Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore.
University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
NPJ Prim Care Respir Med. 2019 Feb 8;29(1):3. doi: 10.1038/s41533-019-0115-0.
Co-prescription of Aerochamber spacer with non-extrafine beclometasone diproprionate (non-EF BDP) is common but unlicensed. We report a comparison of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-related adverse events between patients co-prescribed Aerochamber compared to the licensed Volumatic spacer. We utilised two historical cohorts: questionnaire-based and electronic medical record (EMR)-based, to assess patient-reported and EMR-recorded adverse events in patients with asthma prescribed non-EF BDP. Marginal effect estimate (MEE) was calculated to determine non-inferiority of Aerochamber compared to Volumatic in terms of patient-reported oral thrush and hoarseness with margin of 0.13. Other patient-reported adverse events (sore throat, bruising, weight gain, and coughing), and EMR-recorded adverse events were also assessed. Rate of patient-reported oral adverse events were non-inferior in 385 patients prescribed Aerochamber compared to 155 patients prescribed Volumatic (27.7 vs 29.9%; MEE, -0.043; 95% CI, -0.133 to 0.047). Total patient-reported adverse events did not differ significantly between Aerochamber and Volumatic (53.3 vs 49.7% with ≥1 adverse event). The EMR-based study of 1471 matched pairs of subjects did not show significantly different number of EMR-recorded adverse events between Aerochamber and Volumatic (12.5 vs 12.8% with ≥1 adverse events). Co-prescribing Aerochamber with non-EF BDP does not increase the risk for patient-reported and EMR-recorded ICS-related adverse events compared to co-prescribing Volumatic.
Aerochamber 与非超细布地奈德(非-EF BDP)联合处方很常见,但未经许可。我们报告了在联合使用 Aerochamber 和许可的 Volumatic 间隔器的患者中,吸入性皮质类固醇(ICS)相关不良事件的比较。我们利用了两个历史队列:基于问卷调查和电子病历(EMR),评估了处方非-EF BDP 的哮喘患者的患者报告和 EMR 记录的不良事件。边际效应估计(MEE)用于确定 Aerochamber 与 Volumatic 在患者报告的口腔念珠菌病和声音嘶哑方面的非劣效性,边际为 0.13。还评估了其他患者报告的不良事件(喉咙痛、瘀伤、体重增加和咳嗽)和 EMR 记录的不良事件。在 385 名处方 Aerochamber 的患者中,报告的口腔不良事件发生率与 155 名处方 Volumatic 的患者相当(27.7% vs 29.9%;MEE,-0.043;95%CI,-0.133 至 0.047)。Aerochamber 和 Volumatic 之间的总患者报告不良事件发生率没有显著差异(≥1 项不良事件的发生率为 53.3% vs 49.7%)。基于 EMR 的 1471 对匹配患者的研究显示,Aerochamber 和 Volumatic 之间的 EMR 记录的不良事件数量没有显著差异(≥1 项不良事件的发生率为 12.5% vs 12.8%)。与联合处方 Volumatic 相比,联合使用 Aerochamber 与非-EF BDP 不会增加患者报告和 EMR 记录的 ICS 相关不良事件的风险。