Back to Search Start Over

Comparison of the in vitro pharmacological profiles of long-acting muscarinic antagonists in human bronchus.

Authors :
Naline E
Grassin Delyle S
Salvator H
Brollo M
Faisy C
Victoni T
Abrial C
Devillier P
Source :
Pulmonary pharmacology & therapeutics [Pulm Pharmacol Ther] 2018 Apr; Vol. 49, pp. 46-53. Date of Electronic Publication: 2018 Jan 12.
Publication Year :
2018

Abstract

Background and Purpose: Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) have been recommended for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and (more recently) asthma. However, the in vitro pharmacological profiles of the four LAMAs currently marketed (tiotropium, umeclidinium, aclidinium and glycopyrronium) have not yet been compared (relative to ipratropium) by using the same experimental approach.<br />Experimental Approach: With a total of 560 human bronchial rings, we investigated the antagonists' potency, onset and duration of action for inhibition of the contractile response evoked by electrical field stimulation. We also evaluated the antagonists' potency for inhibiting cumulative concentration-contraction curves for acetylcholine and carbachol.<br />Key Results: The onset and duration of action were concentration-dependent. At submaximal, equipotent concentrations, the antagonists' onsets of action were within the same order of magnitude. However, the durations of action differed markedly. After washout, ipratropium's inhibitory activity decreased rapidly (within 30-90 min) but those of tiotropium and umeclidinium remained stable (at above 70%) for at least 9 h. Aclidinium and glycopyrronium displayed less stable inhibitory effects, with a progressive loss of inhibition at submaximal concentrations. In contrast to ipratropium, all the LAMAs behaved as insurmountable antagonists by decreasing the maximum responses to both acetylcholine and carbachol.<br />Conclusions and Implications: The observed differences in the LAMAs' in vitro pharmacological profiles in the human bronchus provide a compelling pharmacological rationale for the differences in the drugs' respective recommended daily doses and frequencies of administration.<br /> (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1522-9629
Volume :
49
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
Pulmonary pharmacology & therapeutics
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
29337266
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pupt.2018.01.003