Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/2440/9989
Citations
Scopus Web of ScienceĀ® Altmetric
?
?
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorRuffin, R.-
dc.contributor.authorCampbell, D.-
dc.contributor.authorChia, M.-
dc.date.issued2000-
dc.identifier.citationRespirology, 2000; 5(2):125-131-
dc.identifier.issn1323-7799-
dc.identifier.issn1440-1843-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/9989-
dc.description.abstract<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the change in bronchial response to cumulative doses from two beclomethasone dipropionate metered-dose inhalers (MDI), each using chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) propellants, in asthma patients previously showing falls in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) shortly after exposure to beclomethasone MDI.<h4>Methodology</h4>A total of 18 patients were randomized to a single-blind, three-period cross-over treatment regimen, whereby each was administered increasing doses of control mixture (containing surfactant and CFC propellants) or beclomethasone, formulated as either Becloforte or Respocort (250-1000 microg per dose; cumulative dose 2000 microg). Bronchial response was measured by comparison of FEV1 values pre- and post-inhalation.<h4>Results</h4>Respocort formulation produced the least post-dose mean maximum reduction in FEV1 (0.36 +/- 0.17 L; 14.3 +/- 7.2% of baseline FEV1), while the reduction caused by the control was similar (0.40 +/- 0.18 L; 16.2 +/- 9.9% of baseline FEV1). Becloforte produced a significantly greater maximum reduction in FEV1 than Respocort (0.55 +/- 0.32 L, P = 0.003; 22.0 +/- 15.3% of baseline FEV1, P = 0.005). No serious adverse events were reported, but four patients experienced falls in FEV1 of greater than 15% (three on Becloforte, one using the control).<h4>Conclusion</h4>The incidence of falls in FEV1 following use of beclomethasone MDI was low and generally not serious even in a selected population. The Becloforte preparation produced significantly more post-dose bronchoconstriction than the Respocort formulation, perhaps because of differences in the composition of the surfactant and/or CFC propellant mixtures used to formulate each of the aerosols.-
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityRuffin, Richard E. ; Campbell, Donald A. ; Chia, Mon M.-
dc.language.isoen-
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Asia-
dc.source.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1843.2000.00238.x-
dc.subjectHumans-
dc.subjectAsthma-
dc.subjectChlorofluorocarbons, Methane-
dc.subjectBeclomethasone-
dc.subjectAnti-Inflammatory Agents-
dc.subjectAnti-Asthmatic Agents-
dc.subjectGlucocorticoids-
dc.subjectSurface-Active Agents-
dc.subjectForced Expiratory Volume-
dc.subjectAdministration, Inhalation-
dc.subjectAdministration, Topical-
dc.subjectCross-Over Studies-
dc.subjectSingle-Blind Method-
dc.subjectBronchoconstriction-
dc.subjectAdult-
dc.subjectAged-
dc.subjectMiddle Aged-
dc.subjectFemale-
dc.subjectMale-
dc.titlePost-inhalation bronchoconstriction by beclomethasone dipropionate: A comparison of two different CFC propellant formulations in asthmatics-
dc.typeJournal article-
dc.identifier.doi10.1046/j.1440-1843.2000.00238.x-
pubs.publication-statusPublished-
Appears in Collections:Aurora harvest 4
Medicine publications

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.