ABSTRACT
Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. Its prevalence is increasing globally, especially in countries with high frequencies of smoking combined with signifi cant environmental exposures to pollutants and biomass smoke. Currently COPD is the third leading cause of death worldwide, after ischemic heart disease and stroke. Efforts have been made to design a standard protocol for treatment of the disease, and these efforts are still in the process. Methods: The study was done on 100 subjects to assess whether steroid (inhaled or oral) actually have any role in decreasing the decline in forced expiratory volume in 1 sec and to compare the effect of both to fi nd out which one is superior. Patients were divided into two arms, inhaled steroids group (according to GOLD guidelines), and the other group was oral prednisolone 10 mg in addition to standard treatment except inhaled steroid. The effects were studied with appropriate statistical tests. Results: Our study data showed that oral steroids are more effective on symptom control as compared to inhaled steroids. Symptoms such as cough (64% vs. 82%) and breathlessness (76% vs. 94%) signifi cantly improved in the oral corticosteroids group. The rate of exacerbation also improved (22% vs. 12%) in the test group. Conclusion: The use of steroids has ever been a subject of divergence of views ever since its role in the treatment of COPD was fi rst described. Although, overall steroid in any form is benefi cial in symptomatic/subjective and objective improvements in COPD, oral steroids stand a better chance as compared to inhaled steroids.
ABSTRACT
Background: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths globally in which about 40% patients reporting in advanced stage disease. Both platinum and non platinum combinations have been shown to be equally effi cacious as initial fi rst-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), however because of the toxicity of cisplatin, combination treatment can only be administered to a minority of patients in good general health. Gemcitabine could be combined with one of the other new agents to create novel non-platinum-doublet combinations with effi cacy and/or toxicity profi le superior to that of standard platinum based combinations. Hence, this study was conducted to compare the toxicity profi les of gemcitabine monotherapy and the cisplatin/etoposide combination therapy. Methods: This was a randomized prospective study, which included 96 patients selected on the basis of histologically or cytologically confi rmed Stage III B or IV of NSCLC. Study was divided into two arms-Arm A received gemcitabine monotherapy in a dose of 1000 mg/m2 on day 1 and 5 of the cycle and repeated after every 3 weeks while Arm B received cisplatin (25 mg/m2 on day 1, 2 and 3) + etoposide (100 mg/m2). Patient were evaluated for adverse events by following World Health Organization grading of toxicity. Results: Out of the 96 patients enrolled in the study, 74 (77.0%) patients were eligible and were analyzed. Of these, 36 (37.5%) patients belonged to Arm A and 38 (39.5%) to Arm B. Transient vomiting (45.8% vs. 37.5%), leukopenia (33.3% vs. 8.3%) were seen more in Arm A, while thrombocytopenia (33.3% vs. 12.5%), patchy hair loss (68.4% vs. 16.6%) was seen more in Arm B. Nephrotoxicity was seen almost similarly in both the groups. Conclusions: Single-agent gemcitabine appears to have a safer toxicity profi le than the combination cisplatin-etoposide in the fi rst-line chemotherapy of advanced NSCLC. With less toxic anticancer drugs like gemcitabine, the physician now has greater choice in choosing treatment, which can have better effect on the patients concerned.