RESUMEN
Description Clenbuterol is a long-acting ß-agonist used in oral and inhaled form for asthma treatment outside the U.S. and in veterinary medicine within the U.S. It is also used off-label for anabolic effects worldwide. Toxicity with clenbuterol is increasingly seen in U.S. hospitals, primarily in younger individuals using the drug for competitive athletics or bodybuilding. We present a case of a young patient who presented after an intentional overdose and discuss the relevant literature. Presentations do not correlate with the dosage ingested. Signs and symptoms can range from simple nausea to myocardial ischemia, rhabdomyolysis and cardiogenic shock. Treatment of overdose is simple and should be promptly started using intravenous fluid hydration and potassium supplementation. Benzodiazepines may be utilized for agitation or delirium. ß-blockers or phenylephrine may be used to give hemodynamic support. More research is needed to gain an understanding of the optimal treatment of clenbuterol toxicity, especially if it becomes a more frequent reason for medical encounters in the U.S.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: A prototype tear glucose (TG) sensor was tested in New Zealand white rabbits to assess eye irritation, blood glucose (BG) and TG lag time, and correlation with BG. METHODS: A total of 4 animals were used. Eye irritation was monitored by Lissamine green dye and analyzed using image analysis software. Lag time was correlated with an oral glucose load while recording TG and BG readings. Correlation between TG and BG were plotted against one another to form a correlation diagram, using a Yellow Springs Instrument (YSI) and self-monitoring of blood glucose as the reference measurements. Finally, TG levels were calculated using analytically derived expressions. RESULTS: From repeated testing carried over the course of 12 months, little to no eye irritation was detected. TG fluctuations over time visually appeared to trace the same pattern as BG with an average lag times of 13 minutes. TG levels calculated from the device current measurements ranged from 4 to 20 mg/dL and correlated linearly with BG levels of 75-160 mg/dL (TG = 0.1723 BG = 7.9448 mg/dL; R2 = .7544). CONCLUSION: The first steps were taken toward preliminary development of a sensor for self-monitoring of tear glucose (SMTG). No conjunctival irritation in any of the animals was noted. Lag time between TG and BG was found to be noticeable, but a quantitative modeling to correlate lag time in this study is unnecessary. Measured currents from the sensors and the calculated TG showed promising correlation to BG levels. Previous analytical bench marking showed BG and TG levels consistent with other literature.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: A concept for a tear glucose sensor based on amperometric measurement of enzymatic oxidation of glucose was previously presented, using glucose dehydrogenase flavin adenine dinucleotide (GDH-FAD) as the enzyme. Glucose dehydrogenase flavin adenine dinucleotide is further characterized in this article and evaluated for suitability in glucose-sensing applications in purified tear-like saline, with specific attention to the effect of interfering substances only. These interferents are specifically saccharides that could interact with the enzymatic activity seen in the sensor's performance. METHODS: Bench top amperometric glucose assays were performed using an assay solution of GDH-FAD and ferricyanide redox mediator with samples of glucose, mannose, lactose, maltose, galactose, fructose, sucrose, and xylose at varying concentrations to evaluate specificity, linear dynamic range, signal size, and signal-to-noise ratio. A comparison study was done by substituting an equivalent activity unit concentration of glucose oxidase (GOx) for GDH-FAD. RESULTS: Glucose dehydrogenase flavin adenine dinucleotide was found to be more sensitive than GOx, producing larger oxidation currents than GOx on an identical glucose concentration gradient, and GDH-FAD exhibited larger slope response (-5.65 × 10(-7) versus -3.11 × 10(-7) A/mM), signal-to-noise ratio (18.04 versus 2.62), and linear dynamic range (0-30 versus 0-10 mM), and lower background signal (-7.12 versus -261.63 nA) than GOx under the same assay conditions. GDH-FAD responds equally to glucose and xylose but is otherwise specific for glucose. CONCLUSION: Glucose dehydrogenase flavin adenine dinucleotide compares favorably with GOx in many sensor-relevant attributes and may enable measurement of glucose concentrations both higher and lower than those measurable by GOx. GDH-FAD is a viable enzyme to use in the proposed amperometric tear glucose sensor system and perhaps also in detecting extreme hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia in blood.