首页> 外文期刊>The journal of asthma >Outcomes after periodic use of inhaled corticosteroids in children.
【24h】

Outcomes after periodic use of inhaled corticosteroids in children.

机译:小儿定期使用吸入性糖皮质激素后的结果。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: Many children with persistent asthma use inhaled corticosteroids on a periodic basis. Clinical trials in adults suggest that periodic use of inhaled corticosteroids may be effective for patients with mild persistent asthma. However, scant information exists on the clinical outcomes of children with asthma who are using inhaled corticosteroids on a periodic basis in real-world settings. OBJECTIVE: This prospective cohort study compared clinical outcomes during a 12-month follow-up period between children with persistent asthma whose parents believed that they were supposed to use inhaled steroids either (a) periodically or (b) daily year-round at the start of the period. The clinical outcomes studied were (1) asthma-related emergency department (ED) visits or hospitalizations, (2) uncontrolled asthma based on health care and medication use, and (3) outpatient visits for asthma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study population included children with persistent asthma from two health plans whose parents reported that they were using inhaled corticosteroids during a baseline telephone interview. The interviews collected information on whether the children's parents believed they were supposed to use inhaled corticosteroids on a periodic or daily basis, as well as baseline asthma symptom status, sociodemographic, and behavioral variables. We used computerized databases to identify clinical events for each child during the 12 months after their baseline interview. Uncontrolled asthma was defined as any asthma-related ED visit or hospitalization, two or more oral steroid prescription fills, or four or more beta-agonists canisters filled during the 12-month period. We compared these outcomes between the periodic versus daily users of inhaled corticosteroids using logistic regression analyses. We conducted both (1) a traditional logistic regression analysis in which we adjusted for selection bias by including covariates such as age, asthma physical status, sociodemographic and behavioral variables, and history of asthma-related health care use during the year before interview and (2) an analysis using propensity scores to more fully adjust for selection bias. RESULTS: Of a total of 476 children in the study, 55% of parents believed their children were supposed to be using inhaled corticosteroids on a periodic basis and 45% believed their children were supposed to be using them daily year-round based on the baseline parent interview. At baseline, periodic inhaled corticosteroid users had less severe asthma than daily users based on several measures including better asthma physical status scores on the Children's Health Survey for Asthma (mean 87 +/- 16.0 vs. 81 +/- 17.4, p = < 0.0001). During the year before the baseline interview, periodic users compared with daily users were less likely to have an ED visit or hospitalization (10% vs. 23%, p = 0.0001) and less likely to have had five or more albuterol prescription fills (13% vs. 31%, p < 0.0001). During the follow-up year, those who believed inhaled steroids were for periodic use were less likely than those who believed inhaled steroids were for daily use to have an ED visit or hospitalization for asthma (OR 0.36, 95% CI: 0.18-0.73), even after adjusting for baseline asthma status and other covariates. Similarly, those who believed inhaled steroids were for periodic use were less likely to have uncontrolled asthma, OR 0.38 (95% CI: 0.24-0.62). Analyses using propensity score adjustment yielded similar results to the logistic regression analyses. CONCLUSION: Children whose parents believed they were supposed to use inhaled corticosteroids on a periodic basis had less severe asthma at baseline than those whose parents believed they were supposed to be using them daily. Periodic users were less likely than daily users to have adverse asthma outcomes during 1-year follow-up. This suggests that clinicians may be applying appropriate selection criteria by choosing patients with less se
机译:背景:许多患有持续性哮喘的儿童定期使用吸入性糖皮质激素。成人的临床试验表明,定期使用吸入性糖皮质激素可能对轻度持续性哮喘患者有效。但是,在现实世界中,定期使用吸入皮质类固醇的哮喘儿童的临床结局信息很少。目的:这项前瞻性队列研究比较了患有持续性哮喘的儿童(其父母认为应该(a)定期或(b)开始时全年)每年吸入吸入类固醇的12个月随访期间的临床结局。的时期。研究的临床结果是:(1)哮喘相关的急诊科(ED)拜访或住院;(2)基于医疗保健和药物使用的不受控制的哮喘;以及(3)哮喘的门诊就诊。患者和方法:研究人群包括来自两个卫生计划的患有持续性哮喘的儿童,其父母报告说他们在基线电话访问期间正在使用吸入糖皮质激素。访谈收集了有关儿童父母是否认为应该定期或每天使用吸入糖皮质激素的信息,以及基线哮喘症状状态,社会人口统计学和行为变量。我们使用计算机数据库来确定每个儿童在基线访谈后的12个月内的临床事件。不受控制的哮喘定义为在12个月内进行的任何与哮喘相关的ED访视或住院,两次或更多次口服类固醇处方药或四个或更多次β激动剂药罐。我们使用logistic回归分析比较了定期和每日吸入皮质类固醇使用者的这些结果。我们进行了(1)传统的Logistic回归分析,其中我们通过纳入协变量(如年龄,哮喘的身体状况,社会人口统计学和行为变量以及访谈前一年中与哮喘有关的医疗保健使用史)对选择偏倚进行了调整,并且( 2)使用倾向得分进行分析,以更充分地调整选择偏见。结果:在这项研究的总共476名儿童中,有55%的父母认为他们的孩子应该定期使用吸入性糖皮质激素,而45%的父母认为他们的孩子应该在全年的基线基础上每天使用家长面试。基线时,基于多种测量方法,包括儿童哮喘健康状况调查中较好的哮喘身体状况评分,定期吸入皮质类固醇使用者的哮喘比每日使用者轻(平均87 +/- 16.0 vs. 81 +/- 17.4,p = <0.0001 )。在基线访问之前的一年中,定期用户与日常用户相比,进行急诊就诊或住院的可能性较小(10%比23%,p = 0.0001),并且接受五种或以上沙丁胺醇处方药的可能性较小(13 %与31%,p <0.0001)。在随访年中,认为吸入类固醇用于定期使用的患者比认为吸入类固醇用于日常使用的患者进行急诊就诊或哮喘住院的可能性更低(OR 0.36,95%CI:0.18-0.73) ,即使在调整了基线哮喘状态和其他协变量之后也是如此。同样,认为吸入类固醇可定期使用的人发生哮喘不受控制的可能性也较小,OR为0.38(95%CI:0.24-0.62)。使用倾向得分调整进行的分析得出的结果与逻辑回归分析相似。结论:父母认为应该定期使用吸入性糖皮质激素的儿童在基线时的哮喘病严重程度低于父母认为应该每天使用吸入性糖皮质激素的儿童。在1年的随访期间,定期使用者比每日使用者发生哮喘不良后果的可能性要小。这表明临床医生可能会通过选择病情较轻的患者来应用适当的选择标准

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号