Dolovich Myrna B, Ahrens Richard C, Hess Dean R, Anderson Paula, Dhand Rajiv, Rau Joseph L, Smaldone Gerald C, Guyatt Gordon
Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Chest. 2005 Jan;127(1):335-71. doi: 10.1378/chest.127.1.335.
BACKGROUND: The proliferation of inhaler devices has resulted in a confusing number of choices for clinicians who are selecting a delivery device for aerosol therapy. There are advantages and disadvantages associated with each device category. Evidence-based guidelines for the selection of the appropriate aerosol delivery device in specific clinical settings are needed. AIM: (1) To compare the efficacy and adverse effects of treatment using nebulizers vs pressurized metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) with or without a spacer/holding chamber vs dry powder inhalers (DPIs) as delivery systems for beta-agonists, anticholinergic agents, and corticosteroids for several commonly encountered clinical settings and patient populations, and (2) to provide recommendations to clinicians to aid them in selecting a particular aerosol delivery device for their patients. METHODS: A systematic review of pertinent randomized, controlled clinical trials (RCTs) was undertaken using MEDLINE, EmBase, and the Cochrane Library databases. A broad search strategy was chosen, combining terms related to aerosol devices or drugs with the diseases of interest in various patient groups and clinical settings. Only RCTs in which the same drug was administered with different devices were included. RCTs (394 trials) assessing inhaled corticosteroid, beta2-agonist, and anticholinergic agents delivered by an MDI, an MDI with a spacer/holding chamber, a nebulizer, or a DPI were identified for the years 1982 to 2001. A total of 254 outcomes were tabulated. Of the 131 studies that met the eligibility criteria, only 59 (primarily those that tested beta2-agonists) proved to have useable data. RESULTS: None of the pooled metaanalyses showed a significant difference between devices in any efficacy outcome in any patient group for each of the clinical settings that was investigated. The adverse effects that were reported were minimal and were related to the increased drug dose that was delivered. Each of the delivery devices provided similar outcomes in patients using the correct technique for inhalation. CONCLUSIONS: Devices used for the delivery of bronchodilators and steroids can be equally efficacious. When selecting an aerosol delivery device for patients with asthma and COPD, the following should be considered: device/drug availability; clinical setting; patient age and the ability to use the selected device correctly; device use with multiple medications; cost and reimbursement; drug administration time; convenience in both outpatient and inpatient settings; and physician and patient preference.
背景:吸入装置的激增使得临床医生在选择用于雾化治疗的给药装置时面临众多令人困惑的选择。每种装置类别都有其优缺点。因此,需要基于证据的指南来指导在特定临床环境中选择合适的雾化给药装置。 目的:(1)比较在几种常见临床环境和患者群体中,使用雾化器、带或不带储雾罐的压力定量吸入器(MDIs)以及干粉吸入器(DPIs)作为β-激动剂、抗胆碱能药物和皮质类固醇给药系统进行治疗的疗效和不良反应;(2)为临床医生提供建议,帮助他们为患者选择特定的雾化给药装置。 方法:使用MEDLINE、EmBase和Cochrane图书馆数据库对相关随机对照临床试验(RCTs)进行系统评价。选择了广泛的检索策略,将与雾化装置或药物相关的术语与不同患者群体和临床环境中的感兴趣疾病相结合。仅纳入使用不同装置给予相同药物的RCTs。检索了1982年至2001年评估通过MDI、带储雾罐的MDI、雾化器或DPI递送吸入性皮质类固醇、β2-激动剂和抗胆碱能药物的RCTs(394项试验)。共列出254项结果。在符合纳入标准的131项研究中,只有59项(主要是那些测试β2-激动剂的研究)有可用数据。 结果:对于所研究的每种临床环境中的任何患者群体,在任何疗效结果方面,汇总的荟萃分析均未显示不同装置之间存在显著差异。报告的不良反应极少,且与递送的药物剂量增加有关。在患者正确使用吸入技术的情况下,每种给药装置的效果相似。 结论:用于递送支气管扩张剂和类固醇的装置疗效相当。在为哮喘和慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者选择雾化给药装置时,应考虑以下因素:装置/药物的可获得性;临床环境;患者年龄以及正确使用所选装置的能力;多种药物联合使用时的装置使用情况;成本和报销;给药时间;门诊和住院环境中的便利性;以及医生和患者的偏好。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-6-24
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006-4-19
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003
Open Respir Arch. 2025-6-24
CHEST Crit Care. 2025-3
Pharmaceutics. 2025-1-15
Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2024-11-28