The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 1998
Evaluation of a non-chlorofluorocarbon formulation of cromolyn sodium (Intal) metered-dose inhaler versus the chlorofluorocarbon formulation in the treatment of adult patients with asthma: a controlled trial.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Blumenthal M N, Casale T B, Fink J N, Uryniak T, Casty F E
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cromolyn sodium is a nonsteroidal inhaled antiinflammatory agent for the treatment of asthma. As with other pressurized aerosol medications, the metered-dose inhaler (MDI) formulation currently contains chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) propellants. Because of their harmful effects on the environment CFCs are now generally banned from production and use. Alternative propellants under production for MDIs include derivatives of hydrofluoroalkane (HFA). This study uses HFA-227 in an MDI formulation of cromolyn sodium.
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of the study were (1) to examine the efficacy and safety of an HFA formulation of cromolyn sodium (Intal) MDI and (2) to compare the HFA formulation with the CFC formulation.
METHODS: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel study with two active groups (HFA-cromolyn sodium [n = 113] and CFC-cromolyn sodium [n = 107]) and a placebo-treated group (n = 105).
RESULTS: Patients treated with either formulation of cromolyn sodium MDI showed a statistically significant (p < 0.05) improvement of 12% to 18% compared with placebo in symptom summary score, daytime asthma symptoms, and albuterol use. No statistically significant differences were observed in pulmonary function. Patient and physician opinions of overall effectiveness favored HFA-cromolyn sodium over placebo (p = 0.01), with no other significant between-treatment differences. No statistically significant differences existed among groups in the incidence of treatment-related adverse events.
CONCLUSION: The HFA formulation of cromolyn sodium MDI is a well- tolerated and active alternative treatment for asthma patients aged 12 years and more.
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of the study were (1) to examine the efficacy and safety of an HFA formulation of cromolyn sodium (Intal) MDI and (2) to compare the HFA formulation with the CFC formulation.
METHODS: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel study with two active groups (HFA-cromolyn sodium [n = 113] and CFC-cromolyn sodium [n = 107]) and a placebo-treated group (n = 105).
RESULTS: Patients treated with either formulation of cromolyn sodium MDI showed a statistically significant (p < 0.05) improvement of 12% to 18% compared with placebo in symptom summary score, daytime asthma symptoms, and albuterol use. No statistically significant differences were observed in pulmonary function. Patient and physician opinions of overall effectiveness favored HFA-cromolyn sodium over placebo (p = 0.01), with no other significant between-treatment differences. No statistically significant differences existed among groups in the incidence of treatment-related adverse events.
CONCLUSION: The HFA formulation of cromolyn sodium MDI is a well- tolerated and active alternative treatment for asthma patients aged 12 years and more.