Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-16T17:54:16.828Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sulindac in Established Experimental Diabetes: a Follow-up Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2015

Paul van der Sloot ,
Andrew Mizisin  and
Douglas Zochodne
Paul van der Sloot
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary
Andrew Mizisin
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary
Douglas Zochodne*
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary
*
University of Calgary, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, 3330 Hospital Drive N.W., Calgary, Alberta. Canada T2N 4NI
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Background

In two previous studies we have demonstrated prevention of electrophysiological abnormalities of nerve in experimental STZ (streptozotocin)-induced diabetes (ED) of rats using nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents: indomethacin and sulindac. Sulindac might benefit ED because it inhibits both cyclo-oxygenase and aldose reductase.

Methods

In this work, we examined whether 1 month of sulindac treatment reversed or improved established biochemical and electrophysiological abnormalities in experimental diabetes of 3 months duration. Sulindac-treated diabetic rats (6.0 mg/kg 5/7 days weekly by gavage) were compared to untreated diabetics, nondiabetic controls and sulindac treated control rats.

Results

Diabetic rats developed slowing of conduction velocity in caudal sensory, sural sensory, caudal motor and sciatic tibial motor fibers. Sulindac improved caudal motor and, to a lesser extent sural sensory conduction but not caudal sensory or sciatic tibial motor conduction. Sulindac did not alter sciatic sugars or polyols.

Conclusions

Sulindac provided modest improvement in some indices of experimental neuropathy in this reversal study, but there was less efficacy than in the preventative study. Reversal paradigms should be examined in all experimental therapies for diabetic neuropathy.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , August 1995 , pp. 198 - 201
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Neurological Sciences Federation 1995

References

1.Zochodne, DW, Ho, LT.The influence of sulindac on experimental streptozotocin-induced diabetic neuropathy. Can J Neurol Sci 1994; 21: 194–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Sharma, YR, Cotlier, E.Inhibition of lens and cataract aldose reductase by protein-bound anti-rheumatic drugs: salicylate, indomethacin, oxyphenbutaxone, sulindac. Exp Eye Res 1982; 35: 21–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Chaudhry, PS, Cabrera, J, Juliani, HR, Varma, SD.Inhibition of human lens aldose reductase by flavonoids, sulindac and indomethacin. Biochem Pharmacol 1983; 32: 1995–1998.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Brogden, RN, Heel, RC, Speight, TM, Avery, GS.Sulindac: a review of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic efficacy in rheumatic diseases. Drugs 1978; 16: 97–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Zochodne, DW, Ho, LT.The influence of indomethacin and guanethidine on experimental streptozotocin diabetic neuropathy. Can J Neurol Sci 1992; 19: 433–441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Zochodne, DW, Ward, KK, Low, PA.Guanethidine adrenergic neuropathy: an animal model of selective autonomic neuropathy. Brain Res 1988; 461: 10–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Mizisin, AP, Kalichman, MW, Calcutt, NA, Myers, RR, Powell, HC.Decreased endoneurial fluid electrolytes in normal rat sciatic nerve after aldose reductase inhibition. J Neurol Sci 1993; 116: 67–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Cameron, NE, Cotter, MA, Robertson, S.The effect of aldose reductase inhibition on the pattern of nerve conduction deficits in diabetic rats. Q J Exp Physiol 1989; 74: 917–926.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Merry, AC, Kamijo, M, Lattimer, SA.Ristic, H, Sima, AAF.Long term prevention and intervention effects of acetyl-1-carnitine on diabetic neuropathy in BB/W-Rats. Diabetes 1994; 43 (Suppl I): 108A.Google Scholar
10.Kappelle, AC, Bravenboer, B, van Buren, T, et al. Amelioration by the Ca2+ antagonist, nimidipine of an existing neuropathy in the streptozotocin-induced, diabetic rat. Br J Pharmacol 1993; 108: 780–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Parry, GJ, Kozu, H.Piroxicam may reduce the rate of progression of experimental diabetic neuropathy. Neurology 1990; 40: 1446–1449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Ward, KK, Low, PA, Schmelzer, JD, Zochodne, DW.Prostacyclin and noradrenaline in peripheral nerve of chronic experimental diabetes in rats. Brain 1989; 112: 197–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Cameron, NE, Cotter, MA, Dines, KC, Robertson, S, Cox, D.The effects of evening primrose oil on nerve function and capillarization in streptozotocin diabetic rats: modulation by the cyclo-oxygenase inhibitor flurbiprofen. Br J Pharmacol 1993; 109: 972–979.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Cameron, NE, Cotter, MA, Dines, KC, Maxfield, EK.Pharmacological manipulation of vascular endothelium function in non-diabetic and streptozotocin diabetic rats: effects on nerve conduction, hypoxic resistance and endoneurial capillarization. Diabetologia 1993; 36: 516–522.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Brooks, PM, Day, RO.Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs – differences and similarities. N Engl J Med 1991; 324: 1716–1725.Google ScholarPubMed
16.Cameron, NE, Cotter, MA, Ferguson, K, Robertson, S, Radcliffe, MA.Effects of chronic alpha-adrenergic receptor blockade on peripheral nerve conduction, hypoxic resistance, polyols, Na*- K*-ATPase activity, and vascular supply in STZ-D rats. Diabetes 1991; 40: 1652–1658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Robertson, S, Cameron, NE, Cotter, MA.The effect of the calcium antagonist nifedipine on peripheral nerve function in streptozo-tocin-diabetic rats. Diabetologia 1992; 35: 1113–1117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed