布地奈德／福莫特罗联合孟鲁司特钠治疗咳嗽变异型哮喘的疗效观察

目的观察布地奈德／福莫特罗（信必可）联合孟鲁司特钠（顺尔宁）治疗成人咳嗽变异型哮喘的疗效。方法89例患者随机分成3组,治疗组吸入布地奈德／福莫特罗及服用孟鲁司特钠。对照组2组分别吸入布地奈德／福莫特罗或服用孟鲁司特钠。结果3组治疗后的症状积分及肺功能较治疗前均有显著改善。且3组治疗后的症状积分及肺功能比较,治疗组优于布地奈德／福莫特罗组、孟鲁司特钠组;经统计学处理,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论布地奈德／福莫特罗与孟鲁司特钠联合应用在治疗咳嗽变异性哮喘的疗效优于单用布地奈德／福莫特罗、孟鲁司特钠。     

布地奈德/福莫特罗干粉吸入剂治疗成人咳嗽变异性哮喘的临床研究

目的:评价联合应用布地奈德/福莫特罗粉吸入剂及孟鲁司特钠口服片剂,治疗成人咳嗽变异性哮喘的疗效。方法:咳嗽变异性哮喘患者42例,随机分为观察组22例(联合应用布地奈德/福莫特罗粉吸入剂及孟鲁司特钠口服片剂治疗),对照组20例(单用孟鲁司特钠口服片剂),连用4w。在治疗前、治疗2w、4w后分别记录患者的咳嗽症状积分及视觉模拟评分(VAS),比较2组的疗效。结果:两组治疗2w及4w后,咳嗽积分及VAS较治疗前均有下降,观察组下降明显,观察组在治疗2w后与对照组咳嗽积分比较P<0.05;4w后显著下降,两组比较P<0.001。结论:联合应用布地奈德/福莫特罗粉吸入剂及孟鲁司特钠口服片剂治疗成人咳嗽变异性哮喘比单用孟鲁司特钠疗效显著。     

吸入布地奈德/福莫特罗干粉剂治疗轻中度支气管哮喘急性发作的疗效观察

目的 评价布地奈德／福莫特罗干粉剂吸入治疗轻中度支气管哮喘急性发作的疗效。方法 96例轻中度支气管哮喘急性发作患者随机分为吸入布地奈德／福莫特罗组和口服强的松／吸入布地奈德组，在治疗前及治疗后第3、6天行肺功能检查，并观察患者的哮喘症状及体征变化。结果 吸入布地奈德／福莫特罗与口服强的松／吸入布地奈德均能明显改善轻中度支气管哮喘急性发作患者的肺功能和症状，但二者疗效相比无明显差异。结论：吸入布地奈德／福莫特罗可以替代口服强的松／吸入布地奈德而作为轻中度支气管哮喘急性发作的治疗用药。     

孟鲁司特钠联合信必可都保对支气管哮喘的疗效及对血清EOS影响

目的观察孟鲁司特钠(顺尔宁)联合信必可都保(布地奈德/福莫特罗粉吸入剂)对支气管哮喘患者的临床症状、肺功能和血清嗜酸粒细胞(EOS)计数的影响。方法 122例支气管哮喘患者随机分为孟鲁司特钠联合信必可都保组及信必可都保组进行相应治疗,比较两组治疗前及治疗1月后、3月后患者临床症状控制情况、肺功能改善和血清EOS计数等临床变化。结果经过治疗两组均能显著改善患者的哮喘症状,但孟鲁司特钠联合信必可都保组改善更显著、更迅速。(P0.05)。治疗3月后孟鲁司特钠联合信必可都保组用力肺活量(FVC)、第1秒用力呼气容积(FEV_(1.0))改善率和最高呼气流量(PEF)较单用信必可都保组提高有显著差异(P0.05)。治疗后两组外周血中EOS计数均有显著的下降,孟鲁司特钠联合信必可组下降更显著(P0.05)。结论孟鲁司特钠加上信必可都保可使支气管哮喘病人的临床症状得到最优、更快的控制并且显著改善肺功能,将两者联合应用可使作用叠加、其机制可能与外周血中EOS计数减低有关。     

噻托溴铵联合布地奈德治疗轻中度哮喘的临床疗效评价

目的 观察噻托溴铵联合吸人糖皮质激素对轻中度哮喘患者的临床疗效.方法 60例轻中度哮喘患者随机分为两组:噻托溴铵组给予吸入噻托溴铵干粉剂(18μg,每日1次)与布地奈德干粉剂(200 μg,每日2次);福莫特罗组给予吸入布地奈德福莫特罗干粉剂(160/4.5 μg,每日2次).在治疗前及治疗后8 w测定两组症状体征及肺功能变化.结果 治疗后8w,噻托溴铵组及福莫特罗组患者症状体征评分和肺功能指标明显改善,两组间比较,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 在吸入糖皮质激素的基础上加用噻托溴铵,可明显改善轻中度哮喘患者的症状和肺功能,其疗效和加用福莫特罗相当.     

