Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

Métodos Terapéuticos y Terapias MTCI
Bases de datos
País/Región como asunto
Tipo del documento
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis ; 16: 1075-1091, 2021.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33907394

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Long-acting bronchodilator (LABD) use is the mainstay of pharmacologic treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Few studies describe evolving patterns of LABD use in the setting of changing inhaler availability and updated clinical guidelines. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study in New Zealand using the HealthStat general practice database (01/2014 to 04/2018). Eligible patients (aged ≥40 years) had COPD and ≥1 LABD prescription (long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA] and/or long-acting ß2-agonist [LABA]) during the index period (05/2015 to 04/2016). Demographics and clinical characteristics of all LABD users (overall/by treatment) were described at baseline. Patients starting LABD treatment during the index period, termed "new" users, were also described, as was their treatment evolution over 24 months of follow-up. Yearly LABD initiation rates were assessed from 2015 to 2017, covering changes to Pharmaceutical Management Agency criteria and clinical guidelines. RESULTS: Across 2140 eligible patients, the most common index treatments were inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA (59.0%) and open triple therapy (LAMA+LABA+ICS; 26.7%). ICS/LABA therapy was highest in younger patients, with open triple therapy highest in older patients. Prior yearly exacerbation rates were lowest in those receiving monotherapy (LABA: 0.9/year; LAMA: 1.1/year) versus dual therapy (all 1.4/year) and open triple therapy (2.2/year). Of 312 new LABD users, ICS/LABA was the most common index treatment (69.6%), followed by LAMA monotherapy (16.0%). Continuous use with index treatment was 31.1% at 12 months and 13.5% at 24 months; mean time to treatment change was 175.5 and 244.1 days, respectively. Among patients modifying treatment at 24 months, 23.0% augmented, 7.0% switched, 45.6% re-started, and 24.4% discontinued/stepped down. Among patients initiating LABD each year from 2015 to 2017, LAMA prescription increased (17% to 46%) while ICS prescription remained stable (approximately 20%). CONCLUSION: Predominant use of ICS/LABA (05/2015 to 04/2016) reflects available LABDs and previous restrictions on LAMA use in New Zealand.


Asunto(s)
Broncodilatadores , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica , Administración por Inhalación , Corticoesteroides/efectos adversos , Agonistas de Receptores Adrenérgicos beta 2/efectos adversos , Anciano , Broncodilatadores/efectos adversos , Quimioterapia Combinada , Humanos , Antagonistas Muscarínicos/efectos adversos , Nueva Zelanda/epidemiología , Atención Primaria de Salud , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/diagnóstico , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/tratamiento farmacológico , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/epidemiología , Estudios Retrospectivos
2.
Lung ; 193(1): 135-9, 2015 Feb.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25503535

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) in 2011 showed that low-dose CT (LDCT) screening in high-risk groups reduces lung cancer deaths. Major professional organizations, as well as the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force, have endorsed LDCT screening in these select populations. However, major questions remain about whether widespread deployment of CT screening can achieve results similar to the NLST, especially in the community setting. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was initiated in November 2010. Participants at least 50 years old and with at least 20 pack-years of smoking history underwent LDCT screening in a community setting. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty four participants underwent LDCT screening with median follow-up of 2.7 years. Compared with the NLST, there was a higher rate of positive screening tests (35.7 vs. 27.3 %), higher false positive rate (100 vs. 96.4 %), and poor adherence (43 vs. 95 %). Invasive diagnostic follow-up was uncommon and uncomplicated. No interval lung cancer was detected. Late follow-up was mostly attributed to participant or primary care provider preference (67.5 %), participants lost to follow-up (17.5 %), and lack of insurance (10 %). CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the potential challenges of generalizing the NLST mortality benefits in the broad deployment of CT screening. Our results support current recommendations that LDCT screening be performed in a highly structured and integrated setting.


Asunto(s)
Servicios de Salud Comunitaria , Prestación Integrada de Atención de Salud , Neoplasias Pulmonares/diagnóstico por imagen , Dosis de Radiación , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X , Factores de Edad , Anciano , California , Servicios de Salud Comunitaria/organización & administración , Servicios de Salud Comunitaria/normas , Prestación Integrada de Atención de Salud/organización & administración , Prestación Integrada de Atención de Salud/normas , Reacciones Falso Positivas , Femenino , Adhesión a Directriz , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/etiología , Neoplasias Pulmonares/mortalidad , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Cooperación del Paciente , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Pronóstico , Estudios Prospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , Fumar/efectos adversos , Factores de Tiempo , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X/normas
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA