Avaliaˋˋo da efic芍cia cl赤nica, aceitabilidade e prefer那ncia de dois sistemas inalat車rios de beclometasona no tratamento da asma: Pulvinalˋ versus Aeroliserˋ

作者：Fiterman; Jussara; Mattos; Waldo; Cukier; Alberto; Pizzichinni; Marcia; Silva; Rodnei Frare e; Kahan; Fabiane; Jardim; Jose Roberto; Brancatelli; Armando

来源：Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia, 2004.

DOI：10.1590/S1806-37132004000500003

• asthma [therapy]
• beclomethasone [administration %26 dosage]
• randomized controlled trials
• treatment outcome.

background: approximately half of all asthmatic patients adhere to their prescribed treatment regimen, which makes noncompliance with treatment one of the main problems associated with the disease. it is possible that inhalation devices combining technological advances with comfort and simplicity of use could increase treatment compliance. objective: to compare the acceptability of and preference for two inhalation devices (pulvinal and aerolizer), as well as to evaluate the efficacy of and tolerance for beclomethasone dipropionate when delivered by these two systems. method: a multicenter, randomized, crossover parallel study was carried out involving 83 patients with stable asthma. patients received 500-1000 mg/day of beclomethasone dipropionate. after a 2-week run in, the patients were randomized to begin a 4-week crossover treatment period with equivalent doses of clenil pulvinal (cp) or miflasona aerolizer (ma). results: both groups showed improvement in dyspnea and fev1, and acceptability was considered good or excellent in both groups. of the patients studied, 50.6% preferred cp, and 39% preferred ma. in their future treatment regimes, 54.5% would choose the cp and 37.7% the ma. conclusion: clinical efficacy and acceptability were comparable between cp and ma.