PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

C Cates

Publications and source records attributed to C Cates.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2002

Cardioselective beta-blockers for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Beta-blocker therapy has a proven mortality benefit in patients with hypertension, heart failure and coronary artery disease, as well as during the perioperative period. These drugs have traditionally been considered contraindicated in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of cardioselective beta-blockers on respiratory function of patients with COPD. SEARCH STRATEGY: A comprehensive search of EMBASE, MEDLINE and CINAHL was performed using the Cochrane Airways Group registry to identify randomised blinded controlled trials from 1966 to May 2001. The search was completed using the terms: asthma*, bronchial hyperreactivity*, respiratory sounds*, wheez*, obstructive lung disease* or obstructive airway disease*, and adrenergic antagonist*, sympatholytic* or adrenergic receptor block*. We did not exclude trials on the basis of language. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, blinded, controlled trials of single dose or longer duration that studied the effects of cardioselective beta-blockers on the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) or symptoms in patients with COPD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data from the selected articles, reconciling differences by consensus. Two interventions studied were the administration of beta-blocker, given either as a single dose or for longer duration, and the use of beta2-agonist given after the study drug. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven studies of single-dose treatment and 8 of treatment for longer duration, ranging from 2 days to 12 weeks, met selection criteria. Cardioselective beta-blockers produced no statistically significant change in FEV1 or respiratory symptoms compared to placebo, given as a single dose (Weighted Mean Difference -2.05% [95% Confidence interval, -6.05 to 1.96%]) or for longer duration (WMD -2.55% [95% CI, -5.94 to 0.84]), and did not significantly affect the FEV1 treatment response to beta2-agonists. Exacerbations and hospitalizations were recorded in all trials, but none occurred during the periods of study, in either group. A subgroup analysis revealed no significant change in results for those participants with severe chronic airways obstruction or for those with a reversible obstructive component. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests that cardioselective beta-blockers, given to patients with COPD do not produce a significant short-term reduction in airway function or in the incidence of COPD exacerbations. However, the trials were small and of short duration. Given their demonstrated benefit in conditions such as heart failure, coronary artery disease and hypertension, cardioselective beta-blockers should be considered for patients with COPD, but administered with careful monitoring since data concerning long term administration and their effects during exacerbations are not available.

Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗
PubMed2001

Chronic asthma.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Administration, Inhalation↗
PubMed2001

