3.9 Article

In vitro effects of NSAIDS and paracetamol on oxidative stress-related parameters of human erythrocytes

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL AND TOXICOLOGIC PATHOLOGY
卷 53, 期 2-3, 页码 133-140

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH, URBAN & FISCHER VERLAG
DOI: 10.1078/0940-2993-00179

关键词

NSAID; paracetamol; erythrocyte; human; antioxidant; in vitro

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In vitro effects of widely used nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and paracetamol were studied on oxidative stress-related parameters of human red blood cells (RBC). Membrane lipid integrity, activity of erythrocyte antioxidant enzymes; i.e. glutathione S-transferase (GST), selenium dependent-glutathione peroxidase (Se-GPx), and catalase (CAT), and hemolytic/stabilizing action of the drugs on erythrocyte membrane were assessed. Diclofenac, indomethacin and paracetamol at the therapeutic and higher concentrations, and dipyrone at the high concentration exerted a statistically significant inhibition on H2O2 forced erythrocytic membrane lipid peroxidation (EMLP). Increased hemolysis was observed by Na-salicylate, naproxen and ketorolac at therapeutic and higher concentrations, and by diclofenac and tiaprofenic acid at high concentrations, while the others seemed to stabilize the membrane at the same conditions. Na-salicylate inhibited GST activity at the therapeutic dose, however activated the same enzyme at high concentrations. Naproxen, tiaprofenic acid and piroxicam caused a decrease in GST activity at therapeutic doses. Paracetamol caused an activation at a high dose. Tiaprofenic acid, ketorolac, naproxen and piroxicam caused a significant Se-CPx inhibition. Erythrocyte CAT activity was increased by Na-salicylate, acemetacin, and tenoxicam at the therapeutic, and by dipyrone at the high concentration. Our results suggest that NSAIDs and paracetamol may be involved in oxidative/antioxidative processes of human erythrocytes. Also, the in vitro EMLP method can be considered as a simple test for evaluating possible antioxidant potency of chemicals.

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

3.9
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