Search

Veronika Müller,1 Gabriella Gálffy,1 Márta Orosz,1 Zsuzsanna Kováts,1 Balázs Odler,1 Olof Selroos,2 Lilla Tamási1 1Department of Pulmonology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary; 2Semeco AB, Ängelholm, Sweden Abstract: The choice of inhaler device for bronchodilator reversibility is crucial since suboptimal inhalation technique may influence the result. On the other hand, bronchodilator response also varies from time to time and may depend on patient characteristics. In this study, patients with airway obstruction (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1]/forced vital capacity [FVC] ratio <70% in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD]; <80% in asthma) were included (n=121, age: 57.8±17.3 years). Bronchodilator reversibility (American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society criteria) was tested in patients with COPD (n=63) and asthma and COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS; n=12). Forty-six asthmatics served as controls. Reversibility was tested with 400 µg salbutamol dry powder inhaler (Buventol Easyhaler, Orion Pharma Ltd, Espoo, Finland). Demographic data and patients’ perceptions of Easyhaler compared with β2-agonist pressurized metered dose inhalers (pMDIs) were analyzed. American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society guideline defined reversibility was found in 21 out of 63 COPD patients and in two out of 12 ACOS patients. Airway obstruction was more severe in COPD patients as compared with controls (mean FEV1 and FEV1% predicted both P<0.0001). Average response to salbutamol was significantly lower in COPD patients compared with asthma controls (P<0.0001). Reversibility was equally often found in smokers as in never-smokers (33% vs 34%). Nonreversible COPD patients had higher mean weight, body mass index, and FEV1/FVC compared with reversible COPD patients. Most patients preferred Easyhaler and defined

BACKGROUND: Oral corticosteroids and inhaled bronchodilators with or without antibiotics represent standard treatment of COPD exacerbations of moderate severity. Frequent courses of oral steroids may be a safety issue. We wanted to evaluate in an out-patient setting whether a 2-week course of inhaled budesonide/formoterol would be equally effective for treatment of acute COPD exacerbations as standard therapy in patients judged by the investigator not to require hospitalisation. METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomised, non-inferiority, parallel-group, multicentre study comparing two treatment strategies; two weeks' treatment with inhaled budesonide/formoterol (320/9 microg, qid) was compared with prednisolone (30 mg once daily) plus inhaled formoterol (9 microg bid) in patients with acute exacerbations of COPD attending a primary health care centre. Inclusion criteria were progressive dyspnoea for less than one week, FEV1 30-60% of predicted normal after acute treatment with a single dose of oral corticosteroid plus nebulised salbutamol/ipratropium bromide and no requirement for subsequent immediate hospitalisation, i.e the clinical status after the acute treatment allowed for sending the patient home.A total of 109 patients (mean age 67 years, 33 pack-years, mean FEV1 45% of predicted) were randomized to two weeks' double-blind treatment with budesonide/formoterol or prednisolone plus formoterol and subsequent open-label budesonide/formoterol (320/9 microg bid) for another 12 weeks. Change in FEV1 was the primary efficacy variable. Non-inferiority was predefined. RESULTS: Non-inferiority of budesonide/formoterol was proven because the lower limit of FEV1-change (97.5% CI) was above 90% of the efficacy of the alternative treatment. Symptoms, quality of life, treatment failures, need for reliever medication (and exacerbations during follow-up) did not differ between the groups. No safety concerns were identified. CONCLUSION: High dose budesonide/formoterol was a