Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic comparison of hydrofluoroalkane and chlorofluorocarbon formulations of budesonide

Karine L. Clearie, Peter A. Williamson, Karen Meldrum, Michael Gillen, Lars-Goran Carlsson, Marie Carlholm, Jan Ekelund, Brian J. Lipworth

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    24 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) have been implicated in damage to the ozone layer, and are due to be phased out in accordance with the Montreal Protocol.

    Hydrofluoroalkane-134a (HFA) has been found to act as an adequate propellant for pressurized metered-dose inhaler delivery systems without the same deleterious environmental effects.

    WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

    This paper presents data from both steady-state pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic assessments of HFA vs. CFC pressurized metered-dose inhaler formulations of budesonide. It demonstrates that they are therapeutically equivalent in terms of relative lung bioavailability, airway efficacy and systemic effects.

    AIMS

    A hydrofluoroalkane formulation of budesonide pressurized metered-dose inhaler has been developed to replace the existing chlorofluorocarbon one. The aim of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of both formulations.

    METHODS

    Systemic bioavailability and bioactivity of both hydrofluoroalkane and chlorofluorocarbon pressurized metered-dose inhaler formulations at 800 mu g twice daily was determined during a randomized crossover systemic pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study at steady state in healthy volunteers. Measurements included the following: plasma cortisol AUC(24h) [area under the concentration-time curve (0-24 h)], budesonide AUC(0-12h) and C-max. Clinical efficacy was determined during a randomized crossover pharmacodynamic study in asthmatic patients receiving 200 mu g followed by 800 mu g budesonide via chlorofluorocarbon or hydrofluoroalkane pressurized metered-dose inhaler each for 4 weeks. Methacholine PC20 (primary outcome), exhaled nitric oxide, spirometry, peak expiratory flow and symptoms were evaluated.

    RESULTS

    In the pharmacokinetic study, there were no differences in cortisol, AUC(0-12h) [area under the concentration-time curve (0-12 h)], T-max (time to maximum concentration) or C-max (peak serum concentration) between the hydrofluoroalkane and chlorofluorocarbon pressurized metered-dose inhaler. The ratio of budesonide hydrofluoroalkane vs. chlorofluorocarbon pressurized metered-dose inhaler for cortisol AUC(24h) was 1.02 (95% confidence interval 0.93-1.11) and budesonide AUC(0-12h) was 1.03 (90% confidence interval 0.9-1.18). In the asthma pharmacodynamic study, there was a significant dose response (P < 0.0001) for methacholine PC20 (provocative concentration of methacholine needed to produce a 20% fall in FEV1) with a relative potency ratio of 1.10 (95% confidence interval 0.49-2.66), and no difference at either dose. No significant differences between formulations were seen with the secondary outcome variables.

    CONCLUSIONS

    Hydrofluoroalkane and chlorofluorocarbon formulations of budesonide were therapeutically equivalent in terms of relative lung bioavailability, airway efficacy and systemic effects.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)504-513
    Number of pages10
    JournalBritish Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
    Volume71
    Issue number4
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Apr 2011

    Keywords

    • Equivalence
    • Hydrofluoroalkane
    • Pharmacodynamics
    • Pharmacokinetics
    • Exhaled nitric oxide
    • Fluticasone propionate
    • Airway inflammation
    • Dose response
    • Adrenal suppression
    • Mild asthma
    • Hyperresponsiveness
    • Methacholine
    • Corticosteroids
    • Challenge

    Cite this