Respiratory research · 2024
Effect of low climate impact vs. high climate impact inhalers for patients with asthma and COPD-a nationwide cohort analysis.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Bonnesen Barbara, Eklöf Josefin, Biering-Sørensen Tor, Modin Daniel, Miravitlles Marc, Mathioudakis Alexander G, Sivapalan Pradeesh, Jensen Jens-Ulrik Staehr
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma can be treated with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) delivered by low climate impact inhalers (dry powder inhalers) or high climate impact inhalers (pressurized metered-dose inhalers containing potent greenhouse gasses). ICS delivered with greenhouse gasses is prescribed ubiquitously and frequent despite limited evidence of superior effect. Our aim was to examine the beneficial and harmful events of ICS delivered by low and high climate impact inhalers in patients with asthma and COPD.
METHODS: Nationwide retrospective cohort study of Danish outpatients with asthma and COPD treated with ICS delivered by low and high climate impact inhalers. Patients were propensity score matched by the following variables; age, gender, tobacco exposure, exacerbations, dyspnoea, body mass index, pulmonary function, ICS dose and entry year. The primary outcome was a composite of hospitalisation with exacerbations and all-cause mortality analysed by Cox proportional hazards regression.
RESULTS: Of the 10,947 patients with asthma and COPD who collected ICS by low or high climate impact inhalers, 2,535 + 2,535 patients were propensity score matched to form the population for the primary analysis. We found no association between high climate impact inhalers and risk of exacerbations requiring hospitalization and all-cause mortality (HR 1.02, CI 0.92-1.12, p = 0.77), nor on pneumonia, exacerbations requiring hospitalization, all-cause mortality, or all-cause admissions. Delivery with high climate impact inhalers was associated with a slightly increased risk of exacerbations not requiring hospitalization (HR 1.10, CI 1.01-1.21, p = 0.03). Even with low lung function there was no sign of a superior effect of high climate impact inhalers.
CONCLUSION: Low climate impact inhalers were not inferior to high climate impact inhalers for any risk analysed in patients with asthma and COPD.
METHODS: Nationwide retrospective cohort study of Danish outpatients with asthma and COPD treated with ICS delivered by low and high climate impact inhalers. Patients were propensity score matched by the following variables; age, gender, tobacco exposure, exacerbations, dyspnoea, body mass index, pulmonary function, ICS dose and entry year. The primary outcome was a composite of hospitalisation with exacerbations and all-cause mortality analysed by Cox proportional hazards regression.
RESULTS: Of the 10,947 patients with asthma and COPD who collected ICS by low or high climate impact inhalers, 2,535 + 2,535 patients were propensity score matched to form the population for the primary analysis. We found no association between high climate impact inhalers and risk of exacerbations requiring hospitalization and all-cause mortality (HR 1.02, CI 0.92-1.12, p = 0.77), nor on pneumonia, exacerbations requiring hospitalization, all-cause mortality, or all-cause admissions. Delivery with high climate impact inhalers was associated with a slightly increased risk of exacerbations not requiring hospitalization (HR 1.10, CI 1.01-1.21, p = 0.03). Even with low lung function there was no sign of a superior effect of high climate impact inhalers.
CONCLUSION: Low climate impact inhalers were not inferior to high climate impact inhalers for any risk analysed in patients with asthma and COPD.