The aim of this open, randomized cross-over study was to compare the efficacy and safety of inhaled budesonide administered either via a pressurized metered dose inhaler with a 750 ml spacer attached, or via a new dry powder inhaler, Turbuhaler, in 28 patients with stable bronchial asthma. During the 2-week run-in period, the patients received their ordinary inhaled steroid treatment. This was followed by two 4-week periods of active treatment with inhaled budesonide given via Turbuhaler or pressurized MDI. The patients were divided into two groups according to their previous, inhaled steroid doses. Group A received 400 micrograms of budesonide b.i.d, and Group B 800 micrograms of budesonide b.i.d. Diary cards were used by the patients at home to report asthma symptoms, beta 2-agonist consumption, and PEF twice daily, as well as the number of coughs experienced in a 5-min period after steroid inhalation. Budesonide Turbuhaler produced a significantly better effect on morning peak flow than budesonide MDI. The number of coughs in the 5 min after steroid inhalation was significantly lower with the Turbuhaler than with the MDI. In all other parameters recorded (e.g. FEV1, evening PEF, histamine PC20 and other diary measurements) there were no statistically significant differences between the two devices. Turbuhaler was significantly more appreciated than MDI in all questions of preference. The study showed that budesonide via Turbuhaler was at least as effective and safe as budesonide via a pressurized MDI at daily doses of 800 and 1,600 micrograms.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Monthring of human reactions to the emission of fmmaldehyde and volatile organic compounds (VOC)from four commonly used building materials was carried out. % building materials were: a painted gvp sum board, a rubber floor, a nylon c w t , and a particle board with an acid-curing paint. % exposures

Many asthma patients seek alternative or adjunctive therapies. One such modality is reflexology, whereby finger pressure is applied to certain parts of the body. The aim of the study was to examine the popular claim that reflexology treatment benefits bronchial asthma. Ten weeks of active or simulated (placebo) reflexology given by an experienced reflexologist, were compared in an otherwise blind, controlled trial of 20+20 outpatients with asthma. Objective lung function tests (peak flow morning and evening, and weekly spirometry at the clinic) did not change. Subjective scores (describing symptoms, beta2-inhalations and quality of life) and also bronchial sensitivity to histamine improved on both regimens, but no differences were found between groups receiving active or placebo reflexology. However, a trend in favour of reflexology became significant when a supplementary analysis of symptom diaries was carried out. It was accompanied by a significant pattern compatible with subconscious unblinding, in that patients tended to guess which treatment they had been receiving. No evidence was found that reflexology has a specific effect on asthma beyond placebo influence.

No abstract

Seventeen patients with perennial asthma, stable on a moderate dose of inhaled steroid, participated in a crossover study comparing the clinical effect of a non-sedative, potent and highly selective H1 antagonist (loratadine 10 mg) with placebo. Each treatment period began with 2 weeks run-in followed by 8 weeks on either antihistamine or placebo. During the 8-week periods inhaled steroid was gradually tapered according to a fixed scheme. One patient was withdrawn from active treatment and three from placebo periods because of decreasing lung function (P greater than 0.1). Among the remaining 13 patients there was a threefold (1.8-4.8) decrease in the bronchial sensitivity to histamine during treatment with antihistamine compared to placebo (P less than 0.01). There was a trend in favour of active treatment with regard to changes in all symptom scores, lung function and use of escape medication, but these differences were not statistically significant. The increase in FEV1 was less than 5% of predicted normal (P less than 0.05). We concluded that the bronchial response to histamine can be attenuated by loratadine, an oral H1 receptor antagonist, but further studies are necessary to assess the clinical usefulness and place of loratadine in the therapy of asthma.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether asthmatic reactions and changes in tear film quality could be prmohd by exposing subjects to missions from building materiuls in climate chambers. Twenty asthmatics and 5 healthy controls were exposed to (I) gypsum board hung with waterbonze painted wallpaper; (2) rubber floor covering; (3) n y h carpet with rubber mat; (4) particle board coated with acid-curing paint; and (5) m test materials in climate chambers for 6 h. Participants recorded symptoms by filling in questionnaires, and clinical data were evaluated by lung Fax No. + 45 35 45 75 49finction measurmts at intervals of 30 min to I h, and external eye examinutwns before and after exposure (appeaTance of foam at geld, smi-quantitative measuremmts of precorneal superjicial lipui h y q break-up time and epithelial damage). 7ha-e was agreement benueen a trained panel's evaluation of perceived air quality and the participants' opinion of in-dooT air quality. No correlation was found benueen lungfinction measurements and exposure to the materials. However, for all materials, statistically significant changes in tear film quality were observed to vay'ng a'egrees. Lipophilic E' olatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) may htabzlize the lipui mulhyer of the tear fluid, and this mechanism is suggested to be at least partly responsible for eye im'tation.

The efficacy of budesonide (800 micrograms b.d.) and beclomethasone dipropionate (750 micrograms b.d.) in controlling the symptoms of asthma, pulmonary function, bronchial responsiveness to histamine, and adrenal function, was assessed in a double-blind, double-dummy cross-over study of 36 adult chronic asthmatic patients. The patients, the majority of whom were assessed to be affected to a severe degree, were insufficiently controlled in their current regimen of inhaled steroids and/or inhaled and oral bronchodilators. A 2 weeks baseline period preceded 6 weeks of treatment with each of the study drugs. Both treatment groups showed improvements from baseline in clinical assessment of lung function carried out after the first 6 weeks of treatment. No significant differences were seen throughout the entire 12 weeks study, when comparing the effects of the treatments on FEV1, FVC, PEF or the histamine PC20. Asthma severity, symptom score and inhaled bronchodilator use showed the same results after both treatments. It is concluded that inhalations of budesonide and beclomethasone dipropionate in high doses are equally potent in the treatment of severe asthma. There is no significant influence on the adrenal function and no significant side effects during a period equal to that of the present study.

Methylprednisolone pulse therapy (MPPT) has been shown to possess a long-lasting effect in other immune-inflammatory diseases without the well-known side effects caused by long-term treatment with glucocorticosteroids. In an attempt to reduce the long-term use of oral steroids in asthmatics, we conducted this double-blind, double-dummy study to compare the use of MPPT (1 g of methylprednisolone intravenously) (8 patients) with a short course of oral prednisolone (10 patients) in asthmatics presenting with acute severe asthma. Both treatments were effective in relieving the acute attack of asthma. The MPPT-treated patients did not show a faster resolution than did the orally treated group. No patients needed assisted ventilation, and no deaths occurred. One week after the treatment FEV1 tended to decrease in the methylprednisolone group compared with the oral prednisolone group (P = 0.06). The patients initially receiving MPPT needed supplementary prednisolone earlier and in higher doses than did the patients receiving oral prednisolone as initial treatment. At the end of the 12 weeks' study period, the groups reached identical FEV1. In conclusion, we did not find intravenous methylprednisolone superior to oral prednisolone in the treatment of acute attacks of severe asthma, but methylprednisolone pulse therapy had a shorter duration as regards protection against future asthma attacks.