RESUMO
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Many studies have shown that not only pharmacological treatment but also cognitive stimulation in the early stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD) improves language processing and (other) cognitive functions, stabilizes Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) functions and increases the subjective quality of life (wherein a combination of pharmacological intervention and cognitive stimulation could provide greater relief of clinical symptoms than either intervention given alone). Today, it is no longer the question of whether cognitive stimulation helps but rather what kind of stimulation helps more than others. METHODS: A sample of 42 subjects with mild AD (all medicated with an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor and well adjusted) underwent clinical and cognitive evaluation and participated in a 6-month study with 2 experimental groups (i.e. 'client-centered' global stimulation vs. cognitive training) and a control group. Since the test performance also depends on the individual test, we used a wide variety of tests; we z-transformed the results and then calculated the mean value for the global cognitive status (using the Mini-Mental State Examination) as well as for the single functional areas. RESULTS: Between-group differences were found, they were overall in favor of the experimental groups. Different functional areas led to different treatment and test patterns. Client-centered, global, cognitive therapy stimulated many cognitive functions and thus led to a better performance in language processing and ADL/IADL. The subjective quality of life increased as well. The cognitive training (of working memory) improved only the ADL/IADL performance (more, however, than client-centered, global, cognitive stimulation) and stabilized the level of performance in the other three functional areas. © 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Despite widespread acceptance of metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) in the treatment of asthma, many patients fail to operate these devices correctly. Inability to properly coordinate activation with onset of inhalation is regarded as the major factor in suboptimal MDI therapy. METHODS: We evaluated Autohaler Inhalation Device (3M Pharmaceuticals, St. Paul, Minn.), a breath-activated MDI that is typically activated at a triggering flow rate of approximately 0.5 L/sec. We compared bronchodilator effect of pirbuterol acetate (Maxair), inhaled from Autohaler and a standard MDI, under conditions that ensured optimal technique in 20 patients with asthma. Spirometric variables (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1], forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of vital capacity [FEF25-75], forced vital capacity [FVC]) were measured before and at 15, 30, 60, and 90 minutes after two inhalations of full inspiratory reserve volume for each device. RESULTS: Both devices produced significant and similar bronchodilation. Mean FEV1 increased 32% above baseline 60 minutes after use of Autohaler and 31% after use of a standard MDI. Similar changes were noted in FEF25-75 and FVC for the two devices. Differences between devices for all spirometric variables were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Autohaler provides a promising alternative to the standard MDI by overcoming breath-hand discoordination.