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.

Effectiveness of a Multi-Component Smoking Cessation Support Programme (McSCSP) for Patients with Severe Mental Disorders: Study Design

Only a few studies have examined the efficacy and safety of smoking cessation programmes in patients with mental disorders. The aim of this paper is to describe in detail the methodology used in the study as well as the Multi-component Smoking Cessation Support Programme in terms of pharmacological treatments and psychological interventions. An open-label 9-month follow-up study was conducted in Spain. A total of 82 clinically stable outpatients with schizophrenia, schizoaffective or bipolar disorder were enrolled. Treatment consisted of a programme specifically developed by the research team for individuals with severe mental disorders. The programme consisted of two phases: (1) weekly individual motivational therapy for 4-12 weeks, and (2) a 12-week active treatment phase. During this phase, at each study visit patients received a one- or two-week supply of medication (transdermal nicotine patches, varenicline or bupropion) with instructions on how to take it, in addition to group psychotherapy for smoking cessation. Evaluations were performed: (1) at the time of enrolment in the study, (2) during the 12-week active treatment phase of the study (weekly for the first 4 weeks and then biweekly), and (3) after the end of this phase (two follow-up assessments at weeks 12 and 24). Evaluations included: (1) smoking history, (2) substance use, (3) psychopathology, (4) adverse events, and (5) laboratory tests. The importance of this study lies in addressing a topical issue often ignored by psychiatrists: the unacceptably high rates of tobacco use in patients with severe mental disorders.