4.1 Article

Influence of respiratory tract disease and mode of inhalation on detectability of budesonide in equine urine and plasma

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY RESEARCH
卷 78, 期 2, 页码 244-250

出版社

AMER VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.2460/ajvr.78.2.244

关键词

-

资金

  1. Research Grant from the Freie Universitat Berlin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the influence of respiratory tract disease (ie, recurrent airway obstruction [RAO]) and mode of inhalation on detectability of inhaled budesonide in equine plasma and urine samples. ANIMALS 16 horses (8 healthy control horses and 8 horses affected by RAO, as determined by results of clinical examination, blood gas analysis, bronchoscopy, and cytologic examination of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid). PROCEDURES 4 horses of each group inhaled budesonide (3 mu g/kg) twice daily for 10 days while at rest, and the remaining 4 horses of each group inhaled budesonide during lunging exercise. Plasma and urine samples were obtained 4 to 96 hours after inhalation and evaluated for budesonide and, in urine samples, the metabolites 6 beta-hydroxybudesonide and 16 alpha-hydroxyprednisolone. RESULTS Detected concentrations of budesonide were significantly higher at all time points for RAO-affected horses, compared with concentrations for the control horses. All samples of RAO-affected horses contained budesonide concentrations above the limit of detection at 96 hours after inhalation, whereas this was found for only 2 control horses. Detected concentrations of budesonide were higher, but not significantly so, at all time points in horses that inhaled budesonide during exercise, compared with concentrations for inhalation at rest. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Results of this study indicated that the time interval between inhalation of a glucocorticoid and participation in sporting events should be increased when inhalation treatment is administered during exercise to horses affected by respiratory tract disease.

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

4.1
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