呼吸软雾吸入器与氢氟烷烃计量吸入器:患者偏好和满意度。

Wolfgang Schürmann, Sören Schmidtmann, Petra Moroni, Dan Massey, Mahmud Qidan
{"title":"呼吸软雾吸入器与氢氟烷烃计量吸入器:患者偏好和满意度。","authors":"Wolfgang Schürmann,&nbsp;Sören Schmidtmann,&nbsp;Petra Moroni,&nbsp;Dan Massey,&nbsp;Mahmud Qidan","doi":"10.2165/00151829-200504010-00006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In addition to offering favorable pharmaceutical performance, an ideal inhaler should be well accepted by patients, as this may facilitate compliance. We report a study that specifically assessed inhaler preference in patients with obstructive lung disease after treatment with ipratropium bromide/fenoterol hydrobromide (Berodual delivered via either Respimat Soft Mist Inhaler (SMI) or hydrofluoroalkane metered dose inhaler (HFA-MDI).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with COPD, asthma or mixed disease were randomized to receive ipratropium bromide/fenoterol hydrobromide 20/50 microg via Respimat SMI or 40/100 microg via HFA-MDI for 7 weeks each, in a crossover design. Patients were trained in inhaler use and given < or =5 attempts to demonstrate satisfactory technique. At the end of each treatment period, patients completed a 15-item satisfaction questionnaire, and inhaler technique was re-tested. On study completion, patients were asked which inhaler they preferred and they rated their willingness to continue using each inhaler. Clinical efficacy outcomes were measured by diary card to check whether switching inhaler affected efficacy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 245 patients were randomized and 224 used both inhalers within their respective treatment periods. Of 201 patients expressing a preference, 162 (81%) preferred Respimat SMI and 39 (19%) preferred HFA-MDI (p < 0.001). Patients would rather continue using Respimat SMI than HFA-MDI (p < 0.001). Mean scores for 13 of the 15 satisfaction questions were significantly higher for Respimat SMI than HFA-MDI (p < 0.05); in addition, the total score was also significantly higher for Respimat SMI (p < 0.001). Most patients (217/224; 97%) were judged to have good technique with Respimat SMI after 7 weeks' use. Differences in efficacy measures between the devices were not significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These data indicated that a large majority of patients preferred Respimat SMI to HFA-MDI.</p>","PeriodicalId":87162,"journal":{"name":"Treatments in respiratory medicine","volume":"4 1","pages":"53-61"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2165/00151829-200504010-00006","citationCount":"61","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Respimat Soft Mist inhaler versus hydrofluoroalkane metered dose inhaler: patient preference and satisfaction.\",\"authors\":\"Wolfgang Schürmann,&nbsp;Sören Schmidtmann,&nbsp;Petra Moroni,&nbsp;Dan Massey,&nbsp;Mahmud Qidan\",\"doi\":\"10.2165/00151829-200504010-00006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In addition to offering favorable pharmaceutical performance, an ideal inhaler should be well accepted by patients, as this may facilitate compliance. We report a study that specifically assessed inhaler preference in patients with obstructive lung disease after treatment with ipratropium bromide/fenoterol hydrobromide (Berodual delivered via either Respimat Soft Mist Inhaler (SMI) or hydrofluoroalkane metered dose inhaler (HFA-MDI).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with COPD, asthma or mixed disease were randomized to receive ipratropium bromide/fenoterol hydrobromide 20/50 microg via Respimat SMI or 40/100 microg via HFA-MDI for 7 weeks each, in a crossover design. Patients were trained in inhaler use and given < or =5 attempts to demonstrate satisfactory technique. At the end of each treatment period, patients completed a 15-item satisfaction questionnaire, and inhaler technique was re-tested. On study completion, patients were asked which inhaler they preferred and they rated their willingness to continue using each inhaler. Clinical efficacy outcomes were measured by diary card to check whether switching inhaler affected efficacy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 245 patients were randomized and 224 used both inhalers within their respective treatment periods. Of 201 patients expressing a preference, 162 (81%) preferred Respimat SMI and 39 (19%) preferred HFA-MDI (p < 0.001). Patients would rather continue using Respimat SMI than HFA-MDI (p < 0.001). Mean scores for 13 of the 15 satisfaction questions were significantly higher for Respimat SMI than HFA-MDI (p < 0.05); in addition, the total score was also significantly higher for Respimat SMI (p < 0.001). Most patients (217/224; 97%) were judged to have good technique with Respimat SMI after 7 weeks' use. Differences in efficacy measures between the devices were not significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These data indicated that a large majority of patients preferred Respimat SMI to HFA-MDI.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":87162,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Treatments in respiratory medicine\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"53-61\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2005-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2165/00151829-200504010-00006\",\"citationCount\":\"61\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Treatments in respiratory medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2165/00151829-200504010-00006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Treatments in respiratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2165/00151829-200504010-00006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 61

