Weiss Kevin B, Liljas Bengt, Schoenwetter William, Schatz Michael, Luce Bryan R
Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois 60611, USA.
Clin Ther. 2004 Jan;26(1):102-14. doi: 10.1016/s0149-2918(04)90011-2.
Clinical studies have demonstrated the efficacy and relative safety of inhaled corticosteroids in the treatment of asthma. However, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness comparisons of available inhaled corticosteroids in real-life clinical settings are lacking.
This study compared the effectiveness and safety of budesonide administered via dry-powder inhaler versus that of triamcinolone acetonide administered via pressurized metered-dose inhaler in the treatment of adult patients with persistent asthma treated in a managed care setting.
This was a randomized, open-labe, 52-week study of adult patients (aged >or= 18 years) with persistent asthma enrolled in 25 US health plans. The primary study outcome was mean change from baseline to the end of treatment in symptom-free days. Secondary variables were changes from baseline in number of episode-free days, episode-free days at 52 weeks, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)), forced vital capacity, asthma symptom scores, breakthrough bronchdilator use, patient discontinuations, and health-related quality of life. Patients were issued diaries in which to record use of study medication and concomitant asthma medication use, as well as daytime and nighttime asthma symptom severity. Patients were assessed at weeks 4, 13, 26, 39, and 52. Safety was assessed based on adverse events and changes in laboratory tests, vital signs, and physical examinations.
A total of 945 patients (344 men, 601 women; mean [SD] age, 46.8 [14] years) were enrolled; 631 received budesonide and 314 received triacinolane acetonide. Improvements in all effectiveness variables were observed with both treatments. The mean increase from baseline in the number of symptom-free days per month assessed at month 12 was 7.74 (95% CI, 6.81-8.66) for patients receiving budesonide and 3.78 (95% CI, 2.47-5.09) for patients receiving triamcinoline acetonide ( P<0.001). The estimated annual mean (SD) number symptom-free days for patients receiving budesonide was 141.1 (125.0) over the treatment phase, compared with 99.3 (112.1) for those receiving triamcinolone acetonide (P<0.001). Patients receiving budesonide demonstrated significant improvements (compared with those receiving triamcinolone acetonide) in overall quality of life, daytime and nighttime asthma symptom severity, breakthrough bronchodilator use, and FEV(1) (all P<0.001). Safety measures were similar between groups.
In these managed care settings, budesonide inhalation powder administered via dry-powder inhaler was significantly more effective than triamcinolone acetonide administered via pressurized metered-dose inhaler in the treatment of adults with persistent asthma.
临床研究已证实吸入性糖皮质激素治疗哮喘的有效性和相对安全性。然而,在实际临床环境中,现有吸入性糖皮质激素的有效性和成本效益比较尚缺乏。
本研究比较了在管理式医疗环境中接受治疗的成年持续性哮喘患者,使用干粉吸入器给药的布地奈德与使用压力定量吸入器给药的曲安奈德的有效性和安全性。
这是一项针对25个美国健康计划中招募的成年持续性哮喘患者(年龄≥18岁)进行的随机、开放标签、为期52周的研究。主要研究结局是从基线到治疗结束无症状天数的平均变化。次要变量包括无发作天数从基线的变化、52周时的无发作天数、1秒用力呼气量(FEV₁)、用力肺活量、哮喘症状评分、急救支气管扩张剂使用情况、患者停药情况以及健康相关生活质量。为患者发放日记,用于记录研究药物及伴随哮喘药物的使用情况,以及白天和夜间哮喘症状的严重程度。在第4、13、26、39和52周对患者进行评估。基于不良事件以及实验室检查、生命体征和体格检查的变化评估安全性。
共纳入945例患者(344例男性,601例女性;平均[标准差]年龄46.8[14]岁);631例接受布地奈德治疗,314例接受曲安奈德治疗。两种治疗方法均观察到所有有效性变量有所改善。在第12个月评估时,接受布地奈德治疗的患者每月无症状天数从基线的平均增加量为7.74(95%置信区间,6.81 - 8.66),接受曲安奈德治疗的患者为3.78(95%置信区间,2.47 - 5.09)(P<0.001)。在治疗阶段,接受布地奈德治疗的患者估计每年平均(标准差)无症状天数为141.1(125.0),而接受曲安奈德治疗的患者为99.3(112.1)(P<0.001)。接受布地奈德治疗的患者在总体生活质量、白天和夜间哮喘症状严重程度、急救支气管扩张剂使用情况以及FEV₁方面(与接受曲安奈德治疗的患者相比)均有显著改善(均P<0.001)。两组间安全指标相似。
在这些管理式医疗环境中,对于成年持续性哮喘患者,使用干粉吸入器给药的布地奈德吸入粉在治疗效果上显著优于使用压力定量吸入器给药的曲安奈德。