4.4 Review

Pharmacological utility of melatonin in the treatment of septic shock: experimental and clinical evidence

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHARMACY AND PHARMACOLOGY
卷 58, 期 9, 页码 1153-1165

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1211/jpp.58.9.0001

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sepsis is a major cause of mortality in critically ill patients and develops as a result of the host response to infection. In recent years, important advances have been made in understanding the pathophysiology and treatment of sepsis. Mitochondria play a central role in the intracellular events associated with inflammation and septic shock. One of the current hypotheses for the molecular mechanisms of sepsis is that the enhanced nitric oxide (NO) production by mitochondrial nitric oxide synthase (mtNOS) leads to excessive peroxynitrite (ONOO-) production and protein nitration, impairing mitochondrial function. Despite the advances in understanding of its pathophysiology, therapy for septic shock remains largely symptomatic and supportive. Melatonin has well documented protective effects against the symptoms of severe sepsis/shock in both animals and in humans; its use for this condition significantly improves survival. Melatonin administration counteracts mtNO5 induction and respiratory chain failure, restores cellular and mitochondrial redox status, and reduces proinflammatory cytokines. Melatonin clearly prevents multiple organ failure, circulatory failure, and mitochondrial damage in experimental sepsis, and reduces lipid peroxidation, indices of inflammation and mortality in septic human newborns. Considering these effects of melatonin and its virtual absence of toxicity, the use of melatonin (along with conventional therapy) to preserve mitochondrial bioenergetics as well as to limit inflammatory responses and oxidative damage should be seriously considered as a treatment option in both septic newborn and adult patients. This review summarizes the data that provides a rationale for using melatonin in septic shock patients.

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

4.4
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