Skip to main content
PMC home page
The BMJ logoLink to The BMJ
. 2001 Oct 20;323(7318):901. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7318.901

Systematic review of clinical effectiveness of pressurised metered dose inhalers versus other hand held inhaler devices for delivering β2 agonists bronchodilators in asthma

Felix S F Ram a, John Wright a, David Brocklebank a, John E S White b,a
PMCID: PMC58539  PMID: 11668134

Abstract

Objectives

To determine the clinical effectiveness of pressurised metered dose inhalers compared with other hand held inhaler devices for delivering short acting β2 agonists in stable asthma.

Design

Systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

Data sources

Cochrane Airways Group specialised trials database (which includes hand searching of 20 relevant journals), Medline, Embase, Cochrane controlled clinical trials register, pharmaceutical companies, and bibliographies of included trials.

Trials

All trials in children or adults with stable asthma that compared the pressurised metered dose inhaler (with or without a spacer device) against any other hand held inhaler device containing the same β2 agonist.

Results

84 randomised controlled trials were included. No differences were found between the pressurised metered dose inhaler and any other hand held inhaler device for lung function, blood pressure, symptoms, bronchial hyperreactivity, systemic bioavailability, inhaled steroid requirement, serum potassium concentration, and use of additional relief bronchodilators. In adults, pulse rate was lower in those using the pressurised metered dose inhaler compared with those using Turbohaler (standardised mean difference 0.44, 95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.84); patients preferred the pressurised metered dose inhaler to the Rotahaler (relative risk 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.78); hydrofluoroalkane pressurised metered dose inhalers reduced the requirement for rescue short course oral steroids (relative risk 0.67, 0.49 to 0.91).

Conclusions

No evidence was found to show that alternative inhaler devices are more effective than standard pressurised metered dose inhalers for delivering acting β2 agonist bronchodilators in asthma. Pressurised metered dose inhalers remain the most cost effective delivery devices.

What is already known on this topic

Many different inhaler devices are available for administration of short acting β2 agonists in asthma

Current guidelines for their use are inconsistent and not evidence based

What this study adds

This systematic review found no evidence that alternative inhaler devices are more effective than pressurised metered dose inhalers for administering inhaled β2 agonist bronchodilators

Pressurised metered dose inhalers (or the cheapest inhaler device) should be used as first line treatment in all patients with stable asthma who require β2 agonists

Introduction

Inhalation of bronchodilators and corticosteroids is the mainstay of treatment for patients with asthma. Many inhaler devices and drug combinations are now available, and competing promotional claims can confuse both prescribers and patients. The costs of the drug used in specific devices differs greatly, and the annual cost to the NHS for asthma drugs is over £500m.1 National and international guidelines are inconsistent in their recommendations for prescribing inhaler devices in different age groups.2,3 None is explicitly evidence based, and there has been no systematic review of published trials.

We conducted a systematic review to determine the clinical effectiveness of the standard chlorofluorocarbon containing pressurised metered dose inhaler compared with other hand held inhaler devices, including chlorofluorocarbon-free pressurised metered dose inhalers delivering short acting β2 agonist bronchodilators in patients with stable asthma.

Methods

Identification and selection of trials

We identified trials published from 1966 to December 2000 by computerised searches of the Cochrane Airways Group trials database, which includes Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and hand searching of 20 relevant journals and proceedings of three respiratory societies, and reviews of the bibliographies of included trials (www.ncchta.org/execsumm/summ526.htm). We also independently searched the electronic databases (Medline, Embase, and CINAHL) and 17 online respiratory websites to decrease the chance of missing relevant trials. We included citations in any language. We also contacted the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture inhaled asthma drugs and searched the reference lists of trials included in this review for further studies.

The results of the computerised search were independently reviewed by two reviewers. Any potentially relevant articles were obtained in full. The full text of potentially relevant articles was reviewed independently by the two reviewers. Disagreement was resolved by third party adjudication.

Trial characteristics

We included only randomised controlled trials of short acting β2 agonists. Trials could be laboratory, hospital, or community based. Trials were included if they compared clinical outcomes of a single drug delivered by standard pressurised metered dose inhalers (with or without a spacer device) against any other hand held device. Trials that compared different doses of inhaled drug and those that used challenge testing were also included. We included trials in both children and adults.

