Chest ACCP Member Benefits
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Article Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jenkins, S.
Right arrow Articles by Moxham, J
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Jenkins, S.
Right arrow Articles by Moxham, J

Chest, Vol 91, 804-807, Copyright © 1987 by American College of Chest Physicians

ARTICLES

Comparison of domiciliary nebulized salbutamol and salbutamol from a metered-dose inhaler in stable chronic airflow limitation

SC Jenkins, RW Heaton, TJ Fulton and J Moxham

Nineteen patients (12 men) mean age, 63.4 years (range, 32 to 78), with stable chronic airflow limitation, mean FEV, 0.55 L (range, 0.3 to 1.05 L), completed an eight-week, double-blind, double cross-over study comparing nebulized salbutamol and salbutamol from a metered-dose inhaler (MDI). Salbutamol from both delivery systems produced bronchodilation. The doses of salbutamol inhaled via the nebulizer and MDI producing maximal bronchodilation were established by cumulative dose-response curves. The contents of the nebulizer and MDI were inhaled four times a day, one system containing salbutamol and the other a placebo. Cross-over of salbutamol from one system to the other occurred every two weeks. There was no significant difference between the two delivery methods in daily peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), severity of symptoms, or extra bronchodilator usage. Two weekly laboratory assessments of spirometry, PEFR, and exercise tolerance also showed no significant differences. Careful assessment is recommended before the provision of domiciliary nebulizers.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am J Health Syst PharmHome page
L. Hendeles, R. C. Hatton, T. J. Coons, and L. Carlson
Automatic replacement of albuterol nebulizer therapy by metered-dose inhaler and valved holding chamber
Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm., May 15, 2005; 62(10): 1053 - 1061.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JAMAHome page
D. D. Sin, F. A. McAlister, S. F. P. Man, and N. R. Anthonisen
Contemporary Management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Scientific Review
JAMA, November 5, 2003; 290(17): 2301 - 2312.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur Respir JHome page
W. Willaert, M. Daenen, P. Bomans, G. Verleden, and M. Decramer
What is the optimal treatment strategy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations?
Eur. Respir. J., May 1, 2002; 19(5): 928 - 935.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Qual Saf Health CareHome page
J Wright, D Brocklebank, and F Ram
Inhaler devices for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive airways disease (COPD)
Qual. Saf. Health Care, January 12, 2002; 11(4): 376 - 382.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.Home page
R. A. PAUWELS, A. S. BUIST, P. M. A. CALVERLEY, C. R. JENKINS, and S. S. HURD
Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease . NHLBI/WHO Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Workshop Summary
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., April 1, 2001; 163(5): 1256 - 1276.
[Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1987 by the American College of Chest Physicians.