4.3 Article

Tiotropium bromide inhibits relapsing allergic asthma in BALB/c mice

期刊

PULMONARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 27, 期 1, 页码 44-51

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pupt.2013.09.004

关键词

Mice; Inbred BALB/c; Allergic lung inflammation; Airway hyperresponsiveness; Experimental allergic asthma; Tiotropium bromide

资金

  1. Department of Pulmonary Disease Research, Boehringer-Ingelheim Pharma, Biberach, Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recurrent relapses of allergic lung inflammation in asthmatics may lead to airway remodeling and lung damage. We tested the efficacy of tiotropium bromide, a selective long-acting, muscarinic receptor antagonist as an adjunct therapy in relapses of allergic asthma in mice. We compared the effectiveness of local intranasal administration of tiotropium and dexamethasone in acute and relapsing allergic asthma in BALB/c mice. Although tiotropium at low doses is a potent bronchodilator, we tested higher doses to determine effectiveness on inflammation and mucus hypersecretion. A 5-day course of twice daily intranasal tiotropium or dexamethasone (1 mg/kg (b.w.)) suppressed airway eosinophils by over 87% during disease initiation and 88% at relapse compared to vehicle alone. Both drugs were comparable in their capacity to suppress airway and parenchymal inflammation and mucus hypersecretion, though tiotropium was better than dexamethasone at reducing mucus secretion during disease relapse. Despite treatment with either drug, serum antigen-specific IgE or IgG1 antibody titres remained unchanged. Our study indicates that tiotropium at higher doses than required for bronchodilation, effectively suppresses inflammation and mucus hypersecretion in the lungs and airways of mice during the initiation and relapse of asthma. Tiotropium is currently not approved for use in asthma. Clinical studies have to demonstrate the efficacy of tiotropium in this respiratory disease. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据