4.3 Article

Use of respiratory medication in five Latin American cities: The PLATINO study

期刊

PULMONARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 21, 期 5, 页码 788-793

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pupt.2008.06.003

关键词

Bronchodilators; Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; Epidemiology; Prevalence; Steroids

资金

  1. Asociacion Latinoamericana de Torax (ALAT)
  2. Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: There is scanty information regarding respiratory medication prescription pattern in Latin America. We examined the use of bronchodilators and corticosteroids in a population-based study conducted in five Latin American cities. Methods: Medication use was derived from questions regarding the use of medication to help breathing within the previous 12 months, type of medicine, and frequency of use. To minimize the possibility of overdiagnosis, we used postbronchodilator FEV1/FVC < 0.70 plus FEV1 < 80% as the definition of obstruction. Results: Interviews were completed in 5571 subjects from 6711 eligible individuals, and spirometry was performed in 5314 subjects. There were 360 (6.5%) treated subjects and 5211 not treated. Treated subjects were more likely to be older, women, unemployed, have higher tobacco consumption, higher body mass index, higher FEV, reversibility and airway obstruction. They were also more likely to report prior spirometry, prior diagnosis of COPD, asthma or tuberculosis, and more respiratory symptoms. Over half of treated subjects had neither obstruction nor FEV, reversibility, and approximately 30% reported no prior diagnosis of asthma or COPD. Prior respiratory diagnoses and wheezing were more strongly associated with treatment than objective measures of airway obstruction. Conclusions: The use of bronchodilators and/or corticosteroids is common in the general population aged 40 years or older, with over one-half of treated subjects using them without being obstructed. (c) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据