2 resultados para adverse effect

em WestminsterResearch - UK


Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

BACKGROUND: The experienced smoker maintains adequate nicotine levels by 'puff-by-puff self-control' which also avoids symptomatic nauseating effects of nicotine overdose. It is postulated that there is a varying 'dynamic threshold for nausea' into which motion sickness susceptibility provides an objective toxin-free probe. Hypotheses were that: (i) nicotine promotes motion sickness whereas deprivation protects; and (ii) pleasurable effects of nicotine protect against motion sickness whereas adverse effects of withdrawal have the opposite effect. METHODS: Twenty-six healthy habitual cigarette smokers (mean±SD) 15.3±7.6cigs/day, were exposed to a provocative cross-coupled (coriolis) motion on a turntable, with sequences of 8 head movements every 30s. This continued to the point of moderate nausea. Subjects were tested after either ad-lib normal smoking (SMOKE) or after overnight deprivation (DEPRIV), according to a repeated measures design counter-balanced for order with 1-week interval between tests. RESULTS: Deprivation from recent smoking was confirmed by objective measures: exhaled carbon monoxide CO was lower (P<0.001) for DEPRIV (8.5±5.6ppm) versus SMOKE (16.0±6.3ppm); resting heart rate was lower (P<0.001) for DEPRIV (67.9±8.4bpm) versus SMOKE (74.3±9.5bpm). Mean±SD sequences of head movements tolerated to achieve moderate nausea were more (P=0.014) for DEPRIV (21.3±9.9) versus SMOKE (18.3±8.5). DISCUSSION: Tolerance to motion sickness was aided by short-term smoking deprivation, supporting Hypothesis (i) but not Hypothesis (ii). The effect was was approximately equivalent to half of the effect of an anti-motion sickness drug. Temporary nicotine withdrawal peri-operatively may explain why smokers have reduced risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Abstract AIMS: The aim of the present study was to investigate whether selective antagonism of the cysteine-X-cysteine chemokine receptor-2 (CXCR2) receptor has any adverse effects on the key innate effector functions of human neutrophils for defence against microbial pathogens. METHODS: In a double-blind, crossover study, 30 healthy volunteers were randomized to treatment with the CXCR2 antagonist AZD5069 (100 mg) or placebo, twice daily orally for 6 days. The peripheral blood neutrophil count was assessed at baseline, daily during treatment and in response to exercise challenge and subcutaneous injection of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF). Neutrophil function was evaluated by phagocytosis of Escherichia coli and by the oxidative burst response to E. coli. RESULTS: AZD5069 treatment reversibly reduced circulating neutrophil count from baseline by a mean [standard deviation (SD)] of -1.67 (0.67) ×10(9) l(-1) vs. 0.19 (0.78) ×10(9) l(-1) for placebo on day 2, returning to baseline by day 7 after the last dose. Despite low counts on day 4, a 10-min exercise challenge increased absolute blood neutrophil count, but the effect with AZD5069 was smaller and not sustained, compared with placebo treatment. Subcutaneous G-CSF on day 5 caused a substantial increase in blood neutrophil count in both placebo- and AZD5069-treated subjects. Superoxide anion production in E. coli-stimulated neutrophils and phagocytosis of E. coli were unaffected by AZD5069 (P = 0.375, P = 0.721, respectively vs. baseline, Day 4). AZD5069 was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: CXCR2 antagonism did not appear adversely to affect the mobilization of neutrophils from bone marrow into the peripheral circulation, phagocytosis or the oxidative burst response to bacterial pathogens. This supports the potential of CXCR2 antagonists as a treatment option for diseases in which neutrophils play a pathological role.