高吸入器阻力并不限制哮喘或COPD患者成功的吸气操作。

IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Ville A Vartiainen, Federico Lavorini, Anna C Murphy, Klaus F Rabe
{"title":"高吸入器阻力并不限制哮喘或COPD患者成功的吸气操作。","authors":"Ville A Vartiainen,&nbsp;Federico Lavorini,&nbsp;Anna C Murphy,&nbsp;Klaus F Rabe","doi":"10.1080/17425247.2023.2179984","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>There has been an active discussion on the sustainability of inhaler therapy in respiratory diseases, and it has cast a shadow on pMDIs which rely on propellant with high global warming potential (GWP). DPIs offer a lower GWP and effective alternative, but there has been concern whether all patients can generate sufficient inspiratory effort to disperse the drug. This review focuses on airflow resistance of DPIs and its clinical relevance.</p><p><strong>Areas covered: </strong>For this narrative review, we searched the literature for studies comparing flow patterns with different devices. We also included a section on clinical trials comparing reliever administration with DPI, pMDI with spacer, and nebulizer during exacerbation.</p><p><strong>Expert opinion: </strong>The evidence supports the efficacy of DPIs irrespective of respiratory condition or age of the patient even during acute exacerbations. Air flow resistance does not limit the use of DPIs and the patients were able to generate sufficient inspiratory flow rate with almost any device studied. None of 16 identified clinical trials comparing reliever administration via DPIs to other types of devices during exacerbation or bronchial challenge showed statistically significant difference between the device types in FEV1 recovery. DPIs performed as well as other types of inhaler devices even during asthma or COPD exacerbation.</p>","PeriodicalId":12229,"journal":{"name":"Expert Opinion on Drug Delivery","volume":"20 3","pages":"385-393"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"High inhaler resistance does not limit successful inspiratory maneuver among patients with asthma or COPD.\",\"authors\":\"Ville A Vartiainen,&nbsp;Federico Lavorini,&nbsp;Anna C Murphy,&nbsp;Klaus F Rabe\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17425247.2023.2179984\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>There has been an active discussion on the sustainability of inhaler therapy in respiratory diseases, and it has cast a shadow on pMDIs which rely on propellant with high global warming potential (GWP). DPIs offer a lower GWP and effective alternative, but there has been concern whether all patients can generate sufficient inspiratory effort to disperse the drug. This review focuses on airflow resistance of DPIs and its clinical relevance.</p><p><strong>Areas covered: </strong>For this narrative review, we searched the literature for studies comparing flow patterns with different devices. We also included a section on clinical trials comparing reliever administration with DPI, pMDI with spacer, and nebulizer during exacerbation.</p><p><strong>Expert opinion: </strong>The evidence supports the efficacy of DPIs irrespective of respiratory condition or age of the patient even during acute exacerbations. Air flow resistance does not limit the use of DPIs and the patients were able to generate sufficient inspiratory flow rate with almost any device studied. None of 16 identified clinical trials comparing reliever administration via DPIs to other types of devices during exacerbation or bronchial challenge showed statistically significant difference between the device types in FEV1 recovery. DPIs performed as well as other types of inhaler devices even during asthma or COPD exacerbation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12229,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Expert Opinion on Drug Delivery\",\"volume\":\"20 3\",\"pages\":\"385-393\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Expert Opinion on Drug Delivery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17425247.2023.2179984\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Opinion on Drug Delivery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17425247.2023.2179984","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

关于吸入器治疗呼吸系统疾病的可持续性的讨论一直很活跃,这给依赖高全球变暖潜势(GWP)推进剂的pmdi蒙上了阴影。dpi提供了较低的GWP和有效的替代方案,但人们一直担心是否所有患者都能产生足够的吸气力来分散药物。本文综述了DPIs的气流阻力及其临床意义。涵盖领域:在这篇叙述性综述中,我们检索了比较不同设备的流模式的文献。我们还纳入了一节临床试验,比较缓解剂与DPI、pMDI与间隔剂和雾化器在急性加重期间的应用。专家意见:证据支持DPIs的有效性,无论呼吸状况或患者的年龄,即使在急性加重期间。气流阻力不会限制dpi的使用,并且几乎所有研究的设备都能使患者产生足够的吸气流量。在16项确定的临床试验中,通过dpi与其他类型的设备在加重或支气管攻击期间进行缓解给药比较,没有一项显示设备类型在FEV1恢复方面具有统计学显著差异。即使在哮喘或慢性阻塞性肺病加重期间,dpi的表现与其他类型的吸入器装置一样好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
High inhaler resistance does not limit successful inspiratory maneuver among patients with asthma or COPD.

Introduction: There has been an active discussion on the sustainability of inhaler therapy in respiratory diseases, and it has cast a shadow on pMDIs which rely on propellant with high global warming potential (GWP). DPIs offer a lower GWP and effective alternative, but there has been concern whether all patients can generate sufficient inspiratory effort to disperse the drug. This review focuses on airflow resistance of DPIs and its clinical relevance.

Areas covered: For this narrative review, we searched the literature for studies comparing flow patterns with different devices. We also included a section on clinical trials comparing reliever administration with DPI, pMDI with spacer, and nebulizer during exacerbation.

Expert opinion: The evidence supports the efficacy of DPIs irrespective of respiratory condition or age of the patient even during acute exacerbations. Air flow resistance does not limit the use of DPIs and the patients were able to generate sufficient inspiratory flow rate with almost any device studied. None of 16 identified clinical trials comparing reliever administration via DPIs to other types of devices during exacerbation or bronchial challenge showed statistically significant difference between the device types in FEV1 recovery. DPIs performed as well as other types of inhaler devices even during asthma or COPD exacerbation.

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
CiteScore
11.10
自引率
3.00%
发文量
104
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Expert Opinion on Drug Delivery (ISSN 1742-5247 [print], 1744-7593 [electronic]) is a MEDLINE-indexed, peer-reviewed, international journal publishing review articles covering all aspects of drug delivery research, from initial concept to potential therapeutic application and final relevance in clinical use. Each article is structured to incorporate the author’s own expert opinion on the scope for future development.
×
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