Systematic review of clinical effectiveness of pressurised metered dose inhalers versus other hand held inhaler devices for delivering corticosteroids in asthma.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness of pressurised metered dose inhalers (with or without spacer) compared with other hand held inhaler devices for the delivery of corticosteroids in stable asthma. DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Airways Group trials database (Medline, Embase, Cochrane controlled clinical trials register, and hand searching of 18 relevant journals), pharmaceutical companies, and bibliographies of included trials. TRIALS: All trials in children or adults with stable asthma that compared a pressurised metered dose inhaler with any other hand held inhaler device delivering the same inhaled corticosteroid. RESULTS: 24 randomised controlled trials were included. Significant differences were found for forced expiratory volume in one second, morning peak expiratory flow rate, and use of drugs for additional relief with dry powder inhalers. However, either these were within clinically equivalent limits or the differences were not apparent once baseline characteristics had been taken into account. No significant differences were found between pressurised metered dose inhalers and any other hand held inhaler device for the following outcomes: lung function, symptoms, bronchial hyper-reactivity, systemic bioavailability, and use of additional relief bronchodilators. CONCLUSIONS: No evidence was found that alternative inhaler devices (dry powder inhalers, breath actuated pressurised metered dose inhalers, or hydrofluoroalkane pressurised metered dose inhalers) are more effective than the pressurised metered dose inhalers for delivery of inhaled corticosteroids. Pressurised metered dose inhalers remain the most cost effective first line delivery devices.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Comparison of the effectiveness of inhaler devices in asthma and chronic obstructive airways disease: a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are common diseases of the airways and lungs that have a major impact on the health of the population. The mainstay of treatment is by inhalation of medication to the site of the disease process. This can be achieved by a number of different device types, which have wide variations in costs to the health service. A number of different inhalation devices are available. The pressurised metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) is the most commonly used and cheapest device, which may also be used in conjunction with a spacer device. Newer chlorofluorocarbons (CFC)-free inhaler devices using hydrofluoroalkanes (HFAs) have also been developed. The drug is dissolved or suspended in the propellant under pressure. When activated, a valve system releases a metered volume of drug and propellant. Other devices include breath-actuated pMDIs (BA-pMDI), such as Autohaler and Easi-Breathe. They incorporate a mechanism activated during inhalation that triggers the metered-dose inhaler. Dry powder inhalers (DPI), such as Turbohaler, Diskhaler, Accuhaler and Rotahaler, are activated by inspiration by the patient. The powdered drug is dispersed into particles by the inspiration. With nebulisers oxygen, compressed air, or ultrasonic power is used to break up solutions or suspensions of medication into droplets for inhalation. The aerosol is administered by mask or by a mouthpiece. There has been no previous systematic review of the evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these different inhaler devices. OBJECTIVES: To review systematically the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of inhaler devices in asthma and COPD. METHODS: The different aspects of inhaler devices were separated into the most clinically relevant comparisons. Methods involved systematic searching of electronic databases and bibliographies for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews. Pharmaceutical companies and experts in the field were contacted for further information. Trials that met the inclusion criteria were appraised and data extraction was under-taken by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer, with any discrepancies being resolved through agreement. RESULTS--IN VITRO CHARACTERISTICS VERSUS IN VIVO TESTING AND CLINICAL RESPONSE: There is evidence that when comparative testing is performed on inhaler devices using the same methods, there is some correlation between particle size measurements and clinical response. However, the measurements are dependent upon the methods used, and a single measure of a device in isolation is of limited value. Also, there is little data on comparing devices of different types. There is currently insufficient data to verify the ability of in vitro assessments to predict inhaler performance in vivo. RESULTS--EFFECTIVENESS OF METERED-DOSE INHALERS FOR THE DELIVERY OF CORTICOSTEROIDS IN ASTHMA: The review of three trials in children and 21 trials in adults demonstrated no evidence to suggest clinical benefits of any other inhaler device over a pMDI in corticosteroid delivery. RESULTS--EFFECTIVENESS OF METERED-DOSE INHALERS FOR THE DELIVERY OF BETA-AGONISTS IN STABLE ASTHMA: In children, 11 studies were reviewed, of which seven compared the Turbohaler with the pMDI. One study found a significant treatment difference in peak expiratory flow rate, although there were differences in the patients' baseline characteristics. In adults, a review of 70 studies found no demonstrable difference in the clinical bronchodilator effect of short-acting b2-agonists delivered by the standard pMDI compared with that produced by any other DPI, HFA-pMDI or the Autohaler device. The finding that HFA-pMDIs may reduce treatment failure and oral steroid requirement in beta-agonist delivery needs further confirmatory research in adequately randomised clinical trials. RESULTS--EFFECTIVENESS OF NEBULISERS VERSUS METERED-DOSE INHALERS FOR THE DELIVERY OF BRONCHODILATORS IN STABLE ASTHMA: In children, three included trials compared different devices with a nebuliser and demonstrated no evidence of clinical superiority of nebulisers over inhaler devices in bronchodilator delivery. A total of 23 studies in adults found no equivalence for the main pulmonary outcomes and no evidence of difference in other outcomes. RESULTS--EFFECTIVENESS OF METERED-DOSE INHALERS FOR THE DELIVERY OF BETA-AGONISTS IN COPD: Only two studies were included in this review. No evidence of clinical difference was found in beta-agonist delivery. RESULTS--EFFECTIVENESS OF NEBULISERS VERSUS METERED-DOSE INHALERS FOR THE DELIVERY OF BRONCHODILATORS IN COPD: Evidence from 14 trials demonstrated equivalence for the main outcomes of pulmonary function. For other outcomes there was no evidence of treatment difference in bronchodilator delivery. RESULTS--PATIENTS' ABILITY TO USE METERED-DOSE INHALERS: Differences among studies and the heterogeneity of the results make it difficult to draw conclusions about inhaler technique differences between device types. The review of technique after teaching the correct technique suggests that there is no difference in patients' ability to use DPI or pMDIs. RESULTS--ECONOMIC ANALYSIS: The total number of NHS prescriptions for inhaler therapy for asthma in 1998 was over 31 million, with a net ingredient cost in excess of 392 million GB pounds. This economic assessment uses decision analysis to estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of inhaler devices for the delivery of bronchodilator and corticosteroid inhaled therapy. Overall, there were no differences in patient outcomes among the devices. On the assumption that the devices were clinically equivalent, pMDIs were the most cost-effective devices for asthma treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review examined the evidence from clinical trials evaluating the clinical effectiveness of different inhaler devices in the delivery of inhaled corticosteroids and beta2-bronchodilators for patients with asthma and COPD. The evidence from the published clinical literature demonstrates no difference in clinical effectiveness between nebulisers and alternative inhaler devices compared to standard pMDI with or without a spacer device. The cost-effectiveness evidence therefore favours pMDIs (or the cheapest inhaler device) as first-line treatment in all patients with stable asthma unless other specific reasons are identified. Patients can use pMDIs as effectively as other inhaler devices as long as the correct inhalation technique is taught. CONCLUSIONS--RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESEARCH: Further clinical trials are required to demonstrate any differences in the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of inhaler devices and nebulisers compared with pMDIs. These should be of sufficient statistical power and methodological rigour to demonstrate any clinical benefit. Trials should be undertaken in community settings to ensure the generalisability of results. Outcome measures should be more patient-centred and report adverse effects more completely. Reporting of data from trials should be improved.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2000

