Ease of handling and clinical efficacy of fluticasone propionate accuhaler/diskus™ inhaler compared with the turbohaler™ inhaler in paediatric patients

47Citations
Citations of this article
22Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

A total of 323 children aged 4-11 years who were receiving, or had symptoms indicating a clinical requirement for, inhaled corticosteroid at a daily dose of 400 μg budesonide (BUD) or beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP), or 200 μg fluticasone propionate (FP), were randomised into this multicentre, open-label, parallel group study. Patients received either FP 100 μg b.d. administered via the Accuhaler/Diskus inhaler (n=159) or BUD 200 μg b.d. administered via a Turbohaler inhaler (n=164) for four weeks and recorded daily their morning and evening peak expiratory flow (PEF), asthma symptoms and use of relief medication. Device handling was assessed by a questionnaire, with responses recorded on three- or five-point ordinal scales. The primary efficacy parameter was mean percent predicted morning PEF. The device handling results showed the Accuhaler/Diskus inhaler was rated more favourably than the Turbohaler inhaler in terms of ease of correct inhaler use, ease of telling how many doses were left, ease of knowing whether a dose had been inhaled and overall liking of the device. More patients in the Accuhaler/Diskus group (85%) than in the Turbohaler group (58%) said they would be happy to receive the same device again, while 8% and 25% respectively said they would not be happy to be given it again. In addition, the change from baseline to week 4 of treatment in mean percent predicted morning PEF was greater in the FP Accuhaler/Diskus group, indicating that FP 200 μg daily via Accuhaler/Diskus inhaler is at least as clinically effective as BUD 400 μg daily via the Turbohaler inhaler.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Williams, J., & Richards, K. A. (1997). Ease of handling and clinical efficacy of fluticasone propionate accuhaler/diskusTM inhaler compared with the turbohalerTM inhaler in paediatric patients. International Journal of Clinical Practice, 51(3), 147–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-1241.1997.tb11413.x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free