We looked at the following outcomes: lung function, quality of life measures, symptom scores, drugs for additional relief, steroid requirement, nocturnal awakening, acute exacerbation, days off work or school, treatment failure, patient compliance, patient preference, adverse effects, bronchial hyperreactivity, and systemic bioavailability. For trials using cumulative dosing schedules4–16 we used data that were generated after the administration of the last cumulative dose.

Data abstraction and assessment of validity

Two reviewers independently extracted details of each trial (intervention, duration, participants, design, quality, and outcome measures) directly into tables. Disagreement was resolved by consensus. We contacted the first authors of the included studies as necessary to provide additional information or data for their studies. We assessed internal validity of included trials using the Jadad17 and Cochrane scales.18

Analysis of data

We analysed the data using Review Manager (version 4.1.1) statistical software.18 For the meta-analysis, we used weighted mean differences for measures on the same scales (for example, forced expiratory volume in one second) or standardised mean differences for outcomes that used different scales (for example, symptoms).

The pressurised metered dose inhaler was compared with each of the different hand held inhaler devices. Each of these device comparisons was further separated into the different trial designs, duration, and the method of reporting (mean absolute values, percentage change from baseline, and absolute change from baseline). Trials were analysed separately for children and adults.

Twenty trials that examined pulmonary function variables early (15-45 minutes) rather than late (hours) after administration of bronchodilator were reported separately. This is because the early and late effects of β2 bronchodilators may be different, especially as these compounds have a short half life and short duration of effect.

We tested heterogeneity between trials using χ2 tests. As long as statistical heterogeneity did not exist, we used a fixed effects model to calculate summary results and 95% confidence intervals. If heterogeneity occurred, we planned subgroup analyses beforehand to explore possible reasons for heterogeneity. These subgroups included quality of the trial, severity of asthma, type of β2 bronchodilator, and use of spacer device with pressurised metered dose inhaler. Publication or selection bias was tested by preparing funnel plots.19

Results

The electronic search yielded 1130 citations: 40 references were found in Embase, Medline, CINAHL, and online respiratory journal databases, 1063 citations came from the Cochrane Airways Group register (fig 1). An additional 27 references were added from bibliographic searching of included trials. Of the 1130 abstracts, 181 trials were identified by two reviewers as potentially suitable for inclusion. On scanning the full text of these 181 trials, 92 were excluded (www.ncchta.org/execsumm/summ526.htm). Disagreements over inclusion arose in five papers and were resolved after discussion with the third reviewer. Eighty nine papers provided 84 trials (see www.ncchta.org/execsumm/summ526.htm for details) that were included in the review (with nine trials being duplicate publications of trials already included).4–16,20–86 Four of the included trials74,83–85 reported more than one trial in their paper or had additional independent trial arms that met our inclusion criteria and were therefore analysed as separate trials. We wrote to 78 authors of the 80 included trials for further information and received 34 replies.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

QUORUM trial flow results

Study characteristics

There were 45 single dose trials, 16 long term trials, and 17 cumulative dosing trials; 62 trials used a crossover design and 10 a parallel design. Six trials used different or double dosing schedules and nine were challenge testing trials. Thirteen trials were in children. Some trials could be listed in more than one category.

The oldest included trial was published in 1977. The doses of β2 agonist used in the included trials varied widely. In 64 trials of salbutamol, doses ranged from 100 μg in single dose trials up to 4200 μg in cumulative dose trials. In 15 trials of terbutaline doses ranged from 0.25 mg (single dose) to 4.0 mg (cumulative dose), and in five trials of fenoterol, single doses ranged from 200 μg to 600 μg.

Seventy one trials (with 67 references) were in adults4–16,23–62,73–86 and 13 in children.20–22,63–72 Most trials were in patients with mild to moderate asthma, as defined by a baseline forced expiratory volume in one second >50% of predicted.

