RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary hypertension "PH" is considered a serious cardiovascular disease. World Health Organization divided PH into groups depending on many factors like pathological, hemodynamic, and clinical pictures. Lately, various micro-RNAs "miRNAs" and other novel biomarkers like endoglin and asymmetric dimethylarginine "ADMA" might have a role in diagnosis of PH and may differentiate between pulmonary arterial hypertension "PAH" and non-PAH. The purpose of the study is to show the role of miR-21, miR-124, endoglin and ADMA in the diagnosis of PH and distinguishing between WHO group 1 PH and WHO group 2 and 3 PH and to identify patients who might benefit from non-invasive and inexpensive tools to diagnose PAH. RESULTS: miR-21 was upregulated in group 1 PH, and there was significant difference between group 1 PH as compared with group 2 PH, group 3 PH and control; miR-124 was down-regulated in group 1 PH with highly significant difference between group 1 and group 2 PH and control but no significant difference with group 3 PH, endoglin was elevated in group 1 PH with a significant difference as compared to group 2 PH, group 3 PH and control. ADMA was elevated in group 1 PH as compared to control; however, there was no significant difference between it and group 2, 3 PH. CONCLUSIONS: miR-21, miR-124, endoglin and ADMA are good biomarkers to diagnose PH; however, only miR-21 and endoglin could distinguish group 1 PH from group 2 and 3 PH.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTIONS: Improved aerosol delivery of bronchodilators to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) subjects is a cornerstone in the treatment approach. Drug delivery and response are improved with the use of accessory devices [spacers and valved holding chambers (VHCs)] with metred-dose inhalers (pMDIs). However, different accessory devices are available in the market with different properties that could affect aerosol delivery. Thus, this study aimed to assess the relative lung deposition and systemic bioavailability and compare bronchodilator response of salbutamol delivered using different accessory devices attached to pMDIs. METHODS: Twelve healthy subjects and twelve COPD subjects inhaled 300 µg salbutamol (3 pMDI puffs) using five different accessory devices with either masks or mouthpieces (Able, Aerochamber plus flow Vu, Dolphin chamber, Tipshaler spacer, and modified Drink bottle spacer). Urine samples were collected thirty minutes post-dosing and cumulatively for the next twenty-four hours, to determine and compare the relative lung deposition [0-0.5 hour excretion of urinary salbutamol (USAL0.5)] and systemic bioavailability [0.5-24 hours excretion of urinary salbutamol (USAL24)] of salbutamol from the selected accessory devices. Also, the difference between pre and post-inhalation forced expiratory volume in one second (ΔFEV1 %) of predicted was determined for each accessory device. RESULTS: Urinary excretion of salbutamol (both USAL0.5 and USAL24 samples) in COPD subjects was significantly (P < .05) lower than in healthy subjects for all accessory devices. USAL0.5 and USAL24 in non-antistatic spacers (modified Drink bottle spacer and Dolphin chamber spacers) were significantly lower (P < .05) than that for antistatic spacers (Aerochamber plus flow Vu, Able and Tips-haler). No significant difference in USAL0.5 and USAL24 was observed between facemasks and mouthpieces. There was a significant difference (P < .05) in ΔFEV1 % of predicted values between COPD subjects and healthy subjects. However, within the COPD group and the healthy group there was no significant difference in ΔFEV1 % of predicted values between all accessory devices or between with mouthpiece or with a mask. CONCLUSIONS: COPD subjects had lower aerosol delivered compared with healthy subjects. Anti-static accessory devices delivered a higher amount of aerosol compared with non-antistatic accessory devices. Even though the presence of a significant difference in aerosol delivery between non-antistatic and antistatic accessory devices no significant difference was found in the ΔFEV1 % between all accessory devices.

Asunto(s)

Albuterol , Nebulizadores y Vaporizadores , Administración por Inhalación , Broncodilatadores , Diseño de Equipo , Espaciadores de Inhalación , Inhaladores de Dosis Medida

RESUMEN

Add-on devices that are attached to metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) were introduced to improve aerosol delivery. The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of drug delivery from an MDI when attached to different add-on devices at different inhalation volumes. The total emitted dose (TED) of salbutamol was estimated for the MDI alone and the MDI connected to five different add-on devices (Able valved holding chamber, Tips-haler valved holding chamber, Aerochamber plus flow Vu valved holding chamber, Dolphin chamber, and a handmade water bottle spacer), at inhalation flow of 28.3 L·min-1 with flow volume of 1, 2 and 4 L, assuming young child (aged <6 years), old child (>6 years) and adult inhalation volumes, respectively. The TED% ranged between 84.1% and 87.2% at all inhalation volumes from the MDI alone, which was significantly greater than all MDI add-on device combinations (p<0.05). The TED% delivered to MDI sampling apparatus by a homemade water bottle spacer and Dolphin chamber, as non-antistatic add-on devices, ranged between 30.5% and 35.3%. However, washing these non-antistatic add-on devices with a light detergent before use improved their TED to range between 47.6% and 51.2%. Non-antistatic add-on devices had significantly lower TED (p<0.05) than that delivered by most antistatic add-on devices, which ranged from 51.3% to 71.6%. This study suggests that antistatic add-on devices delivered much more aerosol than non-antistatic add-on devices. However, it may be advised to still use a non-antistatic add-on device, for the sake of solving the coordination problem, and wash it with light detergent before use to improve TED.