Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11140428›Full record

Trial reportClinical pharmacokinetics2000

Absorption kinetics after inhalation of fluticasone propionate via the Diskhaler, Diskus and metered-dose inhaler in healthy volunteers.

C Brindley, C Falcoz, A E Mackie, A Bye

Abstract readClinical TrialComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

C BrindleyDrug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics, Quintiles Scotland Limited, Edinburgh.
C Falcoz
A E Mackie
A Bye
Wellcome Library · GBIQVIA (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this analysis was to assess the rate and extent of systemic availability of inhaled fluticasone propionate (FP) from 2 dry powder systems (Diskhaler and Diskus) and a metered-dose inhaler (MDI) by deconvolution analysis.

methodsThe inhalation devices were evaluated in 3 separate studies with identical protocols. 12 healthy male volunteers were randomised to receive FP given as a 1000 microg inhaled dose and 250 microg by intravenous infusion according to a double-blind double-dummy crossover design. The bioavailability of FP after inhalation represents absorption of the drug from the lungs, since the bioavailability of the swallowed portion of the inhaled dose is negligible.

resultsWhen corrected for the bioavailability (of FP) achieved by each inhalation device, the rate of absorption of FP over the first 2 hours was rapid from all devices. The mean time for absorption of 50% of the bioavailable dose was 1.6, 2.4, and 2.2 hours for the Diskhaler, Diskus and MDI, respectively. Thereafter, absorption from each device was prolonged, with approximately 10% of the dose remaining in the lungs 12 hours after inhalation.

conclusionIrrespective of the inhalation device used, the prolonged absorption of FP into the systemic circulation indicates a long residence time in the lungs.

Indexed as

Nebulizers and VaporizersAbsorptionAdministration, InhalationAdolescentAdultAndrostadienesAnti-Asthmatic AgentsCross-Over StudiesDouble-Blind MethodFluticasoneHumansLungMaleAndrostadienesAnti-Asthmatic AgentsFluticasone

Identifiers

PMID11140428
OpenAlexW1965459331

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.