Journal of aerosol medicine and pulmonary drug delivery · 2015
Nasal Deposition of HFA-Beclomethasone, Aqueous Fluticasone Propionate and Aqueous Mometasone Furoate in Allergic Rhinitis Patients.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Leach Chet L, Kuehl Philip J, Chand Ramesh, McDonald Jacob D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The deposition of nasal aerosols from both aqueous formulations and propellant-based formulations has only minimally been described in rhinitis patients. This study quantified the regional nasal deposition of QNASL(™) (HFA-beclomethasone, nasal aerosol), Flonase(™) (fluticasone propionate, nasal spray) and Nasonex(™) (mometasone furoate monohydrate, nasal spray).
METHODS: This study was an open label, crossover study in nine patients with allergic rhinitis. The regional nasal deposition of the three nasal products was compared and contrasted following delivery of the (99m)Tc-radiolabeled drug product in each product. The gamma images were merged with magnetic resonance images to quantify regional deposition within the patients.
RESULTS: The HFA propellant-based formulation (QNASL) resulted in an increased retention of drug product in the nasal cavity compared with the two aqueous formulations (Flonase and Nasonex). The aqueous based formulations resulted in increased amount of the delivered dose that dripped from the nostril (6/8 patients for each of the aqueous formulations and 0/8 patients for the HFA propellant formulation) following administration. The percentage of delivered dose that deposited in the back of the throats of the patients was increased and variable (0.1% to 17.6% with Flonase and 0.0 to 4.7% for Nasonex) for the aqueous formulations when compared to dose delivered for the HFA propellant formulation (0.0% to 1.7% for QNASL).
CONCLUSIONS: The regional deposition of the HFA propellant based formulation resulted in increased retention of drug product in the nasal cavity and decreased deposition in the back of the throat compared to the two aqueous formulations.
METHODS: This study was an open label, crossover study in nine patients with allergic rhinitis. The regional nasal deposition of the three nasal products was compared and contrasted following delivery of the (99m)Tc-radiolabeled drug product in each product. The gamma images were merged with magnetic resonance images to quantify regional deposition within the patients.
RESULTS: The HFA propellant-based formulation (QNASL) resulted in an increased retention of drug product in the nasal cavity compared with the two aqueous formulations (Flonase and Nasonex). The aqueous based formulations resulted in increased amount of the delivered dose that dripped from the nostril (6/8 patients for each of the aqueous formulations and 0/8 patients for the HFA propellant formulation) following administration. The percentage of delivered dose that deposited in the back of the throats of the patients was increased and variable (0.1% to 17.6% with Flonase and 0.0 to 4.7% for Nasonex) for the aqueous formulations when compared to dose delivered for the HFA propellant formulation (0.0% to 1.7% for QNASL).
CONCLUSIONS: The regional deposition of the HFA propellant based formulation resulted in increased retention of drug product in the nasal cavity and decreased deposition in the back of the throat compared to the two aqueous formulations.