Suppr超能文献

与使用准纳器吸入丙酸倍氯米松气雾剂相比,使用都保吸入丙酸倍氯米松吸入胶囊的临床疗效和安全性。

Clinical efficacy and safety of beclomethasone dipropionate inhalation capsules inhaled by Cyclohaler compared with Becotide Rotacaps inhaled by Rotahaler.

作者信息

Vink-van Wijngaarden T, Blom-Ross M E, Lansdorp D, Goedhart D M, Eelhart J, Guelen P J, de Vos D

机构信息

Pharmachemie B.V., Medical Department, Haarlem, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1998 Sep;36(9):510-5.

PMID:9760014
Abstract

The study was undertaken to compare the efficacy and safety of beclomethasone dipropionate inhalation powder inhaled by Rotahaler (Becotide Rotacaps, Glaxo Wellcome) and by Cyclohaler (Beclomethasone Cyclocaps, Pharmachemie). Both the Cyclohaler and the Rotahaler are single-dose dry powder inhalation devices for inhalation capsules. 182 asthma patients stabilized on inhaled beclomethasone dipropionate 800 micrograms daily, were randomly assigned to treatment with 800 micrograms beclomethasone dipropionate inhaled by Rotahaler (91 patients) or Cyclohaler (91 patients) in a double-blind manner, using the double-dummy method. It was shown that the asthma remained stable during the 16-week study period with both preparations. There were no statistically significant differences in the pulmonary parameters (morning PEF, evening PEF, FEV1). The test/reference ratio of the morning PEF (99.5%, CI 93.0% - 106.5%) was well within the equivalence interval, which had been set a priori from 85% to 117.6%. There were no marked differences between the Cyclocaps and Rotacaps group in symptom scores and adverse events. A total of 12 patients had an asthma exacerbation: 8 exacerbations occurred in the Rotahaler group and 4 in the Cyclohaler group. The difference was not statistically significant. The use of rescue medication was somewhat higher in the Rotahaler group, but the difference did not reach statistical significance. Significantly more patients (17 patients) withdrew from the study in the Rotahaler group than in the Cyclohaler group (5 patients). In conclusion, there was no difference in asthma control of patients treated with Beclomethasone Cyclocaps inhaled by Cyclohaler and Becotide Rotacaps inhaled by Rotahaler. Both preparations are therapeutically equivalent.

摘要

本研究旨在比较使用罗它哈乐(必可酮旋转式吸入器,葛兰素威康公司生产)和环式吸入器(丙酸倍氯米松环式吸入胶囊,Pharmachemie公司生产)吸入丙酸倍氯米松干粉的疗效和安全性。环式吸入器和罗它哈乐均为用于吸入胶囊的单剂量干粉吸入装置。182例每日吸入800微克丙酸倍氯米松病情稳定的哮喘患者,采用双盲双模拟法,被随机分为两组,分别用罗它哈乐吸入800微克丙酸倍氯米松(91例患者)或环式吸入器吸入800微克丙酸倍氯米松(91例患者)进行治疗。结果显示,在16周的研究期间,两种制剂治疗的哮喘病情均保持稳定。肺功能参数(早晨呼气峰流速、晚上呼气峰流速、第一秒用力呼气容积)无统计学显著差异。早晨呼气峰流速的试验/对照比值(99.5%,可信区间93.0% - 106.5%)完全在预先设定的85%至117.6%的等效区间内。环式吸入胶囊组和旋转式吸入器组在症状评分和不良事件方面无明显差异。共有12例患者哮喘发作:罗它哈乐组有8例发作,环式吸入器组有4例发作。差异无统计学意义。罗它哈乐组使用缓解药物的比例略高,但差异未达到统计学意义。罗它哈乐组退出研究的患者(17例)明显多于环式吸入器组(5例)。总之,使用环式吸入器吸入丙酸倍氯米松环式吸入胶囊和使用罗它哈乐吸入必可酮旋转式吸入器治疗的患者在哮喘控制方面无差异。两种制剂在治疗上等效。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验