Linked Life Data

11192231

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/11192231

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
8
pubmed:dateCreated
2001-1-12
pubmed:abstractText
This was an open-label, parallel group, randomized, age-stratified, multicenter study designed to compare the safety and efficacy of regular use of albuterol formulated in hydrofluoroalkane-134a (HFA albuterol) and albuterol formulated in chlorofluorocarbons-11/12 (CFC albuterol) in children with asthma. Children age 4-11 years using a short-acting inhaled beta2-agonist for 6 months to manage stable asthma, and with a prestudy forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1) of >50% predicted after withholding short-acting inhaled beta2-agonists for at least 6 hr, an increase in FEV1 > or = 12% within 30 min after two puffs of CFC albuterol, and the capability to comply with medication withholding requirements were eligible for study entry. After screening evaluation, patients entered a minimum 7-day run-in period. On study day 1 spirometry and a baseline 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) were performed, pulse and blood pressure were measured, and patients self-administered two puffs of their randomized study drug, either HFA albuterol or CFC albuterol. Serial spirometry was performed over 6 hr after study drug dosing. Pulse and blood pressure were measured just prior to each spirometry and a 12-lead ECG was performed at 60 min postdose. Patients took two puffs of their study drug four times a day for 4 weeks. At study week 4, study day 1 procedures were repeated. Patients maintained a daily diary of morning (A.M.) and evening (P.M.) peak expiratory flow (PEF), daytime asthma symptom scores, nighttime asthma sleep disturbance scores, and study drug use. Demographics and baseline characteristics of the 63 patients randomized to HFA albuterol (33) and CFC albuterol (30) were similar. No significant differences were found between the HFA albuterol and CFC albuterol treatment groups for any of the primary or secondary FEV1 efficacy variables either at study day 1 or study week 4. No significant differences were noted between treatment groups for A.M. and P.M. PEF, individual asthma symptom scores, nighttime asthma sleep disturbance scores, and rescue study drug use over the 4-week study. No significant differences were found between the two treatment groups for change from predose in heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and 12-lead ECG intervals at either study day 1 or study week 4. Adverse event reporting was similar for the two treatment groups. In this study, with regular use of HFA albuterol in children with asthma, there was a similar safety profile and comparable bronchodilator efficacy as with CFC albuterol.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:chemical
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Dec
pubmed:issn
0277-0903
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
37
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
667-75
pubmed:dateRevised
2006-11-15
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
2000
pubmed:articleTitle
Comparable bronchodilation with hydrofluoroalkane-134a (HFA) albuterol and chlorofluorocarbons-11/12 (CFC) albuterol in children with asthma.
pubmed:affiliation
Asthma Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Clinical Trial, Comparative Study, Randomized Controlled Trial, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, Multicenter Study