Rajanandh Muhasaparur G, Nageswari Arcot D, Ilango Kaliappan
Department of Pharmacy Practice, SRM College of Pharmacy, Tamil Nadu, India.
Department of Pulmonary Medicine, SRM Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Tamil Nadu, India.
Clin Ther. 2014 Apr 1;36(4):526-33. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2014.02.006. Epub 2014 Mar 17.
There is no comparative study among asthma patients receiving first-line versus various second-line treatment regimens for mild to moderate persistent asthma.
We assessed the pulmonary function in asthma patients receiving montelukast, doxofylline, and tiotropium with budesonide in a pilot group.
Patients were recruited as per the study criteria and randomly allocated to 4 groups to receive budesonide (400 µg) with formoterol (12 µg), doxofylline (400 mg), montelukast (10 mg), or tiotropium (18 µg) for a period of 3 months. Outcomes included forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and rescue medication use.
A total of 167 patients were recruited; among them, 123 patients completed the study. At baseline, no significant difference (P > 0.05) was observed in any of the outcome measures. Significant within-group improvement in FEV1 was observed in all the groups. At day 90, between-group difference revealed that improvement in FEV1 was significantly (P < 0.05) high for budesonide plus formoterol followed by budesonide plus doxofylline, budesonide plus montelukast, and, lastly, budesonide plus tiotropium. Similarly, within-group comparison revealed a significant (P < 0.05) reduction in rescue medication use in all the groups. The intensity in decrease was more in budesonide plus formoterol group followed by budesonide plus doxofylline, budesonide plus montelukast, and budesonide plus tiotropium groups.
On the basis of our findings, among the second-line treatment regimens, budesonide plus doxofylline and budesonide plus montelukast was found to be better than budesonide plus tiotropium in patients with mild to moderate persistent asthma. Further studies with a larger sample size are likely to be useful.
对于轻至中度持续性哮喘患者,一线治疗方案与各种二线治疗方案之间尚无比较研究。
我们在一个试验组中评估了接受孟鲁司特、多索茶碱和噻托溴铵联合布地奈德治疗的哮喘患者的肺功能。
根据研究标准招募患者,并随机分为4组,分别接受布地奈德(400μg)联合福莫特罗(12μg)、多索茶碱(400mg)、孟鲁司特(10mg)或噻托溴铵(18μg)治疗3个月。观察指标包括第1秒用力呼气量(FEV1)和急救药物的使用情况。
共招募了167例患者,其中123例患者完成了研究。在基线时,任何观察指标均未观察到显著差异(P>0.05)。所有组内FEV1均有显著改善。在第90天时,组间差异显示,布地奈德联合福莫特罗组FEV1的改善最为显著(P<0.05),其次是布地奈德联合多索茶碱组、布地奈德联合孟鲁司特组,最后是布地奈德联合噻托溴铵组。同样,组内比较显示所有组的急救药物使用均有显著减少(P<0.05)。减少强度以布地奈德联合福莫特罗组最大,其次是布地奈德联合多索茶碱组、布地奈德联合孟鲁司特组和布地奈德联合噻托溴铵组。
根据我们的研究结果,在二线治疗方案中,对于轻至中度持续性哮喘患者,布地奈德联合多索茶碱和布地奈德联合孟鲁司特比布地奈德联合噻托溴铵效果更好。进一步进行更大样本量的研究可能会有帮助。