4.5 Article

In vitro responsiveness of human-drug-resistant tissue to antiepileptic drugs: Insights into the mechanisms of pharmacoresistance

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 1086, 期 -, 页码 201-213

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.02.068

关键词

drug transport; cortical dysplasia; brain development; P-glycoprotein; pharmacokinetic

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL51614] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [NS049514, NS43284, NS38195] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pharmacoresistance in epileptic patients may be ascribed to at least two, not mutually exclusive, mechanisms: a pharmacokinetic mechanism and a decreased sensitivity or availability of targets to antiepileptic drugs (AEDs; i.e., carbamazepine and phenytoin (CBZ, PHT)). Brain:plasma drug concentration ratios were determined intraoperatively during lobectomies performed to alleviate drug-resistant seizures. The brain:plasma ratio of CBZ was 1.48 when therapeutic serum levels (15-34 mu M) were achieved. When concentrations of CBZ found in multiple-drug-resistant brain were directly applied to human cortical slices from drug-resistant patients made hyperexcitable and hypersynchronous by Mg2+-free media, bursting frequency was not significantly affected and overall excitability was reduced by 40%. Similar results were obtained for PHT. At higher AED concentrations (60-200 mu M), a dose-dependent decrease of bursting frequency and amplitude was observed. Slices from drug-resistant epileptic patients made hypersynchronous/hyperexcitable by elevated potassium or inhibition of GABA-A receptors behaved similarly. Of note is the response of slices from human multiple-drug-resistant brain, which was greater than in rodent cortex from naive animals. Taken together, our results support the hypothesis that multiple drug resistance to AEDs involves cerebrovascular changes that impede the achievement of appropriate drug levels in the central nervous system. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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