Data synthesis

Most of the trials were double blinded using double dummy technique and most had adequate concealment of allocation. All trials were of good methodological quality with a Cochrane score above B and Jadad score greater than 3. Four of the included trials were reported as abstracts with insufficient information for scoring.29,60,75,85

Most trials reported continuous outcomes as mean values after giving bronchodilators. However, 10 trials reported the mean maximum values after bronchodilator.73–82 We therefore did a sensitivity analysis (excluding these 10 trials) to find whether the results were different. In all cases, the results were not different with or without the inclusion of these trials.

For the 62 crossover trials, we had planned to use only the first arm data in our analysis. These data were reported by only 10 trials. However, with these 10 trials, we were able to use inverse variance pooling in order to test the effect of our software treating data from crossover trials as parallel data. The results were the same when comparing individual patient data with group means.

Thresholds for clinically important results of pulmonary function tests are often arbitrary. However, from the range of values that the trial researchers used, a guide would be 15-30 l/min or 7.5% to 20% for peak expiratory flow rate and 0.2 or 15% for forced expiratory volume in one second.

We found no significant differences in children or adults between the standard pressurised metered dose inhaler and any of the other 10 hand held inhaler devices (Turbohaler, Diskhaler, hydrofluoroalkane pressurised metered dose inhaler, Rotahaler, Spiros, Easyhaler, multidose powder inhaler, Clickhaler, Gentlehaler, and Autohaler) for the following outcomes: forced expiratory volume in one second, forced vital capacity, peak expiratory flow rate, area under the curve for forced expiratory volume in one second, blood pressure, symptoms, bronchial hyperreactivity, systemic bioavailability, inhaled steroid requirement, serum potassium concentration, and use of additional relief bronchodilators (table 1). Figure 2 shows an example of the meta-analysis as Forrest plots. A complete set of Forrest plots is available on www.ncchta.org/execsumm/summ526.htm. No data were available for quality of life, patient compliance, nocturnal awakening, and days off work or school.

Table 1.

Non-significant outcomes in trials comparing pressurised metered dose inhaler with other inhaler devices

Trial design/Device Non-significant outcomes (No of trials and reference Nos)
Crossover
 Turbohaler FEV1 (66 9 13 41 60 83), FVC (46 9 13 41), pulse rate (34 6 9), AUC-FEV1 (111), blood pressure (16), adverse effects (34 41 46), treatment failure (146), serum potassium (26 41)
Diskhaler PEFR (139), adverse effects (139)
HFA-pressurised metered dose inhaler FEV1 (510 14 15 54 74), FVC (310 14 54), adverse effects (214 74), AUC-FEV1 (274 85), pulse rate (210 14), blood pressure (210 14), serum potassium (210 14)
Rotahaler FEV1 (85 8 12 16 40 51 62 76), FVC (316 40 62), PEFR (426 36 38 62), AUC-FEV1 (240 76), adverse effects (238 76), exacerbations (18)
Spiros FEV1 (184), FVC (184), AUC-FEV1 (184), PEFR (184), pulse rate (184), blood pressure (184), serum potassium (184)
Spinhaler FEV1 (131), FVC (131)
Easyhaler FEV1 (47 59 79 82), FVC (49 59 79,82), PEFR (359 79 82), AUC- FEV1 (259 79), pulse rate (179), blood pressure (179), adverse effects (37 79 82)
Multidose powder inhaler FEV1 (181), AUC-FEV1 (181), adverse effects (181), preference (181)
Clickhaler FEV1 (177), adverse effects (177)
Gentlehaler FEV1 (144), FVC (144), PEFR (144)
Autohaler FEV1 (161), FVC (161), PEFR (161)
Parallel
 Powder inhaler or HFA-pressurised metered dose inhaler FEV1 (625 27 50 55 73 80), FVC (227 55), PEFR (350 55 57), AUC-FEV1 (425 73 78 80), β2 use (255 57), symptoms scores (155), exacerbations (424 57 78 80), adverse effects (624 50 55 57 78 80), preference (147), inhaled steroid requirement (125), pulse rate (150), treatment failure (416 25 50 73)
Challenge
 Powder inhaler or HFA-pressurised metered dose inhaler FEV1 (423 43 64 75), FVC (143), PD20-FEV1 (232 81)
Different doses
 Powder inhaler or HFA-pressurised metered dose inhaler FEV1 (528 33 49 52 55), PEFR (158), preference (128), symptoms (133)
Open in a new tab

FEV1=forced expiratory volume in one second, FVC=forced vital capacity, AUC-FEV1=area under curve for forced expiratory volume in one second, PEFR=peak expiratory flow rate, HFA=hydrofluoroalkane. 

