Terry Paul D, Dhand Rajiv
Department of Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, University of Tennessee Medical Center, Knoxville, TN, USA.
Pulm Ther. 2020 Dec;6(2):177-192. doi: 10.1007/s41030-020-00120-x. Epub 2020 May 20.
Patients with stable COPD rely heavily on inhaled bronchodilators and corticosteroids to control symptoms, maximize quality of life, and avoid exacerbations and costly hospitalizations. These drugs are typically delivered by hand-held inhalers or nebulizers. The majority of patients are prescribed inhalers due to their perceived convenience, portability, and lower cost, relative to nebulizers. Unfortunately, poor inhaler technique compromises symptom relief in most of these patients. In contrast to one or two puffs through an inhaler, nebulizers deliver a drug over many breaths, through tidal breathing, and hence are more forgiving to poor inhalation technique. To what extent susceptibility to errors in their use may influence the relative effectiveness of these two types of inhalation device has received little attention in COPD research. In 2005, a systematic review of the literature concluded that nebulizers and inhalers are equally effective in patients who are adequately trained to use their inhalation device. This conclusion was based on two small clinical trials that only examined objective measures of lung function. Since then, additional studies have found that maintenance therapy administered by nebulizers could improve patients' reported feelings of symptom relief, quality of life, and satisfaction with treatment, compared to therapy administered by inhalers. Because it has been 15 years since the publication of the systematic review, in this article we summarize the results of studies that compared the effectiveness of inhalers with that of nebulizers in patients with stable COPD and discuss their implications for clinical practice and need for future research.
稳定期慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者严重依赖吸入性支气管扩张剂和皮质类固醇来控制症状、最大化生活质量并避免病情加重和昂贵的住院治疗。这些药物通常通过手持吸入器或雾化器给药。相对于雾化器,大多数患者因吸入器使用方便、便于携带且成本较低而被处方使用吸入器。不幸的是,大多数此类患者吸入器使用技术不佳会影响症状缓解效果。与通过吸入器吸入一到两喷不同,雾化器通过潮式呼吸在多次呼吸过程中给药,因此对不佳的吸入技术更宽容。在COPD研究中,使用这两种吸入装置时易出错的程度对它们相对有效性的影响鲜受关注。2005年,一项文献系统评价得出结论,对于经过充分培训以使用吸入装置的患者,雾化器和吸入器同样有效。这一结论基于两项仅检查肺功能客观指标的小型临床试验。从那时起,更多研究发现,与吸入器给药相比,雾化器进行维持治疗可改善患者报告的症状缓解感受、生活质量和对治疗的满意度。由于该系统评价发表已有15年,在本文中,我们总结了比较吸入器与雾化器在稳定期COPD患者中有效性的研究结果,并讨论其对临床实践的意义以及未来研究的必要性。