Continuous positive airways pressure for obstructive sleep apnoea.

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is the periodic reduction (hypopnoea) or cessation (apnoea) of breathing due to narrowing or occlusion of the upper airway during sleep. The mainstay of nocturnal treatment is continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy at home at night to prevent the resulting apnoea, hypoxia and sleep fragmentation which are believed to cause the symptoms of OSA. A number of clinical trials have evaluated the effectiveness of nasal CPAP) as a treatment. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to review the effects of CPAP in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea in adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Medline 1966 to 1996, Embase 1974 to 1996, Cinahl 1982 to 1995 and the reference lists of articles. We consulted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing nocturnal CPAP with placebo or other treatments in adults with obstructive sleep apnoea and an apnoea/hypopnoea index greater than five per hour. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial quality was assessed and data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Study authors were contacted for missing information. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials involving 177 people were included. All the studies had some methodological shortcomings. Six trials were of crossover design. Compared with placebo, CPAP showed significant improvements in several quality of life and depression measures. Patients preferred CPAP to placebo (odds ratio 0.4, 95% confidence interval 0.2 to 0.8). There was no significant effect on blood pressure or measures of sleepiness and sleep quality. Compared with oral appliances, CPAP significantly improved the apnoea/hypopnoea index (weighted mean difference -7.3, 95% confidence interval -10.0 to -4.7) and minimum oxygen saturation during sleep. Patients strongly preferred the oral appliance to CPAP (odds ratio 9.5, 95% confidence interval 4.3 to 21.1). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: CPAP appears to be more effective than placebo in improving some quality of life measures for people with obstructive sleep apnoea. It appears to be more effective than oral appliances in improving respiratory disturbances. People appear to prefer oral appliances over CPAP, but prefer CPAP over placebo.

Adult↗