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Forced expiratory volume in one second values for patients in trials comparing pressurised metered dose inhalers with Turbohaler

Six of the trials that used a 2 to 1 or larger dosing schedule28,43,49,52,56,58 did not show significantly different results and did not provide results that were different from trials that used a 1 to 1 dosing schedule.

Tables 2 and 3 show all outcome measures that were significant in one or more trials (P<0.05) and did not show any heterogeneity.

Table 2.

Significant outcomes found in more than one trial

Inhaler device Outcome (favoured device) No of trials and reference Nos Type of trial (No of patients) Effect size (95% CI) P value
Adults
 Turbohaler Pulse rate (higher with Turbohaler) 34 6 9 Cumulative dosing crossover (104) SMD=0.44 (0.05 to 0.84) 0.03
Rotahaler Patient preference (metered dose inhaler) 326 35 38 Crossover trials: 2 long term, 1 short term (156) Odds ratio=3.10 (1.60 to 6.01) 0.0008
HFA-pressurised metered dose inhaler Oral steroid requirement (lower with HFA inhaler) 373 80 Long term parallel trials (519) Odds ratio=0.57 (0.37 to 0.88) 0.01
NNT=9 (5.21 to 43.48)
Children
 Rotahaler Patient preference (metered dose inhaler) 265 70 Long term trials: 1 parallel, 1 crossover (260) Odds ratio=2.63 (1.56 to 4.44) 0.0003
Open in a new tab

SMD= standardised mean difference, HFA=hydrofluoroalkane, NNT=number needed to treat. 

Five studies used spacer devices with the pressurised metered dose inhalers.21,32,33,52,71 There were no differences in the results of trials that used pressurised metered dose inhalers with and without spacer devices compared with alternative inhaler devices. However, this indirect subgroup comparison was not determined before the study and is therefore not a reliable method to assess the effectiveness of spacer devices.

Discussion

This large review of 84 trials and 14 outcome measures found no evidence that pressurised metered dose inhalers were any less effective than other inhaler devices for administering short acting β2 agonists. The number of trials that could be combined in the meta-analysis was limited by inconsistencies in measurement and reporting of outcomes. Publication bias is a threat to the validity of most systematic reviews. However, there was no evidence of funnel plot asymmetry in any of the comparisons (fig 3).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Example funnel plot for 31 trials (1290 participants) with data on forced expiratory flow volume in one second for pressurised metered dose inhaler and all other inhaler devices combined using standardised mean difference

A pitfall of crossover trials, such as those included in this review, is that the effects of the first treatment can carry over into the second treatment period, leading to an underestimation of the real difference between treatments.87 In the crossover trials included, treatment with short acting β2 agonists did not seem to alter respiratory function (forced expiratory volume in one second) before treatment in the second arm, and if lung function differed by more than 10-15% from baseline values the patient was excluded from the trial or the second arm visit rescheduled.5,6,8,9,80 However, most trials included a washout period and patients were excluded if lung function differed by more than 10-15% from baseline.

Notable findings

Trials using 2 to 1 or greater dosing showed no clinical advantage over 1 to 1 dosing trials. Higher dosing schedules are often promoted by pharmaceutical companies to show clinical superiority of one inhaler device over another and to support prescribing recommendations. We found no evidence in support of these claims. A previous review of inhaler devices that considered the relation between clinical efficacy and lung deposition concluded that differences in drug deposition alone did not always explain corresponding differences in bronchodilatory responses among inhaler devices.88

Three trials found a higher pulse rate in patients using Turbohaler than those using a pressurised metered dose inhaler.21,23,26 This would indicate greater systemic absorption with Turbohaler, although this did not translate into greater treatment effect.

Three trials found that adult patients preferred the pressurised metered dose inhaler to the Rotahaler.26,35,38 One trial in children69 and one in adults47 showed that patients preferred the Turbohaler. One trial showed that patients preferred the pressurised metered dose inhaler to the multidose dry powder inhaler.81 These results should be viewed with caution because of the potential for bias regarding blinding of new inhaler devices in clinical trials.

