Literature DB >> 9293055

Ease of handling and clinical efficacy of fluticasone propionate Accuhaler/Diskus inhaler compared with the Turbohaler inhaler in paediatric patients. UK Study Group.

J Williams1, K A Richards.   

Abstract

A total of 323 children aged 4-11 years who were receiving, or had symptoms indicating a clinical requirement for, inhaled corticosteroid at a daily dose of 400 micrograms budesonide (BUD) or beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP), or 200 micrograms fluticasone propionate (FP), were randomised into this multicentre, open-label, parallel group study. Patients received either FP 100 micrograms b.d. administered via the Accuhaler/Diskus inhaler (n = 159) or BUD 200 micrograms b.d. administered via a Turbohaler inhaler (n = 164) for four weeks and recorded daily their morning and evening peak expiratory flow (PEF), asthma symptoms and use of relief medication. Device handling was assessed by a questionnaire, with responses recorded on three- or five-point ordinal scales. The primary efficacy parameter was mean percent predicted morning PEF. The device handling results showed the Accuhaler/Diskus inhaler was rated more favourably than the Turbohaler inhaler in terms of ease of correct inhaler use, ease of telling how many doses were left, ease of knowing whether a dose had been inhaled and overall liking of the device. More patients in the Accuhaler/Diskus group (85%) than in the Turbohaler group (58%) said they would be happy to receive the same device again, while 8% and 25% respectively said they would not be happy to be given it again. In addition, the change from baseline to week 4 of treatment in mean percent predicted morning PEF was greater in the FP Accuhaler/Diskus group, indicating that FP 200 micrograms daily via Accuhaler/Diskus inhaler is at least as clinically effective as BUD 400 micrograms daily via the Turbohaler inhaler.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9293055

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Clin Pract        ISSN: 0007-0947


  8 in total

1.  Pectus excavatum: studiously ignored in the United Kingdom?

Authors:  R Wheeler; K Foote
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 3.791

2.  How to choose delivery devices for asthma.

Authors:  C O'Callaghan; P W Barry
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 3.791

Review 3.  The limited incorporation of economic analyses in clinical practice guidelines.

Authors:  Joel F Wallace; Scott R Weingarten; Chiun-Fang Chiou; James M Henning; Andriana A Hohlbauch; Margaret S Richards; Nicole S Herzog; Lior S Lewensztain; Joshua J Ofman
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 4.  Inhaled fluticasone propionate. A pharmacoeconomic review of its use in the management of asthma.

Authors:  H M Lamb; C R Culy; D Faulds
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Cost-efficacy analysis of fluticasone propionate versus zafirlukast in patients with persistent asthma.

Authors:  R Menendez; R H Stanford; L Edwards; C Kalberg; K Rickard
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Phase I, single-dose, dose-escalating study of inhaled dry powder capreomycin: a new approach to therapy of drug-resistant tuberculosis.

Authors:  Ashwin S Dharmadhikari; Mohan Kabadi; Bob Gerety; Anthony J Hickey; P Bernard Fourie; Edward Nardell
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2013-03-25       Impact factor: 5.191

7.  A systematic review of economic evaluations of therapy in asthma.

Authors:  Katayoun Bahadori; Bradley S Quon; Mary M Doyle-Waters; Carlo Marra; J Mark Fitzgerald
Journal:  J Asthma Allergy       Date:  2010-08-13

Review 8.  The Diskus: a review of its position among dry powder inhaler devices.

Authors:  H Chrystyn
Journal:  Int J Clin Pract       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 2.503

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.