Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27375484›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2016

Pharmacokinetics of Oral and Inhaled Terbutaline after Exercise in Trained Men.

Anders Dyreborg, Nanna Krogh, Vibeke Backer, Sebastian Rzeppa, Peter Hemmersbach, Morten Hostrup

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Chronic βThe Journal of physiology · 2018
    Trial
  2. BetaEuropean journal of applied physiology · 2017
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Muscle hypertrophic effect of inhaled betaThe Journal of physiology · 2022
    Article
  6. Review
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

6 authors.

Anders DyreborgRespiratory Research Unit, Bispebjerg Hospital Copenhagen, Denmark.
Nanna KroghRespiratory Research Unit, Bispebjerg Hospital Copenhagen, Denmark.
Vibeke BackerRespiratory Research Unit, Bispebjerg HospitalCopenhagen, Denmark; IOC Sports MedicineCopenhagen, Denmark.
Sebastian RzeppaNorwegian Doping Control Laboratory, Oslo University Hospital Oslo, Norway.
Peter HemmersbachNorwegian Doping Control Laboratory, Oslo University Hospital Oslo, Norway.
Morten HostrupRespiratory Research Unit, Bispebjerg HospitalCopenhagen, Denmark; IOC Sports MedicineCopenhagen, Denmark; Department of Nutrition, Exercise, and Sports, University of CopenhagenCopenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe aim of the study was to investigate pharmacokinetics of terbutaline after oral and inhaled administration in healthy trained male subjects in relation to doping control.

methodsTwelve healthy well-trained young men (27 ±2 years; mean ± SE) underwent two pharmacokinetic trials that compared 10 mg oral terbutaline with 4 mg inhaled dry powder terbutaline. During each trial, subjects performed 90 min of bike ergometer exercise at 65% of maximal oxygen consumption. Blood (0-4 h) and urine (0-24 h) samples were collected before and after administration of terbutaline. Samples were analyzed for concentrations of terbutaline by high performance liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS).

resultsPharmacokinetics differed between the two routes of administration. Serum Cmax and area under the serum concentration-time curve (AUC) were lower after oral administration compared to inhalation (Cmax: 4.2 ± 0.3 vs. 8.5 ± 0.7 ng/ml, P ≤ 0.001; AUC: 422 ± 22 vs. 1308 ± 119 ng/ml × min). Urine concentrations (sum of the free drug and the glucuronide) were lower after oral administration compared to inhalation 2 h (1100 ± 204 vs. 61 ± 10 ng/ml, P ≤ 0.05) and 4 h (734 ± 110 vs. 340 ± 48 ng/ml, P ≤ 0.001) following administration, whereas concentrations were higher for oral administration than inhalation 12 h following administration (190 ± 41 vs. 399 ± 108 ng/ml, P ≤ 0.05). Urine excretion rate was lower after oral administration than inhalation the first 2 h following administration (P ≤ 0.001). Systemic bioavailability ratio between the two routes of administration was 3.8:1 (inhaled: oral; P ≤ 0.001).

conclusionGiven the higher systemic bioavailability of inhaled terbutaline compared to oral, our results indicate that it is difficult to differentiate allowed inhaled use of terbutaline from prohibited oral ingestion based on urine concentrations in doping control analysis. However given the potential performance enhancing effect of high dose terbutaline, it is essential to establish a limit on the WADA doping list.

Indexed as

asthmadoping analysispharmacologyWADAβ2-agonist

Identifiers

PMID27375484
PMCPMC4901060

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.