Department of Pulmonology, Semmelweis Medical University, Budapest, Hungary.
BMC Pulm Med. 2011 Jul 15;11:40. doi: 10.1186/1471-2466-11-40.
BACKGROUND: Although patients have more problems using metered dose inhalers, clinical comparisons suggest they provide similar control to dry powder inhalers. Using real-life situations this study was designed to evaluate asthma control in outpatients with moderate to severe persistent asthma and to compare efficacy of fixed combinations of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long acting beta-agonists (LABA). METHODS: This real-life study had a cross-sectional design. Patients using fixed combinations of ICS and LABA had their asthma control and spirometry assessed during regular visits. RESULTS: 111 patients were analyzed: 53 (47.7%) received maintenance therapy of extrafine beclomethasone-formoterol (BDP/F) pressurized metered dose inhaler (pMDI), 25 (22.5%) fluticasone-salmeterol (FP/S) dry powder inhaler (DPI), and 33 (29.7%) budesonide-formoterol (BUD/F) DPI. Severity of asthma at time of diagnosis, assessed by the treating physician, was comparable among groups. Asthma control was achieved by 45.9% of patients; 38.7% were partially controlled and 15.3% were uncontrolled. In the extrafine BDF/F group, asthma control total score, daytime symptom score and rescue medication use score were significantly better than those using fixed DPI combinations (5.8±6.2 vs. 8.5±6.8; 1.4±1.8 vs. 2.3±2.1; 1.8±2.2 vs. 2.6±2.2; p=0.0160; p=0.012 and p=0.025, respectively) and the mean daily ICS dose were significantly lower. CONCLUSIONS: pMDI extrafine BDP/F combination demonstrated better asthma control compared to DPIs formulated with larger particles. This could be due to the improved lung deposition of the dose or less reliance on the optimal inhalation technique or both.
背景:尽管患者在使用计量吸入器时会遇到更多问题,但临床比较表明,它们能为患者提供与干粉吸入器类似的控制效果。本研究通过真实情况,旨在评估中重度持续性哮喘门诊患者的哮喘控制情况,并比较吸入性皮质类固醇(ICS)和长效β-激动剂(LABA)固定组合的疗效。
方法:这是一项真实世界的研究,采用了横断面设计。在常规就诊期间,使用 ICS 和 LABA 固定组合的患者评估他们的哮喘控制情况和肺功能。
结果:共分析了 111 例患者:53 例(47.7%)接受了布地奈德-福莫特罗(BDP/F)精细计量吸入器(pMDI)维持治疗,25 例(22.5%)接受了氟替卡松-沙美特罗(FP/S)干粉吸入器(DPI)治疗,33 例(29.7%)接受了布地奈德-福莫特罗(BUD/F)DPI 治疗。根据治疗医生的评估,各组在诊断时哮喘的严重程度相当。45.9%的患者达到了哮喘控制;38.7%部分控制,15.3%未控制。在精细 BDF/F 组中,哮喘控制总评分、日间症状评分和急救药物使用评分明显优于固定 DPI 组合(5.8±6.2 与 8.5±6.8;1.4±1.8 与 2.3±2.1;1.8±2.2 与 2.6±2.2;p=0.0160;p=0.012 和 p=0.025),每日 ICS 剂量也明显较低。
结论:与大粒径粒子配方的 DPI 相比,pMDI 精细 BDP/F 组合能更好地控制哮喘。这可能是由于剂量的肺部沉积改善,或者对最佳吸入技术的依赖程度降低,或者两者兼而有之。
Allergy Asthma Proc. 2010
Can Fam Physician. 2024-6
J Asthma Allergy. 2023-10-25
Front Med (Lausanne). 2022-5-23
Pharmaceutics. 2021-12-31
Clin Mol Allergy. 2021-5-29
J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv. 2010-6
Prim Care Respir J. 2009-12
Eur Respir J. 2008-12
J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv. 2008-12
J Asthma. 2008-3