The comparative anticonvulsant activity of phenothiazine derivatives in experimental electrical shock

  • K. S. Raevskii
Pharmacology

Summary

Ten phenothiazine derivatives were tested on mice for anticonvulsant potency at the time of their peak effect by the maximal electroshock seizure test (M. E. S.). Two clinically employed antiepileptic drugs —Luminal and diphenylhydantoin — were studied by the same technique. Their side effect (neurological toxicity) was investigated by the “rolling roller” method. All substances were found to abolish the tonic extensor phase of the maximal seizure. ED50, TD50 and protective indices (P. I.) for all drugs have been determined. Diphenylhydantoin, Luminal and Mepazine had the highest P. I.; protective indices of Propazine, Dinezine, chlorsubstituted analogs of Mepazine and Dinezine approached 1. Aminazine, Acepromazine, Étaperazine and Compazine were effective only in toxic doses. The suggestion is made that anticonvulsive action of phenothiazine derivatives differed from their general “central” effect.

Keywords

Luminal Diphenylhydantoin Anticonvulsant Activity Neurological Toxicity Maximal Electroshock Seizure 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Yu. I. Vikhlyaev, in: New Data on the Pharmacology and Clinical Use of Phenothiazine Derivatives [in Russian] (Moscow, 1958) p. 27.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    N. N. Zak, Zhur. Nevropatol. i Psikhiatr.57, 6, 750 (1957).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Iv. Temkov, et al., Zhur. Nevropatol. i Psikhiatr.58, 10, 1164 (1958).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Balestrieri, Arch. Int. Pharmacodyn.100, 361 (1955).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    N. W. Dunham and T. S. Miya, J. Am. Pharm. Ass., Sci. Ed.46, 208 (1957).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    H. Haas, Arzneimittel-Forsch8, 20 (1958).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    F. Hauschild, quoted from: K. Feller, Arch. exp. Path. u. Pharmak225, 90 (1955).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. T. Litchfield and F. Wilcoxon, J. Pharmacol. and Exp. Ther.96, 99 (1949).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    O. Nieschulz, K. Popendiker, and I. Hoffman, Arzneimittel-Forsch. 5, 680 (1955).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. A. Swinyard, J. Am. Pharm. Ass., Sci. Ed.38, 201 (1949).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. A. Swinyard, W. C. Brown, and L. S. Goodman, J. Pharmacol. and Exp. Ther.106, 319 (1952).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    K. Tanaka and Y. Kawasaki, Jap. J. Pharmacol.6, 115 (1957).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. E. P. Toman, E. A. Swinyard, and L. S. Goodman, J. Neurophysiol.9, 231 (1946).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. H. Tedeschi, et al., J. Pharmacol. and Exp. Ther.123, 35 (1958).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Consultants Bureau Enterprises, Inc. 1961

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. S. Raevskii
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Division for Determination of the Physiological Activity of New Products of Chemical SynthesisAMN SSSR Institute of Pharmacology and ChemotherapyMoscow
  2. 2.Department of PharmacologyLeningrad Institute of Pediatric MedicineLeningradUSSR

Personalised recommendations