• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Pulmonary therapy. >A Retrospective Study of the Effectiveness of the AeroChamber Plus ? Flow-Vu ? Antistatic Valved Holding Chamber for Asthma Control
【24h】

A Retrospective Study of the Effectiveness of the AeroChamber Plus ? Flow-Vu ? Antistatic Valved Holding Chamber for Asthma Control

机译：AeroChamber Plus有效性的回顾性研究？流Vu？用于哮喘控制的防静电带阀保持室

获取原文
       
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

IntroductionElectrostatic charge in valved holding chambers (VHCs) may lead to inconsistent metered-dose inhaler (MDI) asthma drug delivery. We compared the AeroChamber Plus? Flow Vu? Antistatic Valved Holding Chamber (AC+FV AVHC) with non-antistatic control VHCs in terms of asthma exacerbations, resource use, and cost in an asthma population. MethodsPatients included in an adjudicated claims database with AC+FV AVHC or non-antistatic VHC (control VHC) use between 1/2010 and 8/2015 (index) who were treated with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) or a combination of an ICS and a long-acting β2 agonist MDI within 60?days before or after the index date, were diagnosed with asthma, and had ≥12?months of pre- and ≥30?days of post-index health plan enrollment were included. Cohorts were matched 1:1 using propensity scores. We compared incidence rates (IR) of exacerbation, time to first exacerbation using Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, occurrence of exacerbations, and healthcare resource use and costs using generalized linear models. Results9325 patients in each cohort were identified. The IR of exacerbations per 100?person-days (95% CI) was significantly higher in the control VHC cohort than the AC+FV AVHC cohort [0.161 (0.150–0.172) vs. 0.137 (0.128–0.147)]. A higher proportion of exacerbation-free patients was observed in the AC+FV AVHC cohort. Among the 4293 patients in each cohort with ≥12?months of follow-up, AC+FV AVHC patients were found to be 10–12% less likely than control VHC patients to experience an exacerbation throughout the study period. A lower proportion of the AC+FV AVHC patients had an ED visit compared to the control VHC patients (10.8% vs. 12.4%). Exacerbation-related costs for the AC+FV AVHC cohort were 23%, 25%, 20%, and 12% lower than those for the control VHC cohort at 1, 6, 9, and 12?months, respectively. ConclusionsThe AC+FV AVHC was associated with lower exacerbation rates, delayed time to first exacerbation, and lower exacerbation-related costs when compared to control non-antistatic VHCs.
机译：简介带阀门的容纳室（VHC）中的静电电荷可能导致计量吸入器（MDI）哮喘药物输送不一致。我们在哮喘方面比较了AeroChamber Plus ？ Flow Vu ？防静电带阀保持室（AC + FV AVHC）与非防静电VHC哮喘人群的病情恶化，资源使用和费用增加。方法：在1/2010年至8/2015年间（索引）使用AC + FV AVHC或非抗静电VHC（对照VHC）使用判决的索赔数据库中的患者，这些患者接受了吸入糖皮质激素（ICS）的治疗或在指标日期之前或之后60天内结合ICS和长效β2激动剂MDI的组合，被诊断出患有哮喘，并且在指标制定后的健康计划前≥12天和≥30天招生包括在内。使用倾向评分以1：1匹配队列。我们使用广义线性模型比较了急性发作的发生率（IR），使用Kaplan-Meier生存分析的首次发作时间，急性发作的发生率以及医疗资源的使用和成本。结果确定了每个队列中的9325例患者。对照VHC组每100人日加重的IR（95％CI）显着高于AC + VV AVHC组[0.161（0.150-0.172）vs. 0.137（0.128- 0.147）]。在AC + FV AVHC队列中观察到无恶化的患者比例更高。在每个队列中≥12个月的随访的4293例患者中，AC + FV AVHC患者在整个研究过程中加重的可能性比对照VHC患者低10–12％期。与对照组VHC患者相比，AC + VV AVHC患者中有ED就诊的比例较低（分别为10.8％和12.4％）。 AC + FV AVHC队列与恶化相关的费用分别比对照组VHC队列在1,6,9,12个月低23％，25％，20％和12％ ， 分别。结论与对照非抗静电VHC相比，AC + FV AVHC与病情加重率降低，首次加重时间延迟以及与病情加重相关的费用降低。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号