ArticlePloS one2013
Vasodilatory effect of the stable vasoactive intestinal peptide analog RO 25-1553 in murine and rat lungs.
Article in PloS one, 2013. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Targeting VIP and PACAP Receptor Signaling: New Insights into Designing Drugs for the PACAP Subfamily of Receptors.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Emerging therapeutics in pulmonary hypertension.American journal of physiology. Lung cellular and molecular physiology · 2018Review
- Interventional procedures and future drug therapy for hypertension.European heart journal · 2017Review
- CFTR and sphingolipids mediate hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2015Article
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 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
rationaleStable analogs of vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP) have been proposed as novel line of therapy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) based on their bronchodilatory and anti-inflammatory effects. We speculated that VIP analogs may provide additional benefits in that they exert vasodilatory properties in the lung, and tested this hypothesis in both ex vivo and in vivo models.
methodsIn isolated perfused mouse lungs and in an in vivo rat model, pulmonary blood vessels were preconstricted by hypoxia and hemodynamic changes in response to systemic (ex vivo) or inhaled (in vivo) administration of the cyclic VIP analog RO 25-1553 were determined.
resultsIn mouse lungs, RO 25-1553 reduced intrinsic vascular resistance at normoxia, and attenuated the increase in pulmonary artery pressure in response to acute hypoxia. Consistently, inhalation of RO 25-1553 (1 mg · mL(-1) for 3 min) caused an extensive and sustained (> 60 min) inhibition of the pulmonary arterial pressure increase in response to hypoxia in vivo that was comparable to the effects of inhaled sildenafil. This effect was not attributable to systemic cardiovascular effects of RO 25-1553, but to a lung specific reduction in pulmonary vascular resistance, while cardiac output and systemic arterial hemodynamics remained unaffected. No adverse effects of RO 25-1553 inhalation on pulmonary gas exchange, ventilation-perfusion matching, or lung fluid content were detected.
conclusionOur findings demonstrate that inhaled delivery of the stable VIP analog RO 25-1553 induces a potent and sustained vasodilatory effect in the pulmonary circulation with no detectable adverse effects. Therapeutic inhalation of RO 25-1553 may provide vascular benefits in addition to its reported anti-inflammatory and bronchodilatory effects in COPD, yet caution is warranted given the overall poor results of vasodilator therapies for pulmonary hypertension secondary to COPD in a series of recent clinical trials.
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.