Long term parallel trials have shown that regular daily use of hydrofluoroalkane pressurised metered dose inhalers may reduce the requirement for short course oral steroids.73,80 However, this result may be biased because of inadequate randomisation in one trial. Confirmation from further trials is required.

Further research

Although we did not find significant differences for most outcomes, the confidence intervals could include clinically important differences. Our comparison of population means cannot show such clinically important differences for individual patients from different inhaler devices. Small changes in physiological measures such as pulmonary function will not necessarily be important in themselves, but rather in the impact they have on the symptoms and quality of life of the patient.89

Future trials should address the paucity of patient centred outcomes such as quality of life, adherence, nocturnal awakening, and days off work or school. Data on these outcomes were not available in this review. Further systematic reviews are needed to assess the effectiveness of pressurised metered dose inhalers with or without spacer devices and the effectiveness of training and education about use of inhaler devices.

Conclusion

We found no evidence that alternative inhaler devices are clinically more effective than pressurised metered dose inhaler for delivery of short acting β2 bronchodilators. Therefore, pressurised metered dose inhaler or the cheapest inhaler device the patient can use adequately, should be prescribed as first line in all patients with stable asthma requiring short acting β2 agonist bronchodilators.

Table 3.

Significant outcomes found in only one trial

Inhaler device Outcome (favoured device) Trial type (No of patients) Effect size (95% CI) P value
Adults
 Turbohaler Preference (Turbohaler) Long term parallel47 (258) OR=2.83 (1.59 to 5.03) <0.0006
Rotahaler Pulse rate (Rotahaler) Cumulative dosing crossover16 (14) WMD=−5.5 (−10.0 to −0.96) 0.02
Multidose powder inhaler Preference (metered dose inhaler) Short term crossover81 (72) OR=0.36 (0.14 to 0.93) 0.04
Spinhaler FEV1 (metered dose inhaler) Short term crossover 31 (40) WMD=0.80 (0.01 to 0.16) <0.05
Spinhaler FVC (metered dose inhaler) Short term crossover31 (40) WMD=0.26 (0.09 to 0.43) 0.002
Children
 Turbohaler Preference (Turbohaler) Long term crossover69 (114) OR=3.27 (1.46 to 7.33) 0.004
Rotahaler Peak expiratory flow (Rotahaler) Long term crossover65 (86) WMD=105.4 (59 to 150) <0.0001
Rotahaler Exacerbations (Rotahaler) Long term parallel70 (204) RR=0.52 (0.28 to 0.95) 0.034
Open in a new tab

OR=odds ratio, WMD=weighted mean difference, RR=relative risk. 

Acknowledgments

This paper is based on a Cochrane review that is available in the Cochrane Library. As with all Cochrane reviews, the authors have committed to keep this review up to date.

The members of the National Health Technology Assessment Inhaler Review Steering Group are Felix Ram (research fellow in respiratory medicine, Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust), David Brocklebank (specialist registrar in respiratory medicine, Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust), John Wright (consultant in clinical epidemiology and public health, Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust), Chris Cates (general practitioner and Cochrane editor, Bushey, Hertfordshire), John E S White (consultant physician, York Health Services NHS Trust), Martin Muers (consultant physician, United Leeds Teaching Hospitals), Graham Douglas (consultant physician, Aberdeen Royal Hospitals), Linda Davies (senior research fellow, University of York), Dave Smith (research fellow, University of York), and Peter Barry (consultant paediatrician, Leicester Royal Infirmary).

We thank the following groups and individuals for their help: Cochrane Airways Review Group staff at St George's Hospital in London (Steve Milan, Karen Blackhall, Bettina Rueben, Toby Lasserson) for identifying trials and obtaining copies of papers; and Sheree Wellington for checking data abstractions and entry. We also thank all authors who provided further data from their trials.

Footnotes

Funding: NHS Research and Development Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Competing interests: None declared.

