1.
Effectiveness of antitussives, anticholinergics or honey versus usual care in adults with uncomplicated acute bronchitis: a study protocol of an open randomised clinical trial in primary care.
Cots, JM, Moragas, A, García-Sangenís, A, Morros, R, Gomez-Lumbreras, A, Ouchi, D, Monfà, R, Pera, H, Pujol, J, Bayona, C, et al
BMJ open. 2019;(5):e028159
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Despite the frequent use of therapies in acute bronchitis, the evidence of their benefit is lacking, since only a few clinical trials have been published, with low sample sizes, poor methodological quality and mainly in children. The objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of three symptomatic therapies (dextromethorphan, ipratropium or honey) associated with usual care and the usual care in adults with acute bronchitis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS This will be a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel group, open randomised trial. Patients aged 18 or over with uncomplicated acute bronchitis, with cough for less than 3 weeks as the main symptom, scoring ≥4 in either daytime or nocturnal cough on a 7-point Likert scale, will be randomised to one of the following four groups: usual care, dextromethorphan 30 mg three times a day, ipratropium bromide inhaler 20 µg two puffs three times a day or honey 30 mg (a spoonful) three times a day, all taken for up to 14 days. The exclusion criteria will be pneumonia, criteria for hospital admission, pregnancy or lactation, concomitant pulmonary disease, associated significant comorbidity, allergy, intolerance or contraindication to any of the study drugs or admitted to a long-term residence. SAMPLE 668 patients. The primary outcome will be the number of days with moderate-to-severe cough. All patients will be given a paper-based symptom diary to be self-administered. A second visit will be scheduled at day 2 or 3 for assessing evolution, with two more visits at days 15 and 29 for clinical assessment, evaluation of adverse effects, re-attendance and complications. Patients still with symptoms at day 29 will be called 6 weeks after the baseline visit. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION The study has been approved by the Ethical Board of IDIAP Jordi Gol (reference number: AC18/002). The findings of this trial will be disseminated through research conferences and peer-review journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT03738917; Pre-results.
2.
Respimat Soft Mist inhaler versus hydrofluoroalkane metered dose inhaler: patient preference and satisfaction.
Schürmann, W, Schmidtmann, S, Moroni, P, Massey, D, Qidan, M
Treatments in respiratory medicine. 2005;(1):53-61
Abstract
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.
3.
Comparison of the safety of drug delivery via HFA- and CFC-metered dose inhalers in CAO.
Huchon, G, Hofbauer, P, Cannizzaro, G, Iacono, P, Wald, F
The European respiratory journal. 2000;(4):663-9
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare the long-term safety of a fixed combination of fenoterol hydrobromide (50 microg) and ipratropium bromide (20 microg) delivered using a metered dose inhaler (MDI) formulated with a non-chlorinated propellant, hydrofluoroalkanel34a (HFA-MDI), with delivery using the conventional chlorofluorocarbon propellant (CFC-MDI, Berodual/Bronchodual). The study was designed according to Safety Assessment of Marketed Medicines (SAMM) guidelines, to reflect as far as possible the use of MDls under normal prescribing conditions. Two thousand and twenty-seven patients with chronic airways obstruction (CAO) were enrolled from 99 centres in France, 95 centres in Germany and 24 centres in Italy. Following a 2-week run-in period, patients were randomized on a 2:1 basis (1,348 patients to HFA-MDI, 679 patients to CFC-MDI) to receive a flexible dose regimen of the combination (2 puffs, 2-4 times a day, as prescribed by the investigator) during a 12-week open label phase. The overall incidence of adverse events was comparable between both groups. In addition, the incidence of respiratory side effects was also similar, with CAO exacerbations or bronchitis the most frequently recorded events. The safety profile of the HFA formulation was comparable to those of the marketed CFC-MDIs used in Germany and France/Italy. No clinically significant differences were detected between HFA134a or CFC driven inhalers on the switch from CFC- to HFA-MDI (2 weeks before randomisation versus 2 weeks after randomization). There was a trend for taste complaints to be reported more frequently by patients in the HFA-MDI group (0.7% before randomization versus 3.4% after randomization). This, however, was an expected finding as the HFA134a formulation does have a different taste to the CFC formulation. No difference between formulations was observed in the incidences of coughing or paradoxical bronchospasm. The incidence of falls in FEV1 >15% within 15 min following inhalation at each of the clinic visits was 1.2% for both CFC- and HFA-MDIs. In conclusion, administration of a fenoterol/ipratropium bromide combination via hydrofluoroalkane-metered dose inhaler is as safe as delivery by the currently available chlorofluorocarbon-metered dose inhaler, in an extended population of patients with CAO under normal prescribing conditions.