Premium
Pharmacodynamic and Pharmacokinetic Interaction Studies of Loreclezole with Felbamate, Lamotrigine, Topiramate, and Oxcarbazepine in the Mouse Maximal Electroshock Seizure Model
Author(s) -
Luszczki Jarogniew J.,
Ratnaraj Neville,
Patsalos Philip N.,
Czuczwar Stanislaw J.
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
epilepsia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.687
H-Index - 191
eISSN - 1528-1167
pISSN - 0013-9580
DOI - 10.1111/j.0013-9580.2005.34704.x
Subject(s) - felbamate , oxcarbazepine , lamotrigine , topiramate , pharmacology , pharmacokinetics , chemistry , anticonvulsant , medicine , epilepsy , carbamazepine , psychiatry
Summary: Purpose: The study investigated the types of interactions between loreclezole (LCZ) and a variety of newly licensed antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) with different mechanisms of actions [felbamate (FBM), lamotrigine (LTG), topiramate (TPM), and oxcarbazepine (OXC)] by isobolographic analysis. Methods: Anticonvulsant and adverse‐effect profiles of combinations of LCZ with other AEDs at fixed ratios of 1:3, 1:1, and 3:1 were investigated in the maximal electroshock (MES)‐induced seizures and the chimney test (as a measure of motor impairment) in mice so as to identify optimal combinations. Protective indices (PIs) and benefit indices (BIs) were calculated so that a ranking in relation to advantageous combinations could be established. Results: With isobolography, it was observed that the combination of LCZ and TPM, at the fixed ratios of 1:1 and 3:1, was supraadditive (synergistic; p < 0.05), whereas LCZ with TPM at the fixed ratio of 1:3 and LCZ combined with LTG, FBM, or OXC at the fixed ratios of 1:3, 1:1, and 3:1 were associated with additive interactions. Moreover, the isobolographic analysis in the chimney test revealed that only one combination tested (LCZ and TPM at the fixed ratio of 1:1) was subadditive (antagonistic; p < 0.05), whereas the remaining combinations of LCZ with LTG, FBM, or OXC (at the fixed ratios of 1:3, 1:1, and 3:1) barely displayed additivity. However, these combinations were associated with significant pharmacokinetic interactions, in that LCZ increased brain TPM (94%), OXC (21%), FBM (46%), and LTG (8%) concentrations. In addition, brain LCZ concentrations were decreased by TPM (26%), OXC (37%), LTG (42%), and FBM (19%). None of the examined combinations between LCZ and TPM, OXC, LTG, and FBM altered long‐term memory in the step‐through passive‐avoidance task. Conclusions: LCZ plus TPM appears to be a particularly favorable combination, based on the MES test and the chimney test. LCZ and OXC also is a favorable combination. However, these conclusions are confounded by the fact that LCZ is associated with significant pharmacokinetic interactions.