4.6 Article

Flupirtine as Neuroprotective Add-On Therapy in Autoimmune Optic Neuritis

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY
卷 173, 期 5, 页码 1496-1507

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.2353/ajpath.2008.080491

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Union [LSHM-CT-2005-018637]
  2. GemeirinGtzige Hertie Stiftung
  3. Medical Faculty of the University of Gottingen

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a common inflammatory disease of the central nervous system that results in persistent impairment in young adults. During chronic progressive disease stages, there is a strong correlation between neurodegeneration and disability. Current therapies fail to prevent progression of neurological impairment during these disease stages. Flupirtine, a drug approved for oral use in patients suffering from chronic pain, was used in a rat model of autoimmune optic neuritis and significantly increased the survival of retinal ganglion cells, the neurons that form the axons of the optic nerve. When flupirtine was combined with interferon-P, an established immunomodulatory therapy for MS, visual functions of the animals were improved during the acute phase of optic neuritis. Furthermore, flupirtine protected retinal ganglion cells from degeneration in a noninflammatory animal model of optic nerve transection. Although flupirtine was shown previously to increase neuronal survival by Bcl-2 up-regulation, this mechanism does not appear to play a role in flupirtine-mediated protection of retinal ganglion cells either in vitro or in vivo. Instead, we showed through patch-clamp investigations that the activation of inwardly rectifying potassium channels is involved in flupirtine-mediated neuroprotection. Considering the few side effects reported in patients who receive long-term flupirtine treatment for chronic pain, our results indicate that this drug is an interesting candidate for further evaluation of its neuroprotective potential in MS. (Am J Pathol 2008, 173: 1496-1507; DOI: 10.2353/ajpath.2008.080491)

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

4.6
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