DRUG-DELIVERY IN ASTHMA - A COMPARISON OF SPACERS WITH A JET NEBULIZER

被引：11

作者：

GIBSON, PG ^{[1
]}

WLODARCZYK, JH ^{[1
]}

BORGAS, T ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] NEWCASTLE ENVIRONM TOXICOL RES UNIT,NEWCASTLE,NSW,AUSTRALIA

来源：

AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE | 1995年 / 25卷 / 04期

关键词：

SPACER; ASTHMA; BRONCHODILATOR; NEBULIZATION;

D O I：

10.1111/j.1445-5994.1995.tb01897.x

中图分类号：

R5 [内科学];

学科分类号：

1002 ; 100201 ;

摘要：

Background: Although spacer devices are frequently used for aerosol therapy in asthma, the commonly used spacers have undergone little controlled evaluation, and their relation to nebuliser therapy is unclear. Aims: The aims of this study were to compare three delivery methods (Breath-A-Tech spacer, Volumatic spacer and jet nebuliser) for the administration of salbutamol to reverse acute histamine induced airway narrowing in asthma (Study 1); and to assess asthma control during two weeks use of inhaled therapy via Volumatic or Breath-A-Tech spacer (Study 2). Methods: A randomised double-blind cross-over comparison was conducted. In Study 1, 27 adults with stable asthma who were currently using pressurised metered dose inhaler therapy attended for three study days. On each study day subjects inhaled doubling doses of histamine and were randomised to receive: (a) salbutamol 200 mu g via Breath-A-Tech spacer and placebo 200 mu g via Volumatic spacer; (b) placebo two puffs via Breath-A-Tech spacer and salbutamol 200 mu g via Volumatic spacer; or (c) salbutamol 1 mg in 2 mt saline via jet nebuliser. FEV(1) and FEF 25-75% were measured at euro minute intervals for 20 minutes. In Study 2, subjects were randomised to use regular asthma medication by Volumatic or Breath-A-Tech spacers and recorded symptoms and peak expiratory flow (PEF) in a daily diary. Results: Lung function improved from a baseline FEV(1) of 51% predicted to 72% after salbutamol inhalation from each of the delivery systems. The spacers and nebulisers produced the same maximum improvement in FEV(1), however, lung function improved more rapidly when salbutamol was delivered by spacer. There was no difference in asthma control comparing inhaler use via Breath-A-Tech with Volumatic spacer over two weeks use. Subject preference favoured the Breath-A-Tech spacer (72% vs 4%). Conclusions: The Volumatic and Breath-A-Tech spacer devices are effective delivery systems in asthma and may offer a more rapid response than jet nebulisation at a lower cost.

引用

页码：324 / 329

页数：6

共 18 条

[1]

Newhouse MT, Dolovich MB, Control of asthma by aerosols, N Engl J Med, 315, pp. 870-874, (1986)

[2]

Gibson PG, Talbot PI, Hancock J, Hensley MJ., A prospective audit of asthma management following emergency asthma treatment at a teaching hospital, Med J Aust, 158, pp. 775-778, (1993)

[3]

Freelander N, Van Asperen PP., Nebuhaler, Versus nebuliser in children with acute asthma, Br Med J, 288, pp. 1873-1874, (1984)

[4]

Salzman GA, Steele MT, Pribble JT, Elenbaas RM, Pyszczynski DR, Aerosolised metaproterenol in the treatment of asthmatics with severe airflow obstructions, Comparison of two delivery methods. Chest, 95, pp. 1017-1020, (1989)

[5]

Guidelines for management of asthma in adults: II Acute severe asthma, Br Med J, 301, pp. 797-800, (1990)

[6]

Yan K, Salome C, Woolcock AJ., Rapid method for measurement of bronchial responsiveness, Thorax, 38, pp. 760-765, (1983)

[7]

Quanjer PH, Standardised lung function testing, Bull Europ Physiopath Resp, 19, pp. 1-95, (1983)

[8]

Gibson PG, Wong BJO, Hepperle MJG, Et al., A research method to induce and examine a mild exacerbation of asthma, Clin Exp Allergy, 22, pp. 525-532, (1992)

[9]

Kradjan WA, Lakshminarayan S, Efficacy of air compressor‐driven nebulisers, Chest, 87, pp. 512-516, (1985)

[10]

Morgan MDL, Singh BV, Frame MH, Williams SJ., Terbuta‐line aerosol given through pear spacer in acute severe asthma, Br Med J, 285, pp. 849-850, (1982)

← 1 2 →