Antiinflammatory therapy with inhaled budesonide is an effective first-line treatment for patients with newly detected, mild asthma, and it is superior to the use of terbutaline in such patients.
Early treatment with inhaled budesonide results in long-lasting control of mild asthma. Maintenance therapy can usually be given at a reduced dose, but discontinuation of treatment is often accompanied by exacerbation of the disease.
Objective:To compare the effect of inhaled budesonide given daily or as-needed on mild persistent childhood asthma.Patients, design and interventions:176 children aged 5–10 years with newly detected asthma were randomly assigned to three treatment groups: (1) continuous budesonide (400 μg twice daily for 1 month, 200 μg twice daily for months 2–6, 100 μg twice daily for months 7–18); (2) budesonide, identical treatment to group 1 during months 1–6, then budesonide for exacerbations as needed for months 7–18; and (3) disodium cromoglycate (DSCG) 10 mg three times daily for months 1–18. Exacerbations were treated with budesonide 400 μg twice daily for 2 weeks.Main outcome measures:Lung function, the number of exacerbations and growth.Results:Compared with DSCG the initial regular budesonide treatment resulted in a significantly improved lung function, fewer exacerbations and a small but significant decline in growth velocity. After 18 months, however, the lung function improvements did not differ between the groups. During months 7–18, patients receiving continuous budesonide treatment had significantly fewer exacerbations (mean 0.97), compared with 1.69 in group 2 and 1.58 in group 3. The number of asthma-free days did not differ between regular and intermittent budesonide treatment. Growth velocity was normalised during continuous low-dose budesonide and budesonide therapy given as needed. The latter was associated with catch-up growth.Conclusions:Regular use of budesonide afforded better asthma control but had a more systemic effect than did use of budesonide as needed. The dose of ICS could be reduced as soon as asthma is controlled. Some children do not seem to need continuous ICS treatment.
Spacers and valved holding chambers (VHCs) are pressurized metered dose inhaler (pMDI) accessory devices, designed to overcome problems that patients commonly experience when administering aerosol via a pMDI. Spacers were developed in direct response to patient-related issues with pMDI technique, particularly, poor coordination between actuation and inhalation, and local side-effects arising from oropharyngeal deposition. Current clinical guidelines indicate the need for widespread prescription and use of spacers, but, despite their apparent ubiquity, the devices themselves are, unfortunately, all too commonly "disused" by patients. An understanding of the background from which spacers developed, and the key factors influencing the optimization of the spacer and the later VHC, is crucial to developing an appreciation of the potential of these devices, both contemporary and future, for improving the delivery of pressurized aerosols to patients. This review, informed by a full patent search and an extensive scientific literature review, takes into account the clinical and laboratory evidence, commercial developments, and the sometimes serendipitous details of scientific anecdotes to form a comprehensive perspective on the evolution of spacers, from their origins, in the early days of the pMDI, up to the present day.
Background: The I-neb AAD System was designed to deliver aerosol with two different breathing pattern algorithms: the Tidal Breathing Mode (TBM) and the Target Inhalation Mode (TIM). For the purpose of the study, the TBM breathing pattern algorithm was set to guide the subjects to inhalation during tidal breathing with aerosol pulsed during 50-80% of the time spent on inhalation, whereas the TIM breathing pattern was set to guide the subject to a slow and deep inhalation of up to *9 sec with aerosol pulsed for up to 7 sec, leaving 2 sec for particle deposition in the lungs. In TIM, the inspiratory flow was guided to *20 L=min through a built-in resistance in the mouthpiece. Methods: We have, in a randomized, open-label, crossover study of 12 healthy subjects evaluated lung deposition following administration of a radiolabeled aerosol from the I-neb AAD System with the TBM and TIM breathing patterns.
Results:The results showed that mean lung deposition was significantly higher when using the I-neb AAD System with the TIM breathing pattern (73.3%) than with the TBM breathing pattern (62.8%). The mean exhaled fractions were low (<1%) for both breathing patterns. The nebulization time was significantly shorter with the TIM breathing pattern (3.0 min) than with the TBM breathing pattern (4.7 min).
Conclusions:The results of the present study showed that lung deposition with the slow and deep inhalation achieved through the I-neb AAD System in TIM was superior to the lung deposition achieved during tidal breathing in TBM. With the combination of high lung deposition, almost no loss of aerosol during exhalation, and short nebulization time the I-neb AAD System with the TIM breathing pattern should be of special value to patients who require multiple daily dosing of aerosolized medication, are using drugs that should not be wasted into the room air, or would benefit from a more efficient delivery system.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.