Inhaltsverzeichnis
Neuigkeiten
Veranstaltungen
Abstracts
06.11.01

Aktuelle Abstracts 06.11.2001


Respir Med 2001 Oct;95(10):817-21

Rapid onset of bronchodilation in COPD: a placebo-controlled study comparing formoterol (Foradil Aerolizer) with salbutamol (Ventodisk).

Benhamou D, Cuvelier A, Muir JF, Leclerc V, Le Gros V, Kottakis J, Bourdeix I
CHRU de Rouen, Hjpital de Bois-Guillaume, France. daniel.benhamou@chu-rouen.fr

Formoterol fumarate is a beta2-agonist bronchodilator that combines a fast onset of action with a long duration of action. Its fast onset of action is well documented in asthma but has not been directly compared with that of salbutamol in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted to assess the bronchodilatory effects over the first 3 h after inhalation of single doses of formoterol 24 microg delivered via the Aerolizer dry powder inhaler device (double-blind), or salbutamol 400 microg delivered by a Diskhaler dry powder inhaler (single-blind) in patients with COPD. A total of 24 patients with COPD were randomized [mean age 61.6 +/- 7.8 years, mean forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1) 1.38 +/- 0.32 l and 45.8 +/- 9.6% of predicted]. Inhalation of formoterol or salbutamol resulted in similar increases in FEV from 0 to 3 h post-dose. Both drugs produced similar bronchodilation by 5 min, which became almost maximal by 30 min. The primary efficacy variable, the area under the curve (AUC) of the FEV increase above predose baseline from 0 to 30 min (AUC(0-30 min)), demonstrated significant effects for formoterol (mean 5.89 +/- 4.67 l min(-1)), and salbutamol (mean 6.06 +/- 4.34 l min(-1)), which were not statistically different from each other but statistically significantly higher (P<0.0001) than that observed with placebo (-0.32 +/- 2.59 l min(-1)). In addition, both formoterol and salbutamol produced similar and rapid increases in forced vital capacity (FVC). In summary, this study confirms the rapid onset of action of formoterol and indicates that the onset of action of formoterol and salbutamol are similar in patients with COPD.



Respir Med 2001 Oct;95(10):811-6

Chlamydia pneumoniae infection and acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Karnak D, Beng-sun S, Beder S, Kayacan O
Department of Chest Diseases and Tuberculosis, Ankara University Medical Faculty, Cebeci, Turkey. karnak@dialup.ankara.edu.tr

The objective of the study was to investigate the possible association of Chlamydia pneumoniae (Cpn) in acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. Thirty-eight acutely exacerbated COPD patients and 17 healthy smokers were enrolled in the study, as the study and control groups respectively. Nasopharyngeal swabs and paired serum samples for antibody testing of Cpn (microimmunofluorescence--MIF) were obtained from all subjects. Sputum cultures of COPD patients were also performed. No pathogenic bacteria were isolated from nasopharyngeal swabs in any subject. Serologic evidence of recent Cpn infection was observed in 13 (34%) COPD patients and in one (5%) control subject. The prevalence of Cpn IgG and IgM antibodies representing acute infection were significantly higher in COPD patients than in control subjects (P < 0.05 and P < 0.01 respectively). Prevalence of IgA antibodies and IgG pre-existing antibodies did not show any difference (P > 0.05). Microbiologic culture of the sputa yielded potentially pathogenic micro-organisms in 23 of 38 (60%) COPD patients. Alpha-haemolytic streptococcus (35%), Niesseria spp. (31%) and Candida spp. (9.5%) were most prominent micro-organisms in positive cultures. Although a high prevalence of IgG antibodies against Cpn was detected, it was the sole causative agent in only four (10%) patients. We conclude that a remarkable number of COPD patients (34%) are acutely infected with Cpn and it may either be the sole causative agent or frequently a co-agent in acute exacerbations.



Thorax 2001 Oct;56(10):791-5

Lobar volume reduction surgery: a method of increasing the lung cancer resection rate in patients with emphysema.

