Woo Seong Dae, Ye Young Min, Lee Youngsoo, Lee So Hee, Shin Yoo Seob, Park Joo Hun, Choi Hyunna, Lee Hyun Young, Shin Hyun Jung, Park Hae Sim
Department of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea.
Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea.
Allergy Asthma Immunol Res. 2020 May;12(3):454-466. doi: 10.4168/aair.2020.12.3.454.
Asthma control in older asthmatics is often less effective, which may be attributed to small airway dysfunction and poor inhalation technique. We compared the efficacy of 2 inhalers (fluticasone propionate/formoterol treatment using a pressurized metered-dose inhaler [p-MDI group] vs. fluticasone propionate/salmeterol treatment using a dry powder inhaler [DPI group]) in older asthmatics.
We conducted a 12-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-designed trial in older patients (over 55 years old) with moderate-to-severe asthma, and compared the efficacy and safety for asthma control between the 2 groups. Subgroup analyses on disease duration and air trapping were performed. Clinical parameters, including changes in lung function parameters, inhaler technique and adherence, were compared with monitoring adverse reactions between the 2 groups.
A total of 68 patients underwent randomization, and 63 (30 in the p-MDI group and 33 in the DPI group) completed this study. The p-MDI group was non-inferior to the DPI group with regard to the rate of well-controlled asthma (53.3% vs. 45.5%, < 0.001; a predefined non-inferiority limit of 17%). In subgroup analyses, the proportion of patients who did not reach well-controlled asthma in the p-MDI group was non-inferior to that in the DPI group; the difference was 12.7% among those with a longer disease duration (≥ 15 years) and 17.5% among those with higher air-trapping (RV/TLC ≥ 45%), respectively (a predefined non-inferiority limit of 17%, < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in lung function parameters, inhalation techniques, adherence and adverse reactions between the 2 groups.
These results suggest that the p-MDI group may be comparable to the DPI group in the management of older asthmatics in aspects of efficacy and safety.
老年哮喘患者的哮喘控制效果往往较差,这可能归因于小气道功能障碍和吸入技术不佳。我们比较了两种吸入器(使用压力定量吸入器的丙酸氟替卡松/福莫特罗治疗 [p-MDI组] 与使用干粉吸入器的丙酸氟替卡松/沙美特罗治疗 [DPI组])在老年哮喘患者中的疗效。
我们对年龄超过55岁的中重度哮喘老年患者进行了一项为期12周的随机、开放标签、平行设计试验,比较了两组之间哮喘控制的疗效和安全性。对病程和气体潴留进行了亚组分析。比较了两组的临床参数,包括肺功能参数变化、吸入技术和依从性,并监测不良反应。
共有68例患者进行了随机分组,63例(p-MDI组30例,DPI组33例)完成了本研究。在哮喘良好控制率方面,p-MDI组不劣于DPI组(53.3% 对45.5%,<0.001;预定义非劣效性界限为17%)。在亚组分析中,p-MDI组未达到哮喘良好控制的患者比例不劣于DPI组;病程较长(≥15年)的患者中差异为12.7%,气体潴留较高(RV/TLC≥45%)的患者中差异为17.5%(预定义非劣效性界限为17%,<0.001)。两组在肺功能参数、吸入技术、依从性和不良反应方面均未观察到显著差异。
这些结果表明,在老年哮喘患者的管理中,p-MDI组在疗效和安全性方面可能与DPI组相当。