Table 5.
Comparative anti‐convulsant activity following intranasal administration of Gel, LZM‐Gel and LZM‐NLCs‐Gel and intraperitoneal administration of LZM in rats (mean ± SD, n = 6)
| Groups | Route of administration | Prevalence of epileptic seizure, % | Lag time of incidence, min | Severity of symptoms in trunk (0‐3) | Severity of symptoms in hands and feet (0‐3) | Duration of symptoms, min |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gel (control) | intranasal | 100 | (1.2–2.2) 1.8 | 3 | 3 | (5–20) 15.2 |
| LZM‐Gel | intranasal | 66a | (10–12.6) 11.3 | 1 | 2 | (0.9–1.3) 1.1 |
| LZM‐NLCs‐Gel | intranasal | 33a | (12.9–17.3) 15.1 | 0 | 1 | (0.5–1) 0.75 |
| IP‐LZM | intraperitoneal | 16.5a , b | 14.8 | 1 | 0 | 0.5(0.5) |
One‐way ANOVA has been used to detect epileptic seizure prevalence. Number of animals per group is 6.
a There was a significant difference (P < 0.001) compared to the control group.
b There was a significant difference (P < 0.01) compared to LZM‐Gel and LZM‐NLC‐Gel groups.