References

  • 1.Neville RG, Pearson MG, Richards N, Patience J, Sondhi S, Wagstaff B, et al. A cost analysis on the pattern of asthma prescribing in the UK. Eur Respir J. 1999;14:605–609. doi: 10.1034/j.1399-3003.1999.14c20.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.British Thoracic Society. British guidelines on asthma management. Thorax. 1997;52(suppl 1):S1–21. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.American Thoracic Society. Standards for the diagnosis and care of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995;152:S77–120. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bondesson E, Friberg K, Soliman S, Lofdahl CG. Safety and efficacy of a high cumulative dose of salbutamol inhaled via Turbuhaler or via a pressurized metered-dose inhaler in patients with asthma. Respir Med. 1998;92:325–330. doi: 10.1016/s0954-6111(98)90116-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Dirksen H, Groth S. Fenoterol inhalation powder as an alternative to treatment with the metered dose inhaler. Eur J Respir Dis. 1983;64(suppl 130):48–53. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ekstrom T, Andersson AC, Skedinger M, Lindbladh C, Stahl E. Dose potency relationship of terbutaline inhaled via Turbuhaler or via a pressurized metered dose inhaler. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 1995;74:328–332. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Haahtela T, Vidgren M, Nyberg A, Korhonen P, Laurikainen K, Silvasti M. A novel multiple dose powder inhaler. Salbutamol powder and aerosol give equal bronchodilatation with equal doses. Ann Allergy. 1994;72(2):178–182. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hetzel MR, Clark CG. Comparison of salbutamol Rotahaler with conventional pressurized aerosol. Clin Allergy. 1977;7:563–568. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2222.1977.tb01486.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Johnsen CR, Weeke ER. Turbuhaler: a new device for dry powder terbutaline inhalation. Allergy. 1988;43:393–395. doi: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.1988.tb00434.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Kleerup EC, Tashkin DP, Cline AC, Ekholm BP. Cumulative dose-response trial of non-CFC propellant HFA 134a salbutamol sulfate metered-dose inhaler in patients with asthma. Chest. 1996;109:702–707. doi: 10.1378/chest.109.3.702. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Mellen A, Arvidsson P, Palmqvist M, Lotvall J. Equivalent bronchodilation with salbutamol given via pressurised metered-dose inhaler or Turbuhaler. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999;159(5 Pt 1):1663–1665. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.159.5.9801061. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Morice AH, Peake MD, Allen MB, Campbell JH, Parry-Billings M. Evaluation of a novel salbutamol dry powder inhaler: clinical equivalence to a standard metered dose inhaler and in-use stability. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1996;42:658. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Persson G, Gruvstad E, Stahl E. A new multiple dose powder inhaler (Turbuhaler) compared with a pressurized inhaler in a trial of terbutaline in asthmatics. Eur Respir J. 1988;1:681–684. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ramsdell JW, Colice GL, Ekholm BP, Klinger NM. Cumulative dose response trial comparing HFA-134a albuterol sulfate and conventional CFC albuterol in patients with asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 1998;81:593–599. doi: 10.1016/S1081-1206(10)62711-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ruffin R, Mitchell C, Thompson P, Harle D, Cline A, Ekholm B. A placebo controlled comparison of the dose-response effects of salbutamol sulphate in chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) vs hydrofluoroalkane (HFA-134a) propellants in asthmatics. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995;151:A58. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Svedmyr N, Lofdahl C-G, Svedmyr K. The effect of powder aerosol compared to pressurized aerosol. Eur J Respir Dis. 1982;63(suppl 119):81–88. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carrol D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Controlled Clin Trials. 1996;17(1):1–12. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Clarke M, Oxman AD, editors. Review manager (RevMan) [computer program]. Version 4.0. Oxford: Cochrane Collaboration; 1999. Cochrane reviewers' handbook 4.0. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analyses detected by a simple graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629–634. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Svenonius E, Arborelius M, Wiberg R, Stahl E, Svenonius M. A comparison of terbutaline inhaled by Turbuhaler and by a chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) inhaler in children with exercise-induced asthma. Allergy. 1994;49:408–412. doi: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.1994.tb00832.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.3M Health Care. Four week safety and efficacy trial of Airomir inhaler and CFC-salbutamol inhaler in children with asthma. Loughborough: 3M Health Care (unpublished data in file 1141-SILV).
  • 22.Ahlstrom H, