3.9 Article

Alzheimer's Disease and Intranasal Fluticasone Propionate in the FDA MedWatch Adverse Events Database

期刊

JOURNAL OF ALZHEIMERS DISEASE REPORTS
卷 2, 期 1, 页码 111-115

出版社

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/ADR-170033

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; brain; dementia; intranasal; steroids

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA049506] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Studies of Alzheimer's disease suggest that neuroinflammation or deranged brain wound healing may be a cause of some cases. But a placebo controlled study showed no effect at all on Alzheimer's disease of low dose oral prednisone after one year. Introducing the steroid directly into the hippocampus and rhinencephalon via the nose, as happens in hay fever subjects, could be more effective. Objective: In the present study, we analyzed FDA MedWatch data for intranasal fluticasone propionate (Flonase) to determine the frequency of Alzheimer's disease as an adverse event reported after use of the medication. Methods: Machine-readable data from MedWatch, including adverse drug reaction reports from manufacturers, are part of a public database. We used the online tool eHealthMe to query the database. Results: By September 20, 2017, 35,221 people reported side effects to MedWatch after taking Flonase. Among them, 9 people (0.03%) had Dementia Alzheimer's type. By October 3, 2017, 185,636 people reported side effects after taking Lipitor. Among them, 243 people (0.13%) had Dementia Alzheimer's type. The lower incidence of Alzheimer's dementia in the Flonase group compared to the Lipitor group was significant (p<0.001, Fisher exact test, two tailed). Conclusion: Long term use of oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is linked with reduced risk of developing Alzheimer's disease. Data from MedWatch suggest that fluticasone propionate administered intranasally might have a similar preventive effect to ibuprofen. Perhaps combining ibuprofen and Flonase could be therapeutic. Further studies would be desirable.

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

3.9
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