JPET Introducing ALZET?ew Model 2006 Pump

Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Roth, F. E.
Right arrow Articles by Govier, W. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Roth, F. E.
Right arrow Articles by Govier, W. M.
Journal of Pharmacology And Experimental Therapeutics, Vol. 121, Issue 4, 487-500, 1957
Copyright © 1957 by American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics


HYDROXYPROPYL THEOPHYLLINE: A PHARMACOLOGICAL COMPARISON WITH OTHER THEOPHYLLINE PREPARATIONS

Franklin E. Roth 1, Martin M. Winbury 1, and William M. Govier 1

1 Department of Pharmacology, Research Division, Schering Corporation, Bloomfield, New Jersey

Hydroxypropyl theophylline (HPT) and choline theophyllinate (CHT) were approximately one-half as potent as theophylline ethylenediamine (AM) in relaxing the unstimulated guinea pig tracheal chain. AM also was demonstrably more potent than HPT and CHT in antagonizing tracheal muscle contractions induced with histamine or acetylcholine.

In the perfused guinea pig lung AM was demonstrably more effective than HPT and approximately two times as effective as CHT in blocking bronchospasm induced with histamine or methacholine.

Oral pretreatment with HPT or AM protected guinea pigs against lethal asphyxial collapse following exposure to aerosolized histamine. The potency of HPT in this regard was greater than that of CHT but less than that of AM. Hyperactivity and convulsive side effects were observed after higher doses of AM or CHT but did not occur after HPT.

The oral emetic dose of HPT in dogs was greater than two and one-half times that of AM or CHT.

The cardiovascular activity of HPT and AM was characterized by hypotension, cardiac stimulation, tachycardia and femoral and coronary vasodilatation. AM had approximately twice the effect of HPT on the heart rate, cardiac contraction strength and blood pressure. Both compounds were of approximately equal activity in increasing coronary blood flow, whereas AM produced a demonstrably greater effect than HPT on peripheral flow.

The toxicity of HPT by various routes of administration in mice and rats was at least one-half that found for AM or CHT. HPT also exhibited much less central nervous stimulating activity than AM in these species.

Six-month chronic toxicity studies in rats and dogs revealed no gross or microscopic abnormalities of blood or organ samples which could be attributed to the administration of HPT or AM.

Submitted on July 29, 1957







Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
All ASPET Journals Molecular Pharmacology Pharmacological Reviews
 Molecular Interventions Drug Metabolism and Disposition

Copyright © 1957 by the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.