4.3 Article

The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects of SL65.1498, a GABA-A α2,3 selective agonist, in comparison with lorazepam in healthy volunteers

期刊

JOURNAL OF PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 23, 期 6, 页码 625-632

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0269881108092595

关键词

benzodiazepines; body sway; memory; saccadic eye movements; sedation; selective partial GABA agonist; SL65.1498

资金

  1. Sanofi-Aventis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Benzodiazepines are effective short-term treatments for anxiety disorders, but their use is limited by undesirable side effects related to Central Nervous System impairment and tolerance development. SL65.1498 is a new compound that acts in vitro as a full agonist at the gamma-aminobutyric acid(A) alpha 2 and alpha 3 receptor and as a partial agonist at the alpha 1 and alpha 5 receptor subtypes. It is thought that the compound could be anxiolytic by its activation at the alpha2 and alpha3 receptor subtypes, without causing unfavourable side effects, which are believed to be mediated by the alpha1 and alpha5 subtypes. This study was a double-blind, five-way cross-over study to investigate the effects of three doses of SL65.1498 in comparison with placebo and lorazepam 2 mg in healthy volunteers. The objective was to select a dose level ( expected to be therapeutically active), free of any significant deleterious effect. Psychomotor and cognitive effects were measured using a validated battery of measurements, including eye movements, body sway, memory tests, reaction-time assessments, and visual analogue scales. The highest dose of SL65.1498 showed slight effects on saccadic peak velocity and smooth pursuit performance, although to a much lesser extent than lorazepam. In contrast to lorazepam, none of the SL65.1498 doses affected body sway, visual analogue scale alertness, attention, or memory tests. This study showed that the three doses of SL65.1498 were well tolerated and induced no impairments on memory, sedation, psychomotor, and cognitive functions.

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

4.3
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