British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2011
Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic comparison of hydrofluoroalkane and chlorofluorocarbon formulations of budesonide.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Clearie Karine L, Williamson Peter A, Meldrum Karen, Gillen Michael, Carlsson Lars-Goran, Carlholm Marie, Ekelund Jan, Lipworth Brian J
Аннотация
AIMS: A hydrofluoroalkane formulation of budesonide pressurized metered-dose inhaler has been developed to replace the existing chlorofluorocarbon one. The aim of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of both formulations.
METHODS: Systemic bioavailability and bioactivity of both hydrofluoroalkane and chlorofluorocarbon pressurized metered-dose inhaler formulations at 800 µg twice daily was determined during a randomized crossover systemic pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study at steady state in healthy volunteers. Measurements included the following: plasma cortisol AUC(24h) [area under the concentration-time curve (0-24 h)], budesonide AUC(0-12h) and C(max) . Clinical efficacy was determined during a randomized crossover pharmacodynamic study in asthmatic patients receiving 200 µg followed by 800 µg budesonide via chlorofluorocarbon or hydrofluoroalkane pressurized metered-dose inhaler each for 4 weeks. Methacholine PC(20) (primary outcome), exhaled nitric oxide, spirometry, peak expiratory flow and symptoms were evaluated.
RESULTS: In the pharmacokinetic study, there were no differences in cortisol, AUC(0-12h) [area under the concentration-time curve (0-12 h)], T(max) (time to maximum concentration) or C(max) (peak serum concentration) between the hydrofluoroalkane and chlorofluorocarbon pressurized metered-dose inhaler. The ratio of budesonide hydrofluoroalkane vs. chlorofluorocarbon pressurized metered-dose inhaler for cortisol AUC(24h) was 1.02 (95% confidence interval 0.93-1.11) and budesonide AUC(0-12h) was 1.03 (90% confidence interval 0.9-1.18). In the asthma pharmacodynamic study, there was a significant dose response (P < 0.0001) for methacholine PC(20) (provocative concentration of methacholine needed to produce a 20% fall in FEV(1) ) with a relative potency ratio of 1.10 (95% confidence interval 0.49-2.66), and no difference at either dose. No significant differences between formulations were seen with the secondary outcome variables.
CONCLUSIONS: Hydrofluoroalkane and chlorofluorocarbon formulations of budesonide were therapeutically equivalent in terms of relative lung bioavailability, airway efficacy and systemic effects.
METHODS: Systemic bioavailability and bioactivity of both hydrofluoroalkane and chlorofluorocarbon pressurized metered-dose inhaler formulations at 800 µg twice daily was determined during a randomized crossover systemic pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study at steady state in healthy volunteers. Measurements included the following: plasma cortisol AUC(24h) [area under the concentration-time curve (0-24 h)], budesonide AUC(0-12h) and C(max) . Clinical efficacy was determined during a randomized crossover pharmacodynamic study in asthmatic patients receiving 200 µg followed by 800 µg budesonide via chlorofluorocarbon or hydrofluoroalkane pressurized metered-dose inhaler each for 4 weeks. Methacholine PC(20) (primary outcome), exhaled nitric oxide, spirometry, peak expiratory flow and symptoms were evaluated.
RESULTS: In the pharmacokinetic study, there were no differences in cortisol, AUC(0-12h) [area under the concentration-time curve (0-12 h)], T(max) (time to maximum concentration) or C(max) (peak serum concentration) between the hydrofluoroalkane and chlorofluorocarbon pressurized metered-dose inhaler. The ratio of budesonide hydrofluoroalkane vs. chlorofluorocarbon pressurized metered-dose inhaler for cortisol AUC(24h) was 1.02 (95% confidence interval 0.93-1.11) and budesonide AUC(0-12h) was 1.03 (90% confidence interval 0.9-1.18). In the asthma pharmacodynamic study, there was a significant dose response (P < 0.0001) for methacholine PC(20) (provocative concentration of methacholine needed to produce a 20% fall in FEV(1) ) with a relative potency ratio of 1.10 (95% confidence interval 0.49-2.66), and no difference at either dose. No significant differences between formulations were seen with the secondary outcome variables.
CONCLUSIONS: Hydrofluoroalkane and chlorofluorocarbon formulations of budesonide were therapeutically equivalent in terms of relative lung bioavailability, airway efficacy and systemic effects.