首页> 外文期刊>Npj - Primary Care Respiratory Medicine >Comparison of adverse events associated with different spacers used with non-extrafine beclometasone dipropionate for asthma
【24h】

Comparison of adverse events associated with different spacers used with non-extrafine beclometasone dipropionate for asthma

机译:非特细贝氯米松二丙酸酯与不同间隔区相关的不良反应与哮喘的比较

获取原文
           

摘要

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. Asthma: checking up on spacer safety A study of spacer devices for use with asthma inhalers shows no significant difference in the incidence of side-effects between licensed and unlicensed spacers. Spacers offer a way of improving the dose inhaled, particularly in children and those adults who struggle to use asthma inhalers correctly. However, non-extrafine beclomethasone dipropionate (like Clenil Modulite) inhalers are frequently co-prescribed with unlicensed Aerochamber spacers rather than the Volumatic spacer which is licensed for this drug. David Price at the University of Aberdeen, UK, and co-workers analysed data from two historical studies to verify whether Aerochamber use enhanced the risk of unpleasant side effects for patients, such as oral thrush or hoarseness. They found no significant difference between licensed and unlicensed spacers and the chances of adverse events, suggesting both are suitable for use with non-extrafine beclomethasone dipropionate inhalers.
机译:Aerochamber〜(?)垫片与非特细双氯贝米松二丙酸酯(非EF BDP)的共同处方很普遍,但未经许可。我们报告了与处方许可的Volumatic〜(?)垫片相比,患者共同处方Aerochamber吸入皮质类固醇(ICS)相关的不良事件的比较。我们利用两个历史队列:基于问卷调查和基于电子病历(EMR)来评估哮喘处方非EF BDP患者的患者报告和EMR记录的不良事件。根据患者报告的口腔鹅口疮和声音嘶哑的边际效应估计值(MEE),通过计算边缘效应估计值(AEE)与Volumatic相比,其差值为0.13。还评估了其他患者报告的不良事件(咽痛,瘀伤,体重增加和咳嗽),以及EMR记录的不良事件。在385例使用Aerochamber的患者中,患者报告的口腔不良事件发生率不逊于155例使用Volumatic的患者(27.7 vs 29.9%; MEE,≤0.043; 95%CI,≤0.133至0.047)。 Aerochamber和Volumatic之间患者报告的总不良事件没有显着差异(不良事件≥1的患者分别为53.3 vs 49.7%)。基于EMR的1471对配对受试者的研究未显示Aerochamber和Volumatic之间在EMR记录的不良事件数量上有显着差异(不良事件≥1时为12.5对12.8%)。与共同处方Volumatic相比,与非EF BDP共同处方Aerochamber不会增加患者报告和EMR记录的ICS相关不良事件的风险。哮喘:检查间隔物的安全性对用于哮喘吸入器的间隔物装置进行的研究表明,许可的和未许可的间隔物之间​​的副作用发生率无显着差异。垫片提供了一种改善吸入剂量的方法,特别是对于儿童和难以正确使用哮喘吸入器的成年人。但是,非特细的倍氯米松双丙酸酯(如Clenil Modulite)吸入器通常与未许可的Aerochamber间隔器共同处方,而不是与该药物许可的Volumatic间隔器共同处方。英国阿伯丁大学的大卫·普赖斯(David Price)及其同事分析了两项历史研究的数据,以验证使用Aerochamber是否会增加患者口臭或声音嘶哑等不良副作用的风险。他们发现许可间隔物和非许可间隔物以及不良事件发生率之间无显着差异,表明两者均适用于非特细的倍氯米松二丙酸酯吸入器。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号