Trial reportBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2006
Speed of onset of bronchodilator response to salbutamol inhaled via different devices in asthmatics: a bioassay based on functional antagonism.
Trial report in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effects of airway disease on the deposition of inhaled drugs.Expert opinion on drug delivery · 2024Review
- The challenge of delivering therapeutic aerosols to asthma patients.ISRN allergy · 2013Article
- From pharmacology to immunopharmacology.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2006Article
- Determining the optimal time to assess the reversibility of airway obstruction.Lung India : official organ of Indian Chest SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo evaluate the speed of onset of bronchodilation following salbutamol administered via a metered-dose inhaler with a spacer (pMDI + Volumatic) and a dry-powder inhaler (Diskus), as well as the relative potencies of these devices in asthmatic patients with methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction.
methodsEighteen patients inhaled methacholine (MCh) until FEV(1) decreased by 35% of control. Following administration of placebo, 200 microg salbutamol or 400 microg salbutamol through the pMDI + Volumatic or the Diskus, we calculated the time elapsed from drug administration and the appearance of a 90% increase in post-MCh forced vital capacity (FVC), FEV(1) and volume-adjusted mid-expiratory flow (recovery times). The salbutamol doses to be delivered by the two inhalation devices to achieve similar recovery times and the relative potencies of the devices were calculated by using the 2-by-2 Finney parallel regression method.
resultsFor all functional variables, recovery times were significantly (P < 0.01) shorter in pMDI + Volumatic than Diskus trials. The salbutamol doses to be delivered by the Diskus to achieve recovery times for FVC, FEV(1) and volume-adjusted mid-expiratory flow similar to those obtained with 200 microg salbutamol administered via the pMDI + Volumatic were 558 (95% CI 537, 579) microg, 395 (95% CI 388, 404) microg and 404 (95% CI 393, 415) microg, respectively, and corresponded to relative potencies of 2.79 (95% CI 2.68, 2.90), 1.98 (95% CI 1.94, 2.02), and 2.02 (95% CI 1.96, 2.07).
conclusionsAdministration of salbutamol via the pMDI + Volumatic provides faster reversal of induced bronchoconstriction than via the Diskus. The salbutamol dose targeting the lungs with the pMDI + Volumatic is approximately twice that with the Diskus.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.