布地奈德/福莫特罗、沙美特罗/氟替卡松治疗中重度稳定期慢性阻塞性肺疾病疗效观察

目的比较长期联合吸入布地奈德/福莫特罗和沙美特罗/氟替卡松对中重度稳定期COPD病人的肺功能、生活质量的影响。方法 60例中重度稳定期COPD病人随机分为规律吸入布地奈德/福莫特罗（160μg/4.5μg）20例,规律吸入沙美特罗/氟替卡松（50μg/250μg）20例,按需吸入特布他林组20例（对照组）。测定三组试验前及试验后6个月圣·乔治（St·George）呼吸疾病问卷（SGRQ）的评分、6分钟行走距离（6-MWD）、肺功能。结果布地奈德/福莫特罗组与沙美特罗/氟替卡松组治疗后较对照组生活质量改善、6-MWD增加、肺功能改善,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）;布地奈德/福莫特罗组与沙美特罗/氟替卡松组间比较,差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论与沙美特罗/氟替卡松一样,规律吸入布地奈德/福莫特罗能改善中重度稳定期COPD病人的临床症状、运动耐力和肺功能。     

布地奈德/福莫特罗对咳嗽变异性哮喘患者FeNO及血浆hs-CRP影响的研究

目的 探讨布地奈德/福莫特罗治疗对咳嗽变异性哮喘（CVA）患者呼气一氧化氮（FeNO）及血浆超敏C反应蛋白（hs-CRP）水平的影响,比较FeNO和hs-CRP两种方法在反映CVA患者气道炎症方面的价值.方法 将25例CVA患者作为实验CVA组,24例健康体检者为对照组.所有研究对象均进行肺功能和支气管激发试验.所有CVA患者接受布地奈德/福莫特罗干粉吸入治疗4周（160 μg/4.5 μg,每12小时1次）,比较治疗前后咳嗽症状总积分、FeNO和血浆hs-CRP水平变化,并进行相关性分析.结果 （1）CVA患者治疗前FeNO和hs-CRP水平明显高于正常对照组（P均＜0.01）.FeNO水平与咳嗽症状总积分明显相关（r=0.602,P＜0.01）.（2）布地奈德/福莫特罗吸入治疗4周后患者咳嗽症状总积分、FeNO和hs-CRP较治疗前均明显下降（P＜0.01或P＜0.05）.（3）治疗后咳嗽缓解患者的基线FeNO水平明显高于未缓解者,且FeNO下降的比例与咳嗽总积分下降比例明显相关（r =0.466,P＜0.05）,而hs-CRP下降比例与咳嗽总积分下降比例无明显相关.结论 布地奈德/福莫特罗吸入治疗4周可以有效改善CVA患者症状,同时降低FeNO和血浆hs-CRP水平.相比血浆hs-CRP水平,监测FeNO在评价CVA患者气道炎症及激素治疗反应方面更有优势.     

小剂量布地奈德/福莫特罗干粉吸入联合茶碱缓释片口服治疗中度哮喘的疗效观察

目的 探讨小剂量布地奈德/福莫特罗干粉联合茶碱缓释片治疗中度支气管哮喘(简称哮喘)的疗效、安全性及药物经济学.方法 选择60例中度哮喘患者,随机均分为A、B两组.A组给予布地奈德/福莫特罗干粉吸入(80、4.5 μg/吸)早、晚各1次,茶碱缓释片0.2g/次、1次/12 h口服;B组给予布地奈德/福莫特罗干粉吸入(160、4.5μg/吸)早、晚各1次.疗程均为12周.观察治疗前后两组临床症状、肺功能、药物不良反应情况,并比较两组治疗费用.结果 两组治疗后临床基本控制率、哮喘控制测试评分、第1秒用力呼气容积(FEV1)和FEV1占预计值的百分比均优于治疗前(P均＜0.01),而两组治疗后比较差异无统计学意义(P均＞0.05).两组不良反应发生率比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).A组3个月人均药物治疗费用较B组低(P＜0.05).结论 小剂量布地奈德/福莫特罗干粉联合茶碱缓释片治疗中度哮喘疗效较好,不良反应较轻,且治疗费用较低.     