摘要

简介:除了提供良好的药物性能外,理想的吸入器应该为患者所接受,因为这可能有助于依从性。我们报告了一项研究,该研究专门评估了阻塞性肺病患者在接受异丙托品溴化/非诺特罗氢溴化物治疗后对吸入器的偏好(通过呼吸软雾吸入器(SMI)或氢氟烷烃计量吸入器(HFA-MDI)给药。方法:在交叉设计中,COPD、哮喘或混合性疾病患者随机接受溴化异丙托品/非诺特罗氢溴酸盐20/50微克(通过Respimat SMI)或40/100微克(通过HFA-MDI)治疗,各7周。对患者进行吸入器使用培训,并给予<或=5次尝试以证明令人满意的技术。在每个治疗期结束时,患者完成15项满意度问卷,并重新测试吸入器技术。在研究完成后,患者被问及他们更喜欢哪种吸入器,并评估他们继续使用每种吸入器的意愿。采用日记卡法测量临床疗效,观察更换吸入器是否影响疗效。结果:共有245名患者被随机分配,其中224名患者在各自的治疗期间使用了两种吸入器。在201名表达偏好的患者中,162名(81%)倾向于Respimat SMI, 39名(19%)倾向于HFA-MDI (p < 0.001)。患者更愿意继续使用SMI而不是HFA-MDI (p < 0.001)。15个满意度问题中有13个问题的平均得分显著高于HFA-MDI (p < 0.05);此外,Respimat的总分也显著高于SMI (p < 0.001)。大多数患者(217/224;97%)的患者在使用7周后被认为具有良好的SMI技术。两种设备之间的疗效测量差异不显著。结论:这些数据表明,与HFA-MDI相比,绝大多数患者更倾向于使用Respimat SMI。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Respimat Soft Mist inhaler versus hydrofluoroalkane metered dose inhaler: patient preference and satisfaction.

Introduction: In addition to offering favorable pharmaceutical performance, an ideal inhaler should be well accepted by patients, as this may facilitate compliance. We report a study that specifically assessed inhaler preference in patients with obstructive lung disease after treatment with ipratropium bromide/fenoterol hydrobromide (Berodual delivered via either Respimat Soft Mist Inhaler (SMI) or hydrofluoroalkane metered dose inhaler (HFA-MDI).

Methods: Patients with COPD, asthma or mixed disease were randomized to receive ipratropium bromide/fenoterol hydrobromide 20/50 microg via Respimat SMI or 40/100 microg via HFA-MDI for 7 weeks each, in a crossover design. Patients were trained in inhaler use and given < or =5 attempts to demonstrate satisfactory technique. At the end of each treatment period, patients completed a 15-item satisfaction questionnaire, and inhaler technique was re-tested. On study completion, patients were asked which inhaler they preferred and they rated their willingness to continue using each inhaler. Clinical efficacy outcomes were measured by diary card to check whether switching inhaler affected efficacy.

Results: In total, 245 patients were randomized and 224 used both inhalers within their respective treatment periods. Of 201 patients expressing a preference, 162 (81%) preferred Respimat SMI and 39 (19%) preferred HFA-MDI (p < 0.001). Patients would rather continue using Respimat SMI than HFA-MDI (p < 0.001). Mean scores for 13 of the 15 satisfaction questions were significantly higher for Respimat SMI than HFA-MDI (p < 0.05); in addition, the total score was also significantly higher for Respimat SMI (p < 0.001). Most patients (217/224; 97%) were judged to have good technique with Respimat SMI after 7 weeks' use. Differences in efficacy measures between the devices were not significant.

Conclusion: These data indicated that a large majority of patients preferred Respimat SMI to HFA-MDI.

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
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信