首页> 外文期刊>Evidence-based nursing >Review: various devices for delivery of aerosol treatment can be equally efficacious
【24h】

Review: various devices for delivery of aerosol treatment can be equally efficacious

机译:综述:各种用于气雾剂治疗的设备都可以同样有效

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

The meta-analysis by Dolovich ei al included 59 RCTs and showed equivalent improvement in pulmonary function with different inhaled medication delivery devices. Of particular importance was that no differences were noted in the effectiveness of nebulisation compared with delivery by MDIs with spacers. Use of MDIs alone was not studied in most of the reviewed trials, and evidence of their effectiveness when used without spacers is weak. The findings have implications for practice in that other qualitative or individual level factors can be considered when determining which devices to prescribe. The authors note that patients' skills in using medication devices were not assessed in these individual trials. This is an important consideration given the association between poor inhaler technique and reduced medication delivery and the improvements in inhaler technique that can be obtained with training.1 The authors' recommendation to select, when feasible, the same medication delivery device for different prescribed medications in a given patient is sound and practical advice in that patient education is limited to one device. This could facilitate patient skill acquisition and reduce variability in technique over time and between medications. The findings of equivalence of device effectiveness can eliminate both patient and provider concerns about out-of-pocket medication costs as lower cost options can be selected if appropriate. A further consideration in medication and delivery selection is patient preference. Given that medication delivery is equally effective, prescribing according to a patient's preference may in fact improve treatment adherence. Rather than narrowing the options available to practitioners and patients, the results of this meta-analysis support a wide range of medication delivery options, such that other qualitative factors can be considered when making treatment decisions.
机译:Dolovich等人的荟萃分析包括59项RCT,并显示了使用不同的吸入药物输送装置后肺功能的等效改善。尤为重要的是,与带有间隔件的MDI相比,雾化效果没有发现差异。在大多数回顾性试验中,未单独研究MDI的使用,并且在不使用间隔基的情况下其有效性的证据很薄。该发现对实践具有影响,因为在确定要开哪些设备时可以考虑其他定性或个人水平因素。作者指出,这些个人试验并未评估患者使用药物治疗设备的技能。考虑到吸入器技术不佳和药物输送减少之间的关联以及通过培训可以获得的吸入器技术的改进,这是一个重要的考虑因素。1作者的建议是,在可行的情况下,为不同的处方药选择相同的药物输送装置。给定患者的声音是切实可行的建议,因为患者教育仅限于一种设备。这可以促进患者技能的获取,并减少技术随时间推移以及药物治疗之间的差异。等效设备有效性的发现可以消除患者和医护人员对自付费用药物成本的担忧,因为如果合适,可以选择较低的成本选项。药物和分娩选择的另一个考虑因素是患者的偏爱。鉴于药物输送同样有效,根据患者的喜好开处方实际上可以改善治疗依从性。这项荟萃分析的结果并未缩小从业人员和患者的选择范围,而是支持广泛的药物输送选择,因此在制定治疗决策时可以考虑其他定性因素。

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