Single and combined effects of lead and piroxicam on the structural and functional profiles of the liver and kidney.

OBJECTIVE

Aim: Our study investigated the harmful synergistic effect of lead and piroxicam treatment on liver and kidney tissue functions and morphology.

PATIENTS AND

METHODS

Materials and

Methods

24 male Wister rats were allocated randomly in equal numbers n=6 into four groups: (Group1): was used as the control animal group. In the control group, 0.5 mL of distilled water was given by an orogastric tube. (Group2): for 21 days, lead acetate was administered via an orogastric tube at a dose of 4 mg/kg/day according to body weight. (Group3): is given peroxicam (0.3 mg/kg/day) by the same route and dose for 21 days. Group 4: (Group4), a synergistic mixture of piroxicam (1 mg/kg/day) and lead acetate (4 mg/kg/day) was given by an orogastric tube. Liver functions were evaluated by measuring activity of alanine aminotransferase aspartate aminotransferase and alkaline phosphatase. Kidney functions were represented by assays of blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, and urea, while antioxidant status determined by malondialdehyde catalase activity and reduced-glutathione level.

RESULTS

Results

Liver and renal function data were estimated in serum and organs. Group2 and Group3 caused elevated serum levels of MDA, BUN, and Cre while decreasing levels of SOD and GSH in serum and liver and kidney tissue. Group4: Administration of a synergistic mixture of lead and piroxicam caused severe elevated serum levels of MDA, BUN, and Cre, while acutely decreasing levels of SOD and GSH were found in serum and liver and kidney tissue. Generally, data supported by histological examination indicated severe damage following induced oxidative stress by a synergistic mixture of piroxicam and lead compared with other groups.

CONCLUSION

Conclusions

The synergistic treatment (group 4) resulted in the most significant effects compared to the control group, as evidenced by both biochemical and histopathological measurements. Additionally, groups 2 and 3 showed negative changes in these measurements relative to the control group, but these changes were less pronounced than those observed in group 4.