Edwards JG, Duthie DJ, Waller DA
Department of Thoracic Surgery, Glenfield Hospital, Leicester LE3 9QP, UK.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines on patient selection for lung cancer resection identify a predicted postoperative forced expiratory volume in 1 second (ppoFEV(1)) of <40% as a predictor of high risk. Experience with lung volume reduction surgery suggests that ppoFEV(1) may be underestimated in those with concomitant emphysema. METHODS: Anatomical lobectomy was performed in 29 patients with a resectable lung cancer within a poorly perfused, hyperinflated emphysematous lobe identified by radionuclide perfusion scintigraphy and computed tomographic scanning. Perioperative changes in spirometric parameters at 3 months were compared in 14 patients (group A) of mean age 69 years (range 48-78) with ppoFEV(1) <40% (mean (SD) 31.4 (7)%) and 15 patients (group B) with ppoFEV(1) >40% (mean (SD) 47 (5)%). The correlation between predicted and actual postoperative FEV(1) was also assessed. RESULTS: In group B there was a significant perioperative reduction in FEV(1) (p=0.01) but in group A FEV(1) did not change significantly after lobectomy (p=0.87); mean difference in perioperative change between groups A and B 331 ml (95% CI 150 to 510). Despite the difference in ppoFEV(1) between the groups, there was no difference in actual FEV(1) at 3 months. In-hospital mortality was 14% in group A and zero in group B, but at a median follow up of 12 (range 6-40) months there was no difference in survival between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Selection for lung cancer resection in patients with emphysema using standard calculations of ppoFEV(1) may be misleading. The effect of lobar volume reduction allows for an extension of the selection criteria.



Thorax 2001 Oct;56(10):779-84

Cost effectiveness of an outpatient multidisciplinary pulmonary rehabilitation programme.

Griffiths TL, Phillips CJ, Davies S, Burr ML, Campbell IA
Section of Respiratory Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Wales College of Medicine, Llandough Hospital, Penarth, Vale of Glamorgan CF64 2XX, UK. griffithstl@cardiff.ac.uk

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary rehabilitation programmes improve the health of patients disabled by lung disease but their cost effectiveness is unproved. We undertook a cost/utility analysis in conjunction with a randomised controlled clinical trial of pulmonary rehabilitation versus standard care. METHODS: Two hundred patients, mainly with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, were randomly assigned to either an 18 visit, 6 week rehabilitation programme or standard medical management. The difference between the mean cost of 12 months of care for patients in the rehabilitation and control groups (incremental cost) and the difference between the two groups in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained (incremental utility) were determined. The ratio between incremental cost and utility (incremental cost/utility ratio) was calculated. RESULTS: Each rehabilitation programme for up to 20 patients cost pound 12,120. The mean incremental cost of adding rehabilitation to standard care was pound -152 (95% CI -881 to 577) per patient, p=NS. The incremental utility of adding rehabilitation was 0.030 (95% CI 0.002 to 0.058) QALYs per patient, p=0.03. The point estimate of the incremental cost/utility ratio was therefore negative. The bootstrapping technique was used to model the distribution of cost/utility estimates possible from the data. A high likelihood of generating QALYs at negative or relatively low cost was indicated. The probability of the cost per QALY generated being below pound 0 was 0.64. CONCLUSIONS: This outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation programme produces cost per QALY ratios within bounds considered to be cost effective and is likely to result in financial benefits to the health service.


Zurück zu Übersicht über Abstracts

Haben Sie eine Frage?
Dann schicken Sie uns
doch einfach eine Mail!

 

Site powered by
M.Prittwitz
&
J.Steier
©2001

  Zurück zum Seitenanfang        Zurück zur Homepage


über uns     Aktuelle Infos     Was ist Emphysem?     FAQ's    Links, Adressen     Kontakt
Diese Web Seite ist von der Health On the Net Stiftung akkreditiert: Klicken Sie, um dies zu überprüfen Wir befolgen den HONcode Standard für vertrauensvolle Gesundheitsinformationen. Kontrollieren Sie dies hier.

Autor(en) der Seite: Dr. M. Prittwitz. Diese Seite wurde zuletzt aktualisiert am 30.09.2005 20:24