[Differences in the elastic work of breathing of the pulmonary parenchyma in patients with bronchial asthma and COPD].

AIM: To determine and compare the work of breathing to overcome elastic resistance (Ael) in patients with bronchial asthma (BA) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with similar changes in the elastic properties of the parenchyma in the same settings of ventilation disorders (grade 1). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Differences in the manifestations of similar changes in the elastic properties of the lungs in patients with BA and COPD were evaluated. To identify differences, a comparative study was conducted on Аel overcome in BA patients with positive bronchodilator (with salbutamol) and bronchoconstrictor (with methacholine) tests, with reduced and preserved bronchial conductance (groups 1 and 2, respectively), and in COPD patients with negative bronchodilator and bronchoconstrictor tests (group 3). All study patients showed a grade 1 lung ventilation disorder (a decrease in the one-second forced expiratory volume by 15-35%). The results were compared with each other and with the control group (group 4, healthy non-smokers). All study patients were comparable by age and sex. The respiration mechanics was studied using simultaneous registration of spirogram and transpulmonary pressure, and the parameters of bronchial conductance and ventilation were determined using body plethysmopressography using the Jager software and hardware system. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: In COPD patients, Ael was significantly increased (p>0.05), whereas in both BA groups, it was unchanged. Increased elastic work of breathing in patients with COPD may be associated with the involvement of certain types of contractile elements, which are preserved in patients with BA at the initial stages of the disease.

[Assessment of the safety and efficacy of medicinal product PPR-001 based on regulatory polypeptides of the testes].

OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of the drug PPR-001 (lyophilizate) in comparison with placebo in men with impaired spermatogenesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, prospective, multicenter, parallel-group research. RESULTS: It was found that the drug has clinical efficacy and a positive effect on the concentration of spermatozoa in the ejaculate, the percentage of progressively mobile forms and the number of morphologically normal forms of spermatozoa was increased in the group of PPR-001. The primary end point was defined as a proportion of patients who had a therapeutic response (TO) at Visit 3. TO meant at least 20% increase in the concentration and/or progressive motility of spermatozoa compared to the baseline level. The hypothesis of Superiority of PPR-001 over placebo based on primary end point was confirmed (the limit of Superiority was more than 27%). In total, AEs were identified in 65 patients out of 100 (34 patients in the PPR-001 group and 31 patients in the placebo group). When assessing the number of patients who had AEs, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups. All identified AEs were of mild severity; during the study. No negative dynamics was found according to the results of the assessment of vital functions, biochemical and clinical blood tests, clinical urinalysis, ECG indicators. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated the superiority of PPR-001 over placebo in terms of increasing concentration and motility of spermatozoa in the ejaculate. A significant increase in the number of morphologically normal forms of spermatozoa in the PPR-001 group was also revealed.