Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-pvkqz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-01T07:00:32.750Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative activity of anticestode drugs—praziquantel, niclosamide and Compound 77–6, against Hymenolepis nana

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2009

Suman Gupta  and
J. C. Katiyar
Suman Gupta
Affiliation:
Division of Parasitology. Central Drug Research Institute, Lucknow 226001, India
J. C. Katiyar
Affiliation:
Division of Parasitology. Central Drug Research Institute, Lucknow 226001, India
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The activity, in terms of speed of action, of three anticestode drugs against Hymenolepis nana, both in vivo and in vitro, was investigated. Praziquantel was most effective in vivo, but had little action on adult worms and cysticercoids in vitro. Niclosamide, the least effective in vivo, was highly toxic in vitro. Compound 77–6 killed adult worms and cysticercoids in vitro in 10 min and 15 min respectively at 1000 μg/ml of drug concentration, but its in viro effect was intermediate between that of praziquantel and niclosamide.

Information

Type
Research Papers
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 57 , Issue 1 , March 1983 , pp. 31 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Andrews, P. & Thomas, H. (1979) The effect of praziquantel on Hymenolepis diminuta in vitro. Tropenmedizin und Parasitologie, 30, 391–400.Google Scholar
Gupta, S., Katiyar, J. C., Sen, A. B., Dubey, S. K., Singh, H., Sharma, S. & Iyer, R. N. (1980) Anticestode activity of 3',5-dibromo-2′-chlorosalicylanilide-4′-isothiocyanate: a preliminary report. Journal of Helminthology, 54, 271–273.Google Scholar
Heyneman, D. (1962) Studies on helminth immunity. 1. Comparison between lumenal and tissue phases of infection in the white mouse by Hymenolepis nana (Cestoda: Hymenolepididae). American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 11, 46–63.Google Scholar
Krotov, A. I., Bajandina, D. G., Bechli, A. F., Braude, M. B., Kozyreva, N. P. & Kolosova, M. D. (1974). Search for compounds effective against Hymenolepis nana larvae. Meditsinkaya Parazitologiya i Parazitarnye Bolezni, 43, 697–700.Google Scholar
Sen, A. B. & Hawking, F. (1960) Screening of cestodicidal compounds on a tapeworm Hymenolepis nana in vitro. British Journal of Pharmacology, 15, 436–439.Google Scholar
Thomas, H. & Andrews, P. (1977) Praziquantel, A New Cestidicide. Pesticide Science, 8, 556–560.Google Scholar
Thomas, H. & Gönnert, R. (1977) The efficacy of praziquantel against cestodes in animals. Zeitschrift für Parasitenkunde, 52, 117–127.Google Scholar
Thomas, H. & Gönnert, R. (1978) Zur Wirksamkeit von Praziquantel bei der experimentallen Cysticercose and Hydatidose. Zeitschrift für Parasitenkunde, 55, 165–179.Google Scholar
Thomas, H., GöNnert, R., Pohlke, G. & Seubert, J. (1975 a) Investigations about treatment of larval cestodes. 7th International Conference on Pathophysiology of Parasitic Infections, Thessaloniki.Google Scholar
Thomas, H., Gönnert, R., Pohlke, R. & Seubert, J. (1975 b) A new compound against adult tapeworms. 7th International Conference on Pathophysiology of Parasitic Infections, Thessaloniki.Google Scholar