Huchon G, Hofbauer P, Cannizzaro G, Iacono P, Wald F
Service de Pneumologie, Hôpital de l'Hotel-Dieu, Paris, France.
Eur Respir J. 2000 Apr;15(4):663-9. doi: 10.1034/j.1399-3003.2000.15d07.x.
The objective of this study was to compare the long-term safety of a fixed combination of fenoterol hydrobromide (50 microg) and ipratropium bromide (20 microg) delivered using a metered dose inhaler (MDI) formulated with a non-chlorinated propellant, hydrofluoroalkanel34a (HFA-MDI), with delivery using the conventional chlorofluorocarbon propellant (CFC-MDI, Berodual/Bronchodual). The study was designed according to Safety Assessment of Marketed Medicines (SAMM) guidelines, to reflect as far as possible the use of MDls under normal prescribing conditions. Two thousand and twenty-seven patients with chronic airways obstruction (CAO) were enrolled from 99 centres in France, 95 centres in Germany and 24 centres in Italy. Following a 2-week run-in period, patients were randomized on a 2:1 basis (1,348 patients to HFA-MDI, 679 patients to CFC-MDI) to receive a flexible dose regimen of the combination (2 puffs, 2-4 times a day, as prescribed by the investigator) during a 12-week open label phase. The overall incidence of adverse events was comparable between both groups. In addition, the incidence of respiratory side effects was also similar, with CAO exacerbations or bronchitis the most frequently recorded events. The safety profile of the HFA formulation was comparable to those of the marketed CFC-MDIs used in Germany and France/Italy. No clinically significant differences were detected between HFA134a or CFC driven inhalers on the switch from CFC- to HFA-MDI (2 weeks before randomisation versus 2 weeks after randomization). There was a trend for taste complaints to be reported more frequently by patients in the HFA-MDI group (0.7% before randomization versus 3.4% after randomization). This, however, was an expected finding as the HFA134a formulation does have a different taste to the CFC formulation. No difference between formulations was observed in the incidences of coughing or paradoxical bronchospasm. The incidence of falls in FEV1 >15% within 15 min following inhalation at each of the clinic visits was 1.2% for both CFC- and HFA-MDIs. In conclusion, administration of a fenoterol/ipratropium bromide combination via hydrofluoroalkane-metered dose inhaler is as safe as delivery by the currently available chlorofluorocarbon-metered dose inhaler, in an extended population of patients with CAO under normal prescribing conditions.
本研究的目的是比较使用含非氯化推进剂氢氟烷烃134a(HFA-MDI)的定量吸入器(MDI)递送的氢溴酸非诺特罗(50微克)和异丙托溴铵(20微克)固定组合,与使用传统氯氟烃推进剂(CFC-MDI,贝罗杜尔/支气管杜尔)递送的长期安全性。该研究是根据上市药品安全性评估(SAMM)指南设计的,以尽可能反映在正常处方条件下MDI的使用情况。从法国的99个中心、德国的95个中心和意大利的24个中心招募了2027例慢性气道阻塞(CAO)患者。在为期2周的导入期后,患者按2:1的比例随机分组(1348例患者使用HFA-MDI,679例患者使用CFC-MDI),在为期12周的开放标签阶段接受灵活剂量方案的联合用药(2喷,每天2 - 4次,由研究者规定)。两组不良事件的总发生率相当。此外,呼吸道副作用的发生率也相似,CAO加重或支气管炎是最常记录的事件。HFA制剂的安全性与德国和法国/意大利使用的上市CFC-MDI相当。在从CFC-MDI转换为HFA-MDI时(随机分组前2周与随机分组后2周),未检测到HFA134a或CFC驱动的吸入器之间有临床显著差异。HFA-MDI组患者报告味觉不适的趋势更频繁(随机分组前为0.7%,随机分组后为3.4%)。然而,这是一个预期发现,因为HFA134a制剂的味道与CFC制剂不同。在咳嗽或矛盾性支气管痉挛的发生率方面,未观察到制剂之间的差异。在每次门诊就诊时吸入后15分钟内FEV1下降>15%的发生率,CFC-MDI和HFA-MDI均为1.2%。总之,在正常处方条件下,在患有CAO的扩大患者群体中,通过氢氟烷烃定量吸入器给予非诺特罗/异丙托溴铵组合与目前可用的氯氟烃定量吸入器给药一样安全。
Treat Respir Med. 2005
Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2016-6-30
Polymers (Basel). 2021-10-9
Indian J Anaesth. 2015-4
Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2011-4-26