We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
REVIEW
Pressurised metered-dose inhalers versus all other hand-held inhalers devices to deliver bronchodilators for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
BACKGROUND: Bronchodilator therapy for COPD may be delivered by a number of different inhaler devices.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of pressurised metered dose inhalers (pMDI) compared to any other handheld inhaler device for the delivery of bronchodilators in non-acute COPD.
SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Collaboration, Asthma and Wheeze Randomised Controlled Clinical Trials register was searched for studies. The UK pharmaceutical companies who manufacture inhaled COPD medication were also contacted.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Two reviewers independently reviewed the results of computerised search and any potentially relevant articles were obtained in full.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One reviewer extracted details of each trial and a second reviewer checked all extracted data. Dichotomous outcomes such as exacerbation rate were assessed using relative risk, with 95% confidence interval (CI).
MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen studies appeared potentially relevant but only three studies (61 patients) met the entry criteria. Two studies compared a dry powder device (Turbuhaler or Rotahaler) with a pMDI for beta2-agonist delivery, and one (36 patients cross-over design) the Respimat (soft mist device for ipratropium) vs a pMDI. For the Turbuhaler and Rotahaler, none of the reported outcome measures were significantly different. The Rotahaler study used a high and low dose of medication with or without large volume spacer. The study using the Respimat showed significant increases in FEV1 when compared to a pMDI (difference in change from base line 70 ml, 95% CI 10, 130 ml). The effect on change in FVC was of similar size. There were no differences between these two devices for any other reported outcomes. Although none of the included studies required prior patient ability to use any of the inhalers (and no study mentioned device training), it was assumed that all patients randomised into the study would have undergone training in use of the study inhalers and were capable of using those devices.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stable COPD, pMDI produced similar outcomes to a dry powder device for delivering beta2-agonists, but the very small number of studies and included patients does not permit firm conclusions to be drawn. The soft mist device for ipratropium was more effective than a pMDI, but the data come from one small study. There need to be further well designed randomised controlled trials to define the role of inhaler devices using bronchodilators in stable COPD.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of pressurised metered dose inhalers (pMDI) compared to any other handheld inhaler device for the delivery of bronchodilators in non-acute COPD.
SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Collaboration, Asthma and Wheeze Randomised Controlled Clinical Trials register was searched for studies. The UK pharmaceutical companies who manufacture inhaled COPD medication were also contacted.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Two reviewers independently reviewed the results of computerised search and any potentially relevant articles were obtained in full.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One reviewer extracted details of each trial and a second reviewer checked all extracted data. Dichotomous outcomes such as exacerbation rate were assessed using relative risk, with 95% confidence interval (CI).
MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen studies appeared potentially relevant but only three studies (61 patients) met the entry criteria. Two studies compared a dry powder device (Turbuhaler or Rotahaler) with a pMDI for beta2-agonist delivery, and one (36 patients cross-over design) the Respimat (soft mist device for ipratropium) vs a pMDI. For the Turbuhaler and Rotahaler, none of the reported outcome measures were significantly different. The Rotahaler study used a high and low dose of medication with or without large volume spacer. The study using the Respimat showed significant increases in FEV1 when compared to a pMDI (difference in change from base line 70 ml, 95% CI 10, 130 ml). The effect on change in FVC was of similar size. There were no differences between these two devices for any other reported outcomes. Although none of the included studies required prior patient ability to use any of the inhalers (and no study mentioned device training), it was assumed that all patients randomised into the study would have undergone training in use of the study inhalers and were capable of using those devices.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stable COPD, pMDI produced similar outcomes to a dry powder device for delivering beta2-agonists, but the very small number of studies and included patients does not permit firm conclusions to be drawn. The soft mist device for ipratropium was more effective than a pMDI, but the data come from one small study. There need to be further well designed randomised controlled trials to define the role of inhaler devices using bronchodilators in stable COPD.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app