...
首页> 外文期刊>Diabetes care >Counterpoint: No time to inhale: arguments against inhaled insulin in 2007.
【24h】

Counterpoint: No time to inhale: arguments against inhaled insulin in 2007.

机译:反对意见:没有时间吸入:2007年反对吸入胰岛素的争论。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Much of the storied history of insulin has revolved around attempts to make its administration easier for patients who have to inject it to survive. The search for alternative routes of administration began almost immediately after its discovery-insulin was administered by inhalation, with modest effectiveness, and then within several years of its first administration by subcutaneous injection (1). The now almost unimaginable use of 20-gavige needles, sharpened by hand, and glass syringes that had to be sterilized regularly made the development of less painful and more convenient injections highly desirable. Moreover, before the development of intermediate-and long-acting formulations of insulin in the 1930s, four to five daily injections of the available rapid-acting formulation were required if patients wanted to avoid hyperglycemia and accompanying poly-uria and polydipsia.
机译:胰岛素的悠久历史已围绕试图使必须注射胰岛素才能生存的患者更容易使用胰岛素的尝试展开。在发现其胰岛素后,几乎立即开始寻找替代的给药途径,胰岛素的吸入效果不佳,然后在其首次通过皮下注射给药后的数年之内(1)。现在几乎难以想象的使用20个针头的针头,需要用手打磨,并且必须定期进行消毒的玻璃注射器,因此非常需要开发减轻痛苦且更方便的注射剂。此外,在1930年代开发中长效胰岛素制剂之前,如果患者想避免高血糖症并伴有多尿和多饮症,则需要每天注射四至五次可用的速效制剂。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号