.90 and 2.59, the best combinations from a preclinical point of view). The examined combinations of TPM+OXC also were advantageous due to synergistic interactions in the MES, and additivity in terms of acute neurotoxic effects produced by the AEDs (BIs ranged between 1.35 and 1.71). In contrast, OXC+FBM exerted subadditive (antagonistic) interactions in the MES test and additive interactions in terms of acute motor impairment of animals (BIs ranged between 0.53 and 0.71). The worst combination was observed for OXC+LTG, at the fixed ratio of 1:1, displaying subadditivity (antagonism) against electroconvulsions and supraadditivity (synergy) with respect to neurotoxicity (BIs, 0.43). The remaining combinations of OXC+LTG tested (i.e., 1:3 and 3:1) exerted additivity in the MES test and supraadditivity in the chimney test (BIs 0.54 and 0.49, respectively). None of the studied AEDs affected the brain concentrations of other AEDs, so the existence of any pharmacokinetic interactions to be responsible for the observed effects is improbable.
Conclusions: Based on the current preclinical data, the pharmacological profile of combinations of TPM+FBM and TPM+OXC evaluated with isobolography was beneficial and might be worth recommendation to further clinical practice. In contrast, utmost caution is required during the use of OXC+FBM or OXC+LTG in clinical practice, because of the high risk of neurotoxic adverse effect appearance. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0013-9580 1528-1167 |
DOI: | 10.1111/j.0013-9580.2004.05104.x |