[Attitudes and actions of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients on treatment:a national multi-center investigative study].

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the attitudes and actions of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on treatment. METHODS: A nation-wide multi-center, questionnaire study was carried out to investigate the patient understanding and experience of COPD treatment between Sep. 2007 and Dec. 2008. The questionnaire included the patients' understanding of goal of COPD treatment, previous treatment, and expectation on drugs. The data were analyzed by descriptive statistical methods. RESULTS: 2072 patients with COPD in 11 centers were interviewed in the study. The final effective questionnaires were collected from 1698 cases. 653 patients had known of COPD. The attitudes and actions on treatment were analyzed based on these patients. The patients had different understanding of goals for COPD treatment, including 59.1% (384/650) for relieving symptoms. In recent 3 months, the most commonly used drugs were theophylline (53.7%, 351/653), iprotropium (39.8%, 260/653), tiotropium (27.1%, 177/653). 72.0% (465/646) patients used the drugs according to the prescriptions. There were more than 80% patients who did not understand the side effects of anti-cholinergics, ß-adrenergic agonists, inhaled steroids, inhaled steroid/long-acting ß-agonist combination therapy, or theophyllines. 37.4% (240/641) patients were afraid of side effects of inhaled steroids. 42.2% (274/650) patients often took antibiotics. There was no oxygen supply at home in 60.1% (391/651) patients. 70.5% (457/648) did not have pulmonary rehabilitation. Requirement of long-term regular treatment was considered in 77.4% (500/646) patients. The most important thing about patients' attitude on ideal drugs for COPD was drug efficacy (79.6%, 481/604). The most ideal drug used in the past was fluticasone/salmeterol or tiotropium (16.9%, 78/461). CONCLUSIONS: Patients had different attitudes and actions on COPD treatment. Patient education should be strengthened to realize treatment goals for COPD.

[The relationship between mouth pressure or tracheal pressure and esophagus pressure and diaphragmatic pressure].

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between mouth pressure (Pmo) or tracheal pressure (Ptr) and esophagus pressure (Pes) or transdiaphragmatic pressure. METHODS: Seventeen patients were involved in the study. Maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP), maximal transdiaphragmatic pressure (Pdi(max)), maximal esophagus pressure (Pes(max)), twitch mouth pressure (TwPmo), twitch transdiaphragmatic pressure (TwPdi) and twitch esophagus pressure (TwPes) were measured before narcotization as a normal procedure for the abdominal operation and twitch tracheal pressure (TwPtr(nar)), twitch esophagus pressure (TwPes(nar)) and twitch transdiaphragmatic pressure (TwPdi(nar)) were dynamically monitored during narcotization. RESULTS: (1) The correlation coefficient (r) values between Pdi(max) and MIP, TwPdi and TwPmo, TwPdi(nar) and TwPtr(nar), Pes(max) and MIP, TwPes and TwPmo, TwPes(nar) and TwPtr(nar) were 0.976 +/- 0.030, 0.816 +/- 0.155, 0.923 +/- 0.446, 0.981 +/- 0.185, 0.829 +/- 0.168 and 0.955 +/- 0.292, respectively. (2) The coefficient variation (CV) of MIP, Pes(max), Pdi(max), TwPmo, TwPes and TwPdi were (14.2 +/- 4.7)%, (15.2 +/- 4.3)%, (15.5 +/- 4.1)%, (30.4 +/- 15.9)%, (10.8 +/- 5.1)% and (9.9 +/- 4.0)%, respectively. The CV of TwPmo was the highest (compare with others, all P < 0.05) and that of TwPes and TwPdi was the lowest (compare with others, all P < 0.05). There was no significant difference among MIP, Pes(max) and Pdi(max) (P > 0.05). (3) The r value between the changing values of TwPtr(nar) and TwPdi(nar) or TwPes(nar) during narcotization were 0.839 or 0.894 (P = 0.000, respectively). CONCLUSION: The measurement of MIP and TwPmo should be repeated and the highest value should be chosen in order to reduce the possibility of underestimating the function of diaphragm, which could be dynamically monitored by TwPtr(nar).

[The development and safety of cough provocation test by capsaicin inhalation].

OBJECTIVE: To assess the application and the safety of capsaicin cough provocation test by dosimeter method. METHODS: Capsaicin inhalation cough challenge test by dosimeter method was performed on 60 healthy volunteers (group A), 11 subjects with upper respiratory infection (group B), 10 patients with gastroesophageal reflux cough (group C) and 10 patients with asthma (group D). Each subject inhaled doubling concentrations of capsaicin (1.95, 3.90, 7.80, 15.6, 31.2, 62.5, 125, 250, 500, 1,000 micromol/L) by a breath-activated dosimeter until the concentration inducing five or more coughs (C(5)) was reached. The lg C(5) was calculated as the cough reflex sensitivity. General lung ventilation and impedance with impulse oscillometry were measured before and after the cough provocation test. RESULTS: There was no serious side effect of the test in all subjects; two subjects complained of slight nausea; one of heartburn, and three of hoarseness. Before the provocation the values of FEV(1) in group A, B, C and D were (3.6 +/- 0.5) L, (3.7 +/- 0.7) L, (2.7 +/- 0.8) L and (2.1 +/- 0.8) L, compared with (3.6 +/- 0.5) L, (3.7 +/- 0.8) L, (2.6 +/- 0.7) L and (2.1 +/- 0.8) L after the test, the differences being not significant (all P > 0.05). Compared with the measurements after provocation, Zrs was (2.6 +/- 0.8) mm Hg.L(-1).s(-1) vs (2.7 +/- 0.8) mm Hg.L(-1).s(-1) in group A, (2.5 +/- 0.5) mm Hg.L(-1).s(-1) vs (2.6 +/- 0.3) mm Hg.L(-1).s(-1) in group B, (2.7 +/- 0.7) mm Hg.L(-1).s(-1) vs (2.7 +/- 0.7) mm Hg.L(-1).s(-1) in group C, (3.3 +/- 1.5) mm Hg.L(-1).s(-1) vs (3.7 +/- 2.0) mm Hg.L(-1).s(-1) in group D, the differences showed no significance (all P > 0.05 respectively). The lg C(5) value was 2.45 +/- 0.46 in group A, 2.51 +/- 0.20 in group B, 1.52 +/- 0.70 in group C, 2.34 +/- 0.56 in group D. Compared with group A, B and D, the lg C(5) value in group C was significantly different (all P < 0.01 respectively). The lg C(5) value showed no significant difference among group A, group B and group D (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Capsaicin inhalation cough provocation test by dosimeter method is a safe and specific tool for measuring cough reflex sensitivity.

[The efficacy of half of the Global Initiative for Asthma recommended dose of inhaled corticosteroids in the management of Chinese asthmatics].

OBJECTIVE: To explore the optimal doses of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for the management of Chinese asthmatics in order to enhance cost-effectiveness. METHODS: A randomized, paralleled and controlled multi-center study was carried out in 11 provincial hospitals. After one week run-in period when only inhaled salbutamol as needed was given, the asthmatic patients (n = 86) were divided into two groups: patients in group G (n = 42) received inhaled ICS with the doses recommended by Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA), ie, fluticasone propionate (FP) 250 microg bid for moderate asthma and 375 microg bid for severe asthma. Patients in group H (n = 44) received half of the above doses of FP (125 microg bid for moderate asthma and 125 microg in the morning, 250 microg in the evening for severe asthma). RESULTS: There were no significant differences between group G and group H in the 32 measurements after management, including day symptom score (severe asthma in group G 0.7 +/- 0.8, group H 0.4 +/- 0.6 and moderate asthma in group G 0.4 +/- 0.5, group H 0.3 +/- 0.5), FEV(1) [severe asthma in group G (1.5 +/- 0.5) L, group H (1.8 +/- 0.6) L/min and moderate asthma in group G (2.3 +/- 0.6) L, group H (2.3 +/- 0.8) L/min, FEV(1)% of predicted [severe asthma in group G (54 +/- 17)%, group H (59 +/- 19)%, and moderate asthma in group G (79 +/- 14)%, group H (79 +/- 15)%], the increased morning PEF value (45, 67 L/min in moderate and severe asthma in group G and 56, 65 L/min in moderate and severe asthma in group H respectively), frequency of nights awakened (81, 69 in severe asthma in groups G and H respectively), numbers of well controlled cases (88 and 98 d in severe asthma in groups G and H respectively) and the use of extra bronchodilators (salbutamol, puff/day, 5.0 and 3.4 d in severe asthma in groups G and H respectively, P > 0.05). On the other hand, in the subgroups of moderate asthma, night symptom score (0.30 +/- 0.22 in group G, 0.13 +/- 0.33, t = -2.06, P < 0.05), number of exacerbations (3/22 in group G, 11/24 in group H, chi(2) = 4.74, P < 0.05), number of total controlled cases (18/22 cases in group G, 12/24 cases in group H, chi(2) = 4.97, P < 0.05) were significantly different between group G and group H. In the subgroups of severe asthma, the total days of exacerbations were different between group G and group H (11 days in group G, 6 days in group H, U = 31, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: As a whole, similar therapeutic effect was achieved using half of the GINA recommended dose of ICS with/without salbutamol inhalation as needed compared with those receiving the GINA recommended full dose of ICS in most Chinese asthmatics.

[Evaluation of the clinical efficacy and the safety of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate accuhaler compared to budesonide turbuhalar in the control of adult asthma].

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and the safety of low dose salmeterol/fluticasone (SM/FP) combination therapy as compared to morate dose of budesonide (BUD) in the management of adult asthma. METHODS: A multicentre, randomised, open-label, parallel-group, 6-week treatment study was conducted. 398 patients (18 - 70 years) were given SM/FP (50/100 microg) twice daily via Accuhaler or BUD 400 microg twice daily via Turbuhaler. RESULTS: The morning and the evening peak expiratory flow (PEF) measurements both increased significantly (P < 0.01) in the SM/FP group, and the increase was greater than that in the BUD group. The significant benefit of SM/FP was evident from the first week. SM/FP led to a more significant reduction in the use of rescue medication and in the day- and night-time asthma symptom scores, as compared to budesonide. Both treatments were well tolerated, and the adverse reactions showed no significant difference between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Combination use of low doses of SM/FP is a better choice for the control of asthma. The addition of a low-dose long-acting beta(2) agonist is superior to the simple increase of the dosage of inhaled corticosteroids.