4.2 Article

Practice patterns for oral corticosteroid burst therapy in the outpatient management of acute asthma exacerbations

期刊

ALLERGY AND ASTHMA PROCEEDINGS
卷 33, 期 1, 页码 82-89

出版社

OCEAN SIDE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.2500/aap.2012.33.3499

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, CA,
  2. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., East Hanover, NI
  3. Genentech
  4. Novartis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of a short course of oral corticosteroids (OCS), or steroid burst, is standard practice in the outpatient management of acute severe exacerbations of asthma. Despite published guidelines, the actual practice patterns are unknown. A Web-based survey about typical patterns of OCS administration and total steroid burst dose was administered to pulmonologists (n = 150), allergists (n = 150), primary care physicians (n = 153), and pediatricians (n = 150). No predominant dosing regimen was observed, although a fixed single daily dose was the most commonly prescribed regimen (59%). The majority of physicians treating patients years of age prescribed a total burst dose of <= 200 mg and essentially all (99.7%) prescribed <= 600 mg. Among physicians treating younger children, approximately one-quarter prescribed <= 1 mg/kg per day for 3 days (27.8% for children aged 5-11 years of age and 28.1% for children aged <5 years, respectively) and essentially all prescribed <= 2 mg/kg per day for 10 days (99.8% for children aged 5-11 years and 100% for children aged <5 years of age). When prescribing OCS burst therapy for asthma exacerbations, physicians tend to prescribe less than the upper dose recommended in the guidelines; with many physicians prescribing a total steroid burst dose below the lower end of the recommended dose range. Additional study is needed to determine the optimal dose and duration for treating exacerbations of asthma with OCS to minimize both side effects and time to reestablishing asthma control. (Allergy Asthma Proc 33:82-89, 2012; doi: 10.2500/aap.2012.33.3499)

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

4.2
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