福莫特罗、孟鲁司特和溴醋茶碱治疗支气管哮喘的疗效比较

目的 比较福莫特罗、孟鲁司特和溴醋茶碱联合应用布地奈德治疗支气管哮喘(简称哮喘)的疗效.方法 利用观察、前瞻、对比研究方法,选取2014年5月至2015年2月于延安市人民医院诊断为哮喘患者78例,随机分成3组,分别接受福莫特罗(6 μg/喷)+布地奈德(100 μg/喷)联合吸入剂(2次/d,每次2喷)、口服孟鲁司特(10 mg,1次/d)+布地奈德(100μg/喷,2次/d,每次2喷)和口服溴醋茶碱(100mg,2次/d)+布地奈德(100 μg/喷,2次/d,每次2喷).患者在治疗后随访4周,记录治疗前后的肺量测定值包括FEV1和最大呼气流速(PEFR).利用哮喘生命质量问卷(AQLQ)方法评估患者治疗前后的生命质量情况.结果 与基线期相比,在接受4周药物治疗后3组患者的FEV1、PEFR和生命质量均表现出显著改善.3组每两组间比较结果显示,区域A、C和D无明显差异.但在区域B,福莫特罗组患者与其他2组相比能够更有效地控制哮喘症状(治疗4周后AQLQ评分为0.45±0.02 vs 0.61±0.03,0.83±0.15;t=2.18,2.25;P＜0.05).溴醋茶碱组中3例患者有胃刺激反应,而其他组患者无明显不良反应.结论 福莫特罗、孟鲁司特和溴醋茶碱联合应用布地奈德在治疗哮喘方面疗效类似.     

沙美特罗替卡松粉吸入剂联合孟鲁司特钠咀嚼片治疗中重度咳嗽变异性哮喘患者的临床疗效

目的 观察沙美特罗替卡松粉吸入剂联合孟鲁司特钠咀嚼片治疗中重度咳嗽变异性哮喘患者的临床疗效。方法 选取攀枝花市中心医院2016年1月—2018年1月收治的中重度咳嗽变异性哮喘患者100例,采用随机数字表法分为对照组和观察组,每组50例。在常规治疗及短效氨茶碱片治疗基础上,对照组患者予以布地奈德气雾剂联合孟鲁司特钠咀嚼片治疗,观察组患者予以沙美特罗替卡松粉吸入剂联合孟鲁司特钠咀嚼片治疗;两组患者均连续治疗2个月。比较两组患者临床疗效及治疗前后咳嗽症状积分、肺功能指标、诱导痰炎性递质。结果 (1)观察组患者总有效率高于对照组(P0.05)。(2)两组患者治疗前夜间、日间咳嗽症状积分比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05);观察组患者治疗后夜间、日间咳嗽症状积分低于对照组(P0.01)。(3)两组患者治疗前第一秒用力呼气容积占预计值的百分比(FEV1%pred)、用力肺活量(FVC)及呼气流速峰值(PEFR)比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05);观察组患者治疗后FEV1%pred、FVC、PEFR高于对照组(P0.01)。(4)两组患者治疗前诱导痰白介素5(IL-5)、白介素10(IL-10)、嗜酸粒细胞比率(EOS)比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05);观察组患者治疗后诱导痰IL-5、EOS低于对照组,IL-10高于对照组(P0.01)。结论 沙美特罗替卡松粉吸入剂联合孟鲁司特钠咀嚼片治疗中重度咳嗽变异性哮喘患者的临床疗效确切,可有效改善患者咳嗽症状、肺功能,减轻患者气道炎性反应。     

沙美特罗/氟替卡松联合孟鲁斯特钠治疗咳嗽变异型哮喘的疗效观察

目的观察沙美特罗/氟替卡松联合孟鲁斯特钠治疗咳嗽变异型哮喘(CVA)的疗效。方法收集我院门诊及住院的CVA患者96例,随机分为A、B、C组。A组给予吸入沙美特罗/氟替卡松粉入剂50μg/250μg早,晚各1次,同时给予孟鲁斯特钠10 mg口服,每天1次;B组给予孟鲁斯特钠10mg口服,每天1次;C组给予沙美特罗/氟替卡松粉入剂50μg/250μg吸入早、晚各一次。三组疗程均为8周。对比三组治疗前后的临床疗效及肺功能改变。结果三组治疗的临床疗效及肺功能均较治疗前有不同程度的改善(P0.05);治疗后三组比较,A组的临床疗效及肺功能改善明显优于B、C两组(P0.05),B组和C组临床疗效及肺功能改善相当,差异无统计学意义。结论沙美特罗/氟替卡松联合孟鲁斯特钠改善CVA的临床症状及肺功能明显,疗效更为显著。     

苏黄止咳胶囊联合信必可都保治疗CVA的体会

目的观察苏黄止咳胶囊联合信必可都保(布地奈德福莫特罗粉吸入剂)治疗咳嗽变异性哮喘(CVA)的治疗效果。方法将80例诊断为咳嗽变异型哮喘的患者随机分成甲乙两组。甲组:布地奈德福莫特罗粉吸入剂(1吸/次,2次/d);乙组:予以苏黄止咳胶囊(3粒/次,3次/d)联合布地奈德福莫特罗粉吸入剂(1吸/次,2次/d)。观察治疗1周后患者咳嗽症状及治疗1个月后肺功能改善状况。结果与甲组相比,乙组治疗1周后咳嗽症状及治疗1个月后肺功能明显好转(P0.05)。结论采用苏黄止咳胶囊联合布地奈德福莫特罗粉吸入剂治疗咳嗽变异性哮喘的治疗效果更好,值得临床推广。     

孟鲁斯特钠治疗成人咳嗽变异型哮喘的疗效观察

目的观察孟鲁斯特钠治疗咳嗽变异型哮喘（CVA）的疗效。方法收集我院门诊就诊的咳嗽变异型哮喘患者96例,随机分为A、B、C组。A组给予孟鲁斯特钠10 mg口服,每天1次治疗;B组给予孟鲁斯特钠10 mg口服,每天1次,同时吸入沙美特罗氟替卡松粉吸入剂50μg/250μg早,晚各1次;C组给予沙美特罗氟替卡松粉吸入剂50μg/250μg吸入早,晚各1次;三组疗程均为8周。对比三组治疗前后的临床疗效及肺功能改变。结果三组治疗后的临床疗效及肺功能均较治疗前有不同程度的改善（P〈0.05）;治疗后三组间比较,A组和C组临床疗效及肺功能改善相当,差异无统计学意义。B组的临床疗效及肺功能改善明显优于A、C两组（P〈0.05）。结论孟鲁斯特钠单药治疗可以改善CVA的临床症状及肺功能,孟鲁斯特钠联合沙美特罗氟替卡松疗效更显著。     

Comparative efficacy of once-daily therapy with inhaled corticosteroid, leukotriene antagonist or sustained-release theophylline in patients with mild persistent asthma

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of the inhaled budesonide, sustained-release theophylline and montelukast, a leukotriene receptor antagonist, in patients with mild persistent asthma. In this single-center, randomized, parallel-group study that not designed blindly and placebo-controlled manner, 74 patients with mild persistent asthma were treated with either inhaled budesonide 400 microg once daily, oral montelukast 10 mg once daily, or sustained-release theophylline 400 mg once daily for 3 months. In all three treatment groups, improvements were attained in overall asthma control. Asthma symptom scores and supplemental beta2-agonist use were quite the same in all three treatment groups (P>0.05). Although inhaled budesonide group resulted in significantly greater improvements compared with the other two groups in the lung functions (P<0.05), the changes in FEV1 and PEF are within the baseline variability and there was no statistically significant difference among the groups when analyzed by treatment month (P>0.05). Exacerbations of asthma were experienced by 16% of the patients in the montekulast group, by 12.5% of the patients in the theophylline group, and by none of the patients in the budesonide group. The adverse event in each of the three groups was 12%, 16% and 16.7%, respectively. It is concluded that the most important clinical parameters do not point that one of the treatments is more effective than others. Treatment with inhaled corticosteroid is preferred, but sustained-release theophylline and leukotriene antagonists are alternative controller medications in mild persistent asthma.     

Addition of montelukast versus double dose of inhaled budesonide in moderate persistent asthma

BACKGROUND: Although current guidelines suggest the use of inhaled corticosteroids as the first line therapy in persistent asthma, the concerns about high-dose corticosteroids may limit their usage. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of inhaled budesonide plus oral montelukast versus a double dose of inhaled budesonide. METHODOLOGY: Thirty patients with moderate asthma took part in the study. Following a 2-week run in period, the patients were randomized into two groups to receive 400 microg/day of inhaled budesonide plus 10 mg/day of montelukast (BUD + M group) or 800 microg/day of inhaled budesonide (high BUD group). The patients were evaluated at 2-week intervals (during a total treatment period of 6 weeks) for symptom scores, asthma exacerbations, lung function, use of short-acting beta2 agonist, blood eosinophil counts and adverse events. RESULTS: At the end of the study, morning and daytime symptom scores were significantly reduced within the groups. Although there was a significant decrease in the frequency of short-acting beta2 agonist use in the BUD + M group, the decrease in the high BUD group was not significant. During the study period, no patient in either group experienced an asthma exacerbation. Blood eosinophil levels significantly declined in both the BUD + M (0.87 +/- 0.31%) and high BUD groups (0.67 +/- 0.29%) as compared with baseline levels (BUD + M = 2.60 +/- 0.65%, high BUD group = 2.60 +/- 0.47%; P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the addition of montelukast to low-dose inhaled budesonide is as effective as a double dose of inhaled budesonide in asthma control.     

Double-blind, randomised, controlled trial assessing controller medications in asthma

BACKGROUND: The motive behind conducting this study was to determine if better control of asthma can be achieved by adding a second controller medication and to assess its use to reduce the dose of inhaled steroids. OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to determine whether either oral sustained-release theophylline or montelukast added to inhaled steroids improved clinical symptoms and pulmonary function test parameters when compared to high-dose steroids alone. METHODS: Ninety patients with incompletely controlled asthma were allocated, in a randomised, double-blind fashion, to one of three treatment groups: group A: double dose of inhaled budesonide (400 microg b.i.d.), group B: 400 mg oral sustained-release theophylline plus budesonide (200 microg b.i.d.) and group C: 10 mg montelukast plus budesonide (200 microg b.i.d.). The primary endpoints were forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) and mean morning peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR). RESULTS: All three groups had improved FEV(1) and PEFR at 8 weeks (p < 0.001). Group C increased their PEFR by 18.7 l/min (95% confidence interval, CI, 12.4-25.1) more than group A and by 19.8 l/min (95% CI 13.4-26.1) more than group B (both p = 0.001). Similarly, group C had a 114 ml (95% CI 45-183 ml) greater improvement in FEV(1) than group A and a 95 ml (95% CI 26-164 ml) greater improvement than group B (both p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of montelukast to budesonide is safe and results in greater improvement in pulmonary function test parameters than high-dose budesonide treatment or addition of theophylline.     

Improved asthma control with budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler, compared with budesonide alone.

Budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler was compared with budesonide alone, and with concurrent administration of budesonide and formoterol from separate inhalers, in patients with asthma, not controlled with inhaled glucocorticosteroids alone. In this 12-week, double-blind, randomized, double-dummy study, 362 adult asthmatics (forced expiratory volume in one second 73.8% of predicted, inhaled glucocorticosteroid dose 960 microg x day(-1)) received single inhaler budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler) 160/4.5 microg, two inhalations b.i.d., or corresponding treatment with budesonide, or budesonide plus formoterol via separate inhalers. There was a greater increase in morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) with single-inhaler (35.7 L x min(-1)) and separate-inhaler (32.0 L x min(-1)) budesonide and formoterol, compared with budesonide alone (0.2 L x min(-1); p<0.001, both comparisons); the effect was apparent after 1 day (p<0.001 versus budesonide, both comparisons). Similarly, evening PEF, use of rescue medication, total asthma symptom scores and percentage of symptom-free days improved more with both single inhaler and separate inhaler therapy than with budesonide alone, as did asthma control days (approximately 15% more, p<0.001 versus budesonide, both comparisons, with a marked increase in the first week). All treatments were well tolerated and the adverse event profile was similar in all three treatment groups. It is concluded that single inhaler therapy with budesonide and formoterol is a clinically effective and well-tolerated treatment for patients with asthma that is not fully controlled by inhaled glucocorticosteroids alone.