4.7 Article

Systemic and pulmonary effects of fluticasone administered through a metered-dose inhaler in rats

期刊

JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY
卷 114, 期 5, 页码 1027-1032

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2004.07.015

关键词

asthma; animal models; aerosols

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL 56396] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) are convenient, simple, inexpensive, and reproducible devices for administering acrosolized drugs through the pulmonary route, but methods have not been available for use of these devices in small animals. Objective: We sought to test the efficacy of delivery of fluticasone through an MDI to rats with a rodent-adapted spacer chamber and to compare this treatment with systemic dexamethasone for the acute pulmonary allergic inflammatory response. Methods: Changes in body and thymus weights were used as indicators for systemic steroid effects. Rats were sensitized to ragweed pollen extract 2 weeks before the experiment, and pulmonary allergic responses were evaluated 48 hours after a single aerosolized antigen challenge on the basis of bronchoalveolar leukocytes, lung tissue sections, total lung capacity, and forced expiratory volumes. Results: Inhaled fluticasone caused dose-related systemic effects, indicating successful pulmonary drug delivery. Inhaled fluticasone was more effective than placebo but less effective than systemic dexamethasone in attenuating the increase in lung eosinophils and inflammatory infiltrates and the decrease in total lung capacity associated with the allergic inflammatory response. Inhaled fluticasone prevented airway obstruction and proximal inflammation, as did dexamethasone, but it appeared to have less effect in areas of lung served by the most distal airways. Conclusion: This is an effective method for use of MDIs to deliver inhaled drugs to small laboratory animals, and it should be valuable for investigations of treatment effects, as well as for in vivo testing of delivery devices.

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

4.7
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