Role of G protein coupled inwardly rectifier K+ channels (GIRK) on the neurobiology depression

353 págs.

Randomised, crossover clinical trial, in healthy volunteers, to compare the systemic availability of two topical intranasal budesonide formulations

Background: Budesonide has a long history as intranasal drug, with many marketed products. Efforts should be made to demonstrate the therapeutic equivalence and safety comparability between them. Given that systemic availability significantly varies from formulations, the clinical comparability of diverse products comes to be of clinical interest and a regulatory requirement. The aim of the present study was to compare the systemic availability, pharmacodynamic effect, and safety of two intranasal budesonide formulations for the treatment of rhinitis. Methods: Eighteen healthy volunteers participated in this randomised, controlled, crossover, clinical trial. On two separated days, subjects received a single dose of 512 mu g budesonide (4 puffs per nostril) from each of the assayed devices (Budesonida nasal 64 (R), Aldo-Union, Spain and Rhinocort 64 (R), AstraZeneca, Spain). Budesonide availability was determined by the measurement of budesonide plasma concentration. The pharmacodynamic effect on the hypothalamic-adrenal axis was evaluated as both plasma and urine cortisol levels. Adverse events were tabulated and described. Budesonide availability between formulations was compared by the calculation of 90% CI intervals of the ratios of the main pharmacokinetic parameters describing budesonide bioavailability. Plasma cortisol concentration-time curves were compared by means of a GLM for Repeated Measures. Urine cortisol excretion between formulations was compared through the Wilcoxon's test. Results: All the enroled volunteers successfully completed the study. Pharmacokinetic parameters were comparable in terms of AUC(t) (2.6 +/- 1.5 vs 2.2 +/- 0.7), AUCi (2.9 +/- 1.5 vs 2.4 +/- 0.7), t(max) (0.4 +/- 0.1 vs 0.4 +/- 0.2), C(max)/AUC(i) (0.3 +/- 0.1 vs 0.3 +/- 0.0), and MRT (5.0 +/- 1.4 vs 4.5 +/- 0.6), but not in the case of C(max) (0.9 +/- 0.3 vs 0.7 +/- 0.2) and t(1/2) (3.7 +/- 1.8 vs 2.9 +/- 0.4). The pharmacodynamic effects, measured as the effect over plasma and urine cortisol, were also comparables between both formulations. No severe adverse events were reported and tolerance was comparable between formulations. Conclusion: The systemic availability of intranasal budesonide was comparable for both formulations in terms of most pharmacokinetic parameters. The pharmacodynamic effect on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis was also similar. Side effects were scarce and equivalent between the two products. This methodology to compare different budesonide-containing devices is reliable and easy to perform, and should be recommended for similar products intented to be marketed or already on the market.

Alveolar nitric oxide and its role in pediatric asthma control assessment

Resumen Background: Nitric oxide can be measured at multiple flow rates to determine proximal (maximum airway nitric oxide flux; Jaw(NO)) and distal inflammation (alveolar nitric oxide concentration; CA(NO)). The main aim was to study the association among symptoms, lung function, proximal (maximum airway nitric oxide flux) and distal (alveolar nitric oxide concentration) airway inflammation in asthmatic children treated and not treated with inhaled glucocorticoids. Methods: A cross-sectional study with prospective data collection was carried out in a consecutive sample of girls and boys aged between 6 and 16 years with a medical diagnosis of asthma. Maximum airway nitric oxide flux and alveolar nitric oxide concentration were calculated according to the two-compartment model. In asthmatic patients, the asthma control questionnaire (CAN) was completed and forced spirometry was performed. In controls, differences between the sexes in alveolar nitric oxide concentration and maximum airway nitric oxide flux and their correlation with height were studied. The correlation among the fraction of exhaled NO at 50 ml/s (FENO50), CA(NO), Jaw(NO), forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and the CAN questionnaire was measured and the degree of agreement regarding asthma control assessment was studied using Cohen's kappa. Results: We studied 162 children; 49 healthy (group 1), 23 asthmatic participants without treatment (group 2) and 80 asthmatic patients treated with inhaled corticosteroids (group 3). CA(NO) (ppb) was 2.2 (0.1-4.5), 3 (0.2-9.2) and 2.45 (0.1-24), respectively. Jaw(NO) (pl/s) was 516 (98.3-1470), 2356.67 (120-6110) and 1426 (156-11805), respectively. There was a strong association (r = 0.97) between FENO50 and Jaw(NO) and the degree of agreement was very good in group 2 and was good in group 3. There was no agreement or only slight agreement between the measures used to monitor asthma control (FEV1, CAN questionnaire, CA(NO) and Jaw(NO)). Conclusions: The results for CA(NO) and Jaw(NO) in controls were similar to those found in other reports. There was no agreement or only slight agreement among the three measure instruments analyzed to assess asthma control. In our sample, no additional information was provided by CA(NO) and Jaw(NO).