4.3 Article

Tobramycin Inhalation Powder™: a novel drug delivery system for treating chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in cystic fibrosis

期刊

EXPERT REVIEW OF RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
卷 5, 期 5, 页码 609-622

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1586/ERS.11.56

关键词

aerosolized antibiotics; cystic fibrosis; delivery system; dry powder; inhaler; nebulized antibiotics; Pseudomonas aeruginosa; tobramycin

资金

  1. Gilead through Queen's University of Belfast
  2. Gilead
  3. Novartis
  4. Bayer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Expert Rev. Respir. Med. 5(5), 609-622 (2011) Lung disease in cystic fibrosis (CF) is typified by the development of chronic airways infection culminating in bronchiectasis and progression to end-stage respiratory disease. Pseudomonas aeruginosa, a ubiquitous Gram-negative bacteria, is the archetypical CF pathogen and is associated with an accelerated clinical decline. The development and widespread use of chronic suppressive aerosolized antibacterial therapies, in particular Tobramycin Inhalation Solution (TIS), in CF has contributed to reduced lung function decline and improved survival. However, the requirement for the aerosolization of these agents through nebulizers has been associated with increased treatment burden, reduced quality of life and remain a barrier to broader uptake. Tobramycin Inhalation Powder (TIP (TM)) has been developed by Novartis with the express purpose of delivering the same benefits as TIS in a time-effective manner. Administered via the T-326 (TM) (Novartis) Inhaler in four individual 28-mg capsules, TIP can be administered in a quarter of the time of traditional nebulizers and is inherently portable. In clinical studies, TIP has been shown to be safe, result in equivalent or superior reductions in P. aeruginosa sputum density and produce similar improvements in pulmonary function. TIP offers significant advantages in time saving, portability and convenience over traditional nebulized TIS with comparable clinical outcomes for individuals with CF.

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