Effects of changes in water intake on mood of high and low drinkers.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of a change in water intake on mood and sensation in 22 habitual high-volume (HIGH; 2-4 L/d) and 30 low-volume (LOW; <1.2 L/d) drinkers who were asked to respectively decrease and increase their daily water intake. METHOD: During baseline HIGH consumed 2.5 L and LOW 1 L of water/day. During 3 controlled intervention days HIGH's water intake was restricted to 1 L/day whereas LOW's was increased to 2.5 L water/day. Several mood scales (Bond & Lader Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Profile of Mood States, Karolinska Sleepiness Scale, Thirst & Emotional VAS) were administered at different time points during the study. ANOVA including intervention, time point and intervention by time point as fixed effects on mean values (i.e.; baseline data vs. mean of 3 intervention days) for each mood scale was performed. RESULTS: At baseline HIGH and LOW were comparable in mood state, except for thirst scores (estimate = 17.16, p<0.001) and POMS depression-dejection scores (estimate = 0.55, p<0.05) which were both higher in the HIGH vs. LOW. In HIGH the restricted water intake resulted in a significant increase in thirst (p<0.001) and a decrease in contentedness (p<0.05), calmness (p<0.01), positive emotions (p<0.05) and vigor/activity (p<0.001). In LOW, increased water consumption resulted in a significant decrease in fatigue/inertia (p<0.001), confusion/bewilderment (p = 0.05) and thirst (p<0.001) and a trend to lower sleepiness (p = 0.07) compared to baseline. CONCLUSION: Increasing water intake has beneficial effects in LOW, especially sleep/wake feelings, whereas decreasing water intake has detrimental effects on HIGH's mood. These deleterious effects in HIGH were observed in some sleep/wake moods as well as calmness, satisfaction and positive emotions.

Circadian variation and responsiveness of hydration biomarkers to changes in daily water intake.

Biomarkers of hydration change in response to acute dehydration; however, their responsiveness to changes in fluid intake volume, without exercise or heat exposure, has not been adequately described. Moreover, patterns of circadian variation in hydration biomarkers have not been established. The study aims were to (1) assess the response of hydration biomarkers to changes in daily water intake; and (2) evaluate circadian variation in urinary and salivary biomarkers. Fifty-two adults (24.8 ± 3.1 years; 22.3 ± 1.6 kg/m(2); 79 % female), grouped based on habitual fluid intake (low drinkers, n = 30, <1.2 L/day; high drinkers, n = 22, >2.0 L/day), completed a 5-day inpatient crossover trial. On days 1 and 2, low drinkers received 1.0 L/day of water while high drinkers received 2.5 L/day. On days 3 through 5, intake was reversed between groups. Plasma and saliva osmolality were assessed daily at predetermined times, and all urine produced over 24 h was collected in timed intervals. ANOVA with intake (1.0 vs. 2.5 L/day), day, and time revealed that (1) urine concentration (osmolality, specific gravity, color) and volume, but not plasma nor saliva osmolality, responded to changes in water intake; (2) urinary hydration biomarkers and saliva osmolality vary as a function of the time of day; and (3) urine osmolality measured in samples collected during the afternoon most closely reflects the corresponding 24 h value. Overall, urinary hydration biomarkers are responsive to changes in water intake, and stabilize within 24 h of modifying intake volume. Moreover, short afternoon urine collections may be able to replace 24 h collections for more convenience in hydration assessment.

Effects of prolonged-release melatonin and zolpidem on postural stability in older adults.

OBJECTIVES: A prolonged-release formulation of melatonin (PR-M) is indicated for insomnia in patients aged 55 years and older. Because hypnotics result in impairments of body sway, it was important to evaluate the effect of 2 mg PR-M on postural stability in older adults at night. METHODS: Twenty-four healthy volunteers (12 women, 12 men, aged 55-64 years) completed a randomized, double-blind, single-dose, three-way crossover study of postural stability of PR-M 2 mg, zolpidem 10 mg (active control) or placebo. Subjects were tested for body sway 30 min before, 1.5 and 4 h after dosing. Parameters tested were the area of the 95% confidence ellipse enclosing the center of pressure (COP; [A95]) and COP path length. RESULTS: Zolpidem significantly increased the A95 (both eyes conditions at all time points) and path length of COP. PR-M had no effect on A95 (both "eyes closed" and "eyes open" conditions at all time points) compared with placebo and increased COP path length by 10% at 4 h post-dose in open but not closed eyes condition. No serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In older adults, evening PR-M intake did not impair postural stability during the night. The postural instability with zolpidem demonstrated assay sensitivity and validated the outcome.

Absence of a pharmacokinetic interaction between etanercept and warfarin.

Etanercept, a soluble recombinant human tumor necrosis factor receptor (TNFr) fusion protein, is effective and well tolerated in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), juvenile rheumatoid arthritis (JRA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS). The primary objective of this study was to investigate the potential pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interaction between a single dose of R- and S-enantiomers of warfarin and multiple doses of etanercept after administration of warfarin and etanercept alone and together. In a nonrandomized, three-period study, 12 healthy male subjects received a single oral 25-mg dose of warfarin after an overnight fast, followed by twice-weekly 25-mg subcutaneous doses of etanercept for seven doses. The last dose of etanercept was administered concurrently with a second dose of warfarin. Serial blood samples for plasma warfarin concentration measurement and international normalized ratio (INR) assessment were collected before and up to 144 hours after dose administration. Serial blood samples for serum etanercept concentration measurement were collected before and up to 60 hours after the sixth dose and 264 hours after the seventh dose. Etanercept did not affect the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of warfarin. All ratios of maximum serum concentration (C(max)) and area under the serum concentration versus time curve (AUC) for pharmacokinetics (R- and S-enantiomers of warfarin) and INR fell within the confidence interval of 0.8 to 1.25. Warfarin also did not cause a clinically significant alteration in the pharmacokinetics of etanercept. In conclusion, coadministration of etanercept and warfarin would not be expected to change the pharmacokinetics of either medication; therefore, no dosage adjustment is needed in cases in which warfarin and etanercept are coadministered.