景厚德, 郭纲婉. 羊角拗强心甙与g-毒毛旋花子甙的效价比较J. 药学学报, 1965, 12(5): 325-331.
引用本文: 景厚德, 郭纲婉. 羊角拗强心甙与g-毒毛旋花子甙的效价比较J. 药学学报, 1965, 12(5): 325-331.
CHING HOU-TE AND GUE GANG-WAN, . COMPARATIVE STUDIES ON THE THERAPEUTIC INDEX OF STROPHANTHUS DIVARICATUS (LOUR.) HOOK. ET ARN. AND g-STROPHANTHINJ. Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica, 1965, 12(5): 325-331.
Citation: CHING HOU-TE AND GUE GANG-WAN, . COMPARATIVE STUDIES ON THE THERAPEUTIC INDEX OF STROPHANTHUS DIVARICATUS (LOUR.) HOOK. ET ARN. AND g-STROPHANTHINJ. Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica, 1965, 12(5): 325-331.

羊角拗强心甙与g-毒毛旋花子甙的效价比较

COMPARATIVE STUDIES ON THE THERAPEUTIC INDEX OF STROPHANTHUS DIVARICATUS (LOUR.) HOOK. ET ARN. AND g-STROPHANTHIN

  • 摘要: 在同样条件下比较了羊角拗强心甙和g-毒毛旋花子甙的毒性、治疗指数、安全界、破坏速度,发现羊角拗强心甙的毒性比g-毒毛旋花子甙约小1/2左右.在治疗指数及安全界上,羊角拗强心甙虽然比g-毒毛旋花子甙略窄些;但从临床角度上看,其治疗剂量的宽度(有效剂量和中毒剂量的间距)在羊角拗强心甙却比g-毒毛旋花子甙为宽.这也正是羊角拗强心甙比g-毒毛旋花子甙优越之处.在用相应的剂量下(1/3,1/2,2/3 LD50),二药在减慢心率的作用上,虽然略有参差不齐,但总的趋势是一致的。在引起心脏的传导阻滞、室性心动过速上,二药之间看不出明显差别.在体内破坏速度上,羊角拗强心甙略慢些.

     

    Abstract: The cardiotonic effects of Strophanthus divaricatus (Lour.). Hook et Arn. had been confirmed by Lue Fu Hua and Kiang Ming Sing and its therapeutic effects on the cardiac failure was also obtained clinically by other authors. But there are no comparative stu- dies upon the therapeutic index and relative potency between Strophanthus divaricatus (Lour.) Hook et Arn. (I) and g-Strophantin (II) on the same experimental bases. Experimental results indicated that the LD50 (i.v.) of I and II was 6.93 (5.45- 7.68) mg/kg and 3.68 (3.09-4.09) mg/kg respectively in mice; 0.430 (0.412-0.442) mg/kg and 0.172 (0.163-0.180) mg/kg respectively in pigeons; and the minimal lethal dose of I and II was 0.3375±0.0125 mg/kg and 0.1575±0.0056 mg/kg respectively in cats. The ED50 (i.v.) of I and II was 1.06 (0.92-1.23) mg/kg and 0.72 (0.62-1.23) mg/ kg respectively in mice (percentage of falling according to Koch-Kneip's Method) and it was 0.164 (0.147-0.183) mg/kg and 0.050 (0.0443-0.0559) mg/kg respective- ly in pigeons (vomiting). The therapeutic index of I and II was 6.54 (5.15-8.31) and 5.11 (4.12-6.34) respectively in mice and it was 2.62 (2.34-2.93) and 3.44 (3.19-3.93) respectively in pigeons. The difference of therapeutic index between I and II was not significant in mice, but was significant in pigeons, where the therapeutic index of II was somewhat larger than that of I. But from the clinical point of view although I has a smaller therapeutic index, its toxicity is also lower than that of II, and in the clinical use, it may have a greater therapeutic width than II. The doses may be controlled more easily than II. This illus- trate an advantage of I over II. The cardiac rates of pigeons was decreased significantly to about the same degree following a dose of 1/3 LD50 of either I or II, but the duration of the effects of I was somewhat shorter than that of II. Following a dose of 1/2 LD50 the decrease in the cardiac rates was to a greater extend, where the duration of I was somewhat longer than II. Following a dose of 2/3 LD50 the cardiac rates was however significantly accelerated by either I or II, without difference between them. The detoxication rate of I was much slower than II in pigeons. It may be concluded, that, if the same effects were desired, the dose of I should be increased as large as two times that of II.

     

/

返回文章
返回