The additive value of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide testing at the emergency department in patients with acute dyspnoea

BACKGROUND

B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and its inactive counterpart NT-proBNP can help to identify or rule out heart failure in patients presenting with acute dyspnoea. It is not well known whether measurement of these peptides can be omitted in certain patient groups.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective observational study of 221 patients presenting with acute dyspnoea at the emergency department. The attending physicians estimated the probability of heart failure by clinical judgement. NT-proBNP was measured, but not reported. An independent panel made a final diagnosis of all available data including NT-proBNP level and judged whether and how NT-proBNP would have altered patient management.

RESULTS

NT-proBNP levels were highest in patients with heart failure, alone or in combination with pulmonary failure. Additive value of NT-proBNP was present in 40 of 221 (18%) of the patients, and it mostly indicated that a more intensive treatment for heart failure would have been needed. Clinical judgement was an independent predictor of additive value of NT-proBNP with a maximum at a clinical probability of heart failure of 36%.

CONCLUSION

NT-proBNP measurement has additive value in a substantial number of patients presenting with acute dyspnoea, but can possibly be omitted in patients with a clinical probability of heart failure of >70%.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of budesonide/formoterol compared with fluticasone in moderate-persistent asthma

In this economic evaluation, conducted alongside a randomized, double-blind clinical trial, economic data were collected from 339 patients with moderate-persistent asthma randomized to receive twice-daily, double-blind treatment with budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 microg in a single inhaler (n=166) or fluticasone propionate 250 microg (n=173) for 12 weeks. The mean number of episode-free days (EFD) per patient was significantly greater in the budesonide/formoterol group than the fluticasone group (48.71 compared with 42.34, P=0.0185). Data on medication use, visits to healthcare professionals, and hospitalization were pooled across all six countries and combined with German and Dutch unit cost data to calculate total healthcare costs. Using German unit costs, budesonide/formoterol was associated with significantly lower total healthcare costs per patient over the 12-week period compared with fluticasone (euro 131 compared with euro 210, P=0.0043). Using Dutch unit costs, total healthcare costs were slightly numerically lower in the budesonide/formoterol group than the fluticasone group (euro 102 compared with euro 104), but the difference did not reach statistical significance. Budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler is more effective than a higher microgram dose of fluticasone alone. It is cost-neutral and may provide cost-savings in some countries.

Long-term treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with salmeterol and the additive effect of ipratropium

The efficacy and safety of salmeterol alone was compared with the combination of salmeterol plus ipratropium and with placebo during long-term treatment in patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In addition, the single-dose effect in response to the first dose of treatment was studied over 12 h. The patients (n=144; age 64+/-7 yrs, forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) 44+/-11% pred) participated in a three-centre double-blind double-placebo parallel group study and were randomized after a run-in period of 2 weeks to receive either salmeterol 50 microg b.i.d., salmeterol 5 microg b.i.d. plus ipratropium 40 microg q.i.d. or placebo for a period of 12 weeks. The single-dose study demonstrated that salmeterol produced a significant increase in FEV1 (peak of 7% pred) and specific airway conductance (sGaw) (maximum of 60% baseline) for > or =12 h. The combination of salmeterol plus ipratropium elicited a greater bronchodilator response (11% and 94% increases respectively) than salmeterol alone during the first 6 h after inhalation. During treatment there were significant improvements in daytime symptom scores and morning peak expiratory flow in both the salmeterol and the salmeterol plus ipratropium groups (p<0.001), with an associated decrease in the use of rescue salbutamol. Improvements in FEV1 and sGaw were greater in the salmeterol plus ipratropium group than in the patients receiving only salmeterol. Thirty-five patients had an exacerbation; 11 (23%) in the salmeterol group (versus placebo NS), six (13%) in the salmeterol plus ipratropium group (versus placebo p<0.01) and 18 (36%) in the placebo group. In conclusion, in patients with severe stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, long-term treatment with either salmeterol alone or salmeterol plus ipratropium is safe and effective. There was added benefit from the combination therapy in terms of improvement in airways obstruction, but not for improvement in symptom control or need for rescue salbutamol.

A randomised controlled comparison of tiotropium nd ipratropium in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The Dutch Tiotropium Study Group

BACKGROUND

A study was undertaken to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of tiotropium and ipratropium during long term treatment in patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

288 patients of mean (SD) age 65 (8) years and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)) 41 (12)% predicted participated in a 14 centre, double blind, double dummy, parallel group study and were randomised after a run in period of two weeks to receive either tiotropium 18 microg once daily from a dry powder inhaler (HandiHaler; two thirds of patients) or ipratropium 40 microg four times daily from a metered dose inhaler (one third of patients) for a period of 13 weeks. Outcome measures were lung function, daily records of peak expiratory flow (PEF), and the use of concomitant salbutamol. FEV(1) and forced vital capacity (FVC) were measured one hour before and immediately before inhalation (mean value of the two measurements on test day 1 was the baseline value while on all other test days it was known as the trough FEV(1) and FVC), and 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 hours after inhalation of the study drug on days 1, 8, 50, and 92.

RESULTS

During treatment tiotropium achieved a significantly greater improvement than ipratropium (p<0.05) in trough, average, and peak FEV(1) levels and in trough and average FVC levels. The trough FEV(1) response on days 8, 50, and 92 ranged between 0.15 l (95% CI 0.11 to 0.19) and 0.16 l (95% CI 0.12 to 0.20) for tiotropium and between 0.01 l (95% CI -0.03 to 0.05) and 0.03 l (95% CI 0.01 to 0. 07) for ipratropium. The trough FVC response on days 8, 50, and 92 ranged between 0.34 l (95% CI 0.28 to 0.40) and 0.39 l (95% CI 0.31 to 0.47) for tiotropium and between 0.08 l (95% CI 0.00 to 0.16) and 0.18 l (95% CI 0.08 to 0.28) for ipratropium. On all test days tiotropium produced a greater improvement in FEV(1) than ipratropium starting three hours after inhalation (p<0.05). During treatment weekly mean morning and evening peak expiratory flow (PEF) was consistently better in the tiotropium group than in the ipratropium group, the difference in morning PEF being significant up through week 10 and in evening PEF up through week 7 of treatment (p<0.05). The use of concomitant salbutamol was also lower in the tiotropium group (p<0.05). The only drug related adverse event was dry mouth (tiotropium 14.7%, ipratropium 10.3% of patients).

CONCLUSIONS

Tiotropium in a dose of 18 microg inhaled once daily using the HandiHaler was significantly more effective than 40 microg ipratropium four times daily in improving trough, average, and peak lung function over the 13 week period. The safety profile of tiotropium was similar to ipratropium. These data support the use of tiotropium as first line treatment for the long term maintenance treatment of patients with airflow obstruction due to COPD.

Formoterol suspension aerosol. Comparison with formoterol solution aerosol for 12 weeks in asthmatic patients

Formoterol solution aerosol has proved to be a fast and long-acting beta 2-sympathicomimetic drug in many clinical trials. The physical stability, however, was such that storage needed to be at 4 degrees C to 8 degrees C before first use; afterwards, the aerosol could be used for another three months at room temperature. To improve the stability, new ways have been investigated to formulate ann aerosol with improved shelf life and thus more convenient storage conditions, which was reached with a formoterol suspension aerosol. Equivalent single doses between the two formulations revealed no differences in onset or duration of action. In a double-blind, randomized parallel group multicenter study, organized in the Netherlands, 186 patients with stable asthma and reversible airway obstruction were treated either with one puff of 12 micrograms twice daily of formoterol metered dose inhaler (MDI) supension (SP) or a same dose of solution (SL) aerosol for 12 weeks to study the efficacy and tolerability of both presentations after a longer period of use. The following criteria of effectiveness were used: the FEV1 values on the mornings of the control days at 0, +4, +8, and + 12 weeks, the peak flow values (PEF) in the mornings and in the evenings before, and 1/2 to 1 h after treatment, the number of asthma attacks at night and during the day, the number of extra puffs at night and during day, and the subjective impression of patients and investigator.

RESULT

No statistically significant differences between the two formoterol preparations were found. There was no indication of tachyphylaxis.

CONCLUSION

The results are consistent with the hypothesis that the biologic effects of formoterol when delivered from MDI containing the two different formulations of the drug are equivalent.