SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Effect of 1-methyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydroisoquinoline on the protective action of various antiepileptic drugs in the maximal electroshock-induced seizure model: a type II isobolographic analysis.

J Neural Transm (Vienna) · 2013-06-07

DOI: 10.1007/s00702-013-1047-4PMID: 23744255

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

The aim of this study was to characterize the interaction between 1-methyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydroisoquinoline (1-MeTHIQ-an endogenous parkinsonism-preventing substance) and various antiepileptic drugs [AEDs: clonazepam (CZP), ethosuximide (ETS), gabapentin (GBP), levetiracetam (LEV), tiagabine (TGB) and vigabatrin (VGB)] in the mouse maximal electroshock (MES)-induced seizure model. Results indicate that 1-MeTHIQ in combination with CZP (at the fixed ratios of 50:1 and 25:1), ETS (1:10) and GBP (1:1, 1:2, 1:5 and 1:10) exerted supra-additive (synergistic) interactions in the mouse MES model. In contrast, 1-MeTHIQ in combination with CZP (200:1 and 100:1), ETS (1:1, 1:2 and 1:5), LEV and VGB (1:1, 1:2, 1:5 and 1:10), and TGB (200:1, 100:1, 50:1 and 25:1) produced additive interaction in the mouse MES model. Total brain AED concentrations were unaffected by 1-MeTHIQ, and inversely, CZP, ETS and GBP had no impact on total brain concentrations of 1-MeTHIQ, indicating pharmacodynamic nature of synergistic interactions between 1-MeTHIQ and the tested AEDs in the mouse MES model. In conclusion, the supra-additive interactions of 1-MeTHIQ with CZP (at the fixed ratios of 50:1 and 25:1), ETS (1:10) and GBP (1:1, 1:2, 1:5 and 1:10) in the mouse MES model appear to be particularly favorable combinations from a clinical viewpoint. The additive combinations of 1-MeTHIQ with CZP (100:1, 50:1), ETS (1:1, 1:2 and 1:5), LEV and VGB (1:1, 1:2, 1:5, and 1:10), and TGB (200:1, 100:1, 50:1 and 25:1) seem to be neutral and worthy of consideration in further clinical practice.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.