4.1 Article

Dose equivalency evaluation of major corticosteroids: Pharmacokinetics and cell trafficking and cortisol dynamics

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 43, Issue 11, Pages 1216-1227

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1177/0091270003258651

Keywords

glucocorticosteroids; dose equivalency tables; cell trafficking; pharmacokinetics

Funding

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM24211] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [R01GM024211, R37GM024211] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The integrity of current corticosteroid dose equivalency tables, as assessed by mechanistic models for cell trafficking and cortisol dynamics, was investigated in this study. Single, presumably equivalent, doses of intravenous hydrocortisone, methylprednisolone, dexamethasone, and oral prednisolone were given to 5 white men, according to total body weight, in a 5-way crossover, placebo-con trolled study. Pharmacodynamic (PD) response-time profiles for T helper cells, T suppressor cells, neutrophils, and adrenal suppression were evaluated by extended indirect response models. For adrenal suppression, prednisolone appears to be less potent than methylprednisolone or dexamethasone. A good correlation was found between the estimated in vivo EC50 values and relative receptor affinity (equilibrium dissociation constants normalized to dexamethasone). Area under the effect curves of all PD responses was calculated using a linear-trapezoidal method. Although T helper cell trafficking and adrenal suppression achieved significant differences by repeated measures ANOVA (p = 0.014 and 0.022), post hoc analysis using the Bonferroni method revealed no difference between treatments. Although limited by the use of single doses and a relatively small sample size, this study applies mechanistic models for several biomarkers showing that currently used dosing tables reflect reasonable dose equivalency relationships for four corticosteroids.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available