...
首页> 外文期刊>The journal of asthma >Effectiveness of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol versus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol on asthma control in the Salford Lung Study
【24h】

Effectiveness of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol versus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol on asthma control in the Salford Lung Study

机译:氟辛酮呋喃/类丙酸酯与氟替卡松丙酸盐/萨尔莫特罗对索尔商肺研究哮喘控制的有效性

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Objective: The Asthma Salford Lung Study demonstrated the effectiveness of initiating once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) versus continuing usual care in asthma patients in UK primary care [1]. Here, we report a secondary analysis in a subset of patients with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/Salm) as their baseline intended maintenance therapy, to evaluate the relative effectiveness of initiating FF/VI versus continuing FP/Salm. Methods: Adults with symptomatic asthma were randomised to initiate FF/VI 100[200]/25 mu g or continue FP/Salm. The Asthma Control Test (ACT), Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Asthma questionnaire, severe exacerbations, salbutamol inhaler prescriptions and serious adverse events (SAEs) were recorded throughout the 12-month treatment period. Results: One thousand two hundred and sixty-four patients (FF/VI 646; FP/Salm 618) were included in this subset analysis; 978 had baseline ACT score = 20 and/or improvement from baseline >= 3) were significantly higher with FF/VI versus FP/Salm (71% vs. 56%; odds ratio 2.03 [95% CI: 1.53, 2.68]; p < 0.001 [PEA]). Significant benefit with FF/VI versus FP/Salm was also observed for AQLQ responders, activity impairment due to asthma, exacerbation rates, and salbutamol inhalers prescribed. No significant between-group differences were observed for impairment while working or work absenteeism due to asthma. Conclusions: For patients in primary care, initiating FF/VI was significantly better than continuing with FP/Salm for improving asthma control and quality of life, and reducing asthma exacerbations, with no notable difference in SAEs. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01706198.
机译:目的:哮喘索尔福德肺研究表明,在英国初级保健中,在哮喘患者中,在哮喘患者中发起一次每日氟酮呋喃/维氏醇(FF / VI)的有效性[1]。在这里,我们在氟酮丙酸盐/萨尔米尔(FP / SALM)作为基线预期维持治疗的患者的副本中报告了次要分析,以评估启动FF / VI与持续FP / SALM的相对有效性。方法:患有症状哮喘的成虫随机化以引发FF / VI 100 [200] /25μg或继续FP / SALM。哮喘控制试验(ACT),哮喘质量问卷(AQLQ),工作生产力和活动障碍哮喘调查问卷,严重的加剧,沙丁胺醇吸入器处方和严重不良事件(SAES)在整个12个月的治疗期间记​​录。结果:在该子集分析中包括一千二百六十四名患者(FF / VI 646; FP / SALM 618); 978具有基线ACT得分= 20和/或从基线> = 3的改善),FF / VI与FP / SALM(71%对56%;差距2.03 [95%CI:1.53,2.68]; P <0.001 [豌豆])。对于AQLQ响应者而言,还观察到FF / VI与FP / SALM的显着益处,由于哮喘,恶化率和Salbutamol吸入器规定的哮喘,活动障碍。在工作或工作由于哮喘而缺勤时,观察到损伤之间没有显着的差异。结论:对于初级保健患者,发起FF / VI显着优于持续FP / SALM,以改善哮喘控制和生活质量,降低哮喘恶化,SAES没有显着差异。 ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT01706198。

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