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