创新和非专利沙丁胺醇吸入器的比较:疗效和耐受性的双盲随机研究。

L M Pinto Pereira, Y N Clement, S M Pinto Pereira
{"title":"创新和非专利沙丁胺醇吸入器的比较:疗效和耐受性的双盲随机研究。","authors":"L M Pinto Pereira,&nbsp;Y N Clement,&nbsp;S M Pinto Pereira","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Preliminary feedback from physicians and pharmacists in Trinidad suggests that generic pressurized metered dose inhalers (pMDIs) of salbutamol are not as effective as Ventolin and that they have poor patient acceptance. This study was designed to compare the clinical efficacy and tolerance of two generic inhalers available in Trinidad (Asthalin and Salomol) with Ventolin in stable asthmatics. Twenty-one physician-diagnosed stable asthmatics were administered the inhalers in a Latin-square randomized double-blind study with 80% power to identify differences in forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC) and peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) before and 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2 and 3 h after inhalation. Pulse and blood pressure were recorded at similar time points. Seventeen patients completed the study. Within 15 min basal respiratory function significantly increased following inhalation from all three inhalers with a gradual decline over the observation period. Asthalin produced the highest changes in FEV1, PEFR and the longest duration of effect (p < 0.001). Respiratory function tests did not differ between Ventolin and Salomol. Pulse was not affected by treatments and mean arterial blood pressure fell after Asthalin. Ventolin was not superior to the generic pMDIs in improving pulmonary function. Fifteen patents reported cough sensation after Asthalin. Throat irritation and cough sensation after inhaling Asthalin may negate patient compliance. We suggest that optimizing particle size and cascade impact in the Asthalin inhaler may improve patient tolerance and acceptance with enhanced treatment outcome with cost-efficacy.</p>","PeriodicalId":13940,"journal":{"name":"International journal of clinical pharmacology research","volume":"22 3-4","pages":"73-80"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of innovator and generic salbutamol inhalers: a double-blind randomized study of efficacy and tolerance.\",\"authors\":\"L M Pinto Pereira,&nbsp;Y N Clement,&nbsp;S M Pinto Pereira\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Preliminary feedback from physicians and pharmacists in Trinidad suggests that generic pressurized metered dose inhalers (pMDIs) of salbutamol are not as effective as Ventolin and that they have poor patient acceptance. This study was designed to compare the clinical efficacy and tolerance of two generic inhalers available in Trinidad (Asthalin and Salomol) with Ventolin in stable asthmatics. Twenty-one physician-diagnosed stable asthmatics were administered the inhalers in a Latin-square randomized double-blind study with 80% power to identify differences in forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC) and peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) before and 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2 and 3 h after inhalation. Pulse and blood pressure were recorded at similar time points. Seventeen patients completed the study. Within 15 min basal respiratory function significantly increased following inhalation from all three inhalers with a gradual decline over the observation period. Asthalin produced the highest changes in FEV1, PEFR and the longest duration of effect (p < 0.001). Respiratory function tests did not differ between Ventolin and Salomol. Pulse was not affected by treatments and mean arterial blood pressure fell after Asthalin. Ventolin was not superior to the generic pMDIs in improving pulmonary function. Fifteen patents reported cough sensation after Asthalin. Throat irritation and cough sensation after inhaling Asthalin may negate patient compliance. We suggest that optimizing particle size and cascade impact in the Asthalin inhaler may improve patient tolerance and acceptance with enhanced treatment outcome with cost-efficacy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13940,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of clinical pharmacology research\",\"volume\":\"22 3-4\",\"pages\":\"73-80\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2002-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of clinical pharmacology research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of clinical pharmacology research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

来自特立尼达的医生和药剂师的初步反馈表明,沙丁胺醇的非专利加压计量吸入器(pmdi)不如Ventolin有效,而且患者接受度较差。本研究旨在比较特立尼达两种通用吸入器(Asthalin和Salomol)与Ventolin对稳定型哮喘患者的临床疗效和耐受性。在一项拉丁方随机双盲研究中,21名医生诊断为稳定型哮喘患者使用吸入器,以80%的功率确定吸入前和吸入后0.25、0.5、1、2和3 h的1秒用力呼气量(FEV1)、用力肺活量(FVC)和呼气峰流速(PEFR)的差异。在相同时间点记录脉搏和血压。17名患者完成了这项研究。在15分钟内,所有三种吸入器吸入后,基础呼吸功能显著增加,并在观察期间逐渐下降。Asthalin对FEV1、PEFR的影响最大,作用持续时间最长(p < 0.001)。呼吸功能测试在Ventolin和Salomol之间没有差异。治疗后脉搏不受影响,平均动脉血压下降。Ventolin在改善肺功能方面并不优于普通pmdi。15名患者在服用Asthalin后报告有咳嗽感。吸入Asthalin后喉咙刺激和咳嗽感可能使患者无法依从。我们认为优化Asthalin吸入器的颗粒大小和级联效应可以提高患者的耐受性和接受度,并提高治疗效果和成本效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of innovator and generic salbutamol inhalers: a double-blind randomized study of efficacy and tolerance.

Preliminary feedback from physicians and pharmacists in Trinidad suggests that generic pressurized metered dose inhalers (pMDIs) of salbutamol are not as effective as Ventolin and that they have poor patient acceptance. This study was designed to compare the clinical efficacy and tolerance of two generic inhalers available in Trinidad (Asthalin and Salomol) with Ventolin in stable asthmatics. Twenty-one physician-diagnosed stable asthmatics were administered the inhalers in a Latin-square randomized double-blind study with 80% power to identify differences in forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC) and peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) before and 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2 and 3 h after inhalation. Pulse and blood pressure were recorded at similar time points. Seventeen patients completed the study. Within 15 min basal respiratory function significantly increased following inhalation from all three inhalers with a gradual decline over the observation period. Asthalin produced the highest changes in FEV1, PEFR and the longest duration of effect (p < 0.001). Respiratory function tests did not differ between Ventolin and Salomol. Pulse was not affected by treatments and mean arterial blood pressure fell after Asthalin. Ventolin was not superior to the generic pMDIs in improving pulmonary function. Fifteen patents reported cough sensation after Asthalin. Throat irritation and cough sensation after inhaling Asthalin may negate patient compliance. We suggest that optimizing particle size and cascade impact in the Asthalin inhaler may improve patient tolerance and acceptance with enhanced treatment outcome with cost-efficacy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Good Clinical Practice Multicenter study of hyaluronic acid obtained by biotechnology to evaluate clinical efficacy and safety in knee osteoarthritis. Early and late effect of infliximab on circulating dendritic cells phenotype in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Treatment with oral biphosphonates can increase the sensitivity of sestamibi radionuclide imaging in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism. Telmisartan has the strongest binding affinity to angiotensin II type 1 receptor: comparison with other angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1