4.5 Review

Drug interaction considerations in the therapeutic use of carbonic anhydrase inhibitors

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1517/17425255.2016.1154534

关键词

zonisamide; carbonic anhydrase; dorzolamide; topiramate; inhibitor; acetazolamide; sultiame; methazolamide; brinzolamide; celecoxib

资金

  1. European Union

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Carbonic anhydrase inhibitors (CAIs) of the sulfonamide and sulfamate type are clinically used drugs as diuretics, antiglaucoma, antiepileptic, antiobesity and anti-high altitude disease agents. Anticancer agents based on CAIs are also in clinical development for the management of hypoxic, metastatic tumors. Acetazolamide, methazolamide, dichlorophenamide, dorzolamide and brinzolamide are mainly used as antiglaucoma drugs, sulthiame, topiramate and zonisamide as antiepileptic/antiobesity agents, celecoxib and polmacoxib are dual carbonic anhydrase/cycloxygenase inhibitors. Girentuximab, a monoclonal antibody and SLC-0111, a sulfonamide inhibitor, are in clinical trials as anticancer agents. Areas covered: The drug interactions with many classes of pharmacological agents are reviewed. Some of these drugs, such as acetazolamide, topiramate and celecoxib show a large number of interactions with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), diuretics, antiepileptics, immunosupressants, anticholinesterase drugs, beta-blockers, anesthetics, oral contraceptives, anticancer agents, antifungals, anti-mycobacterials, lithium, metformin and clopidogrel. Expert opinion: The multiple drug interactions in which CAIs are involved should be carefully considered when such drugs are used in combination with the drug classes mentioned above, as the risks of developing toxicity and serious side effects if the dosages are not adjusted are high. There are also synergistic effects between CAIs and some NSAIDs, anticancer agents and benzodiazepines for the management of cystoid macular edema, some tumor types and neuropathic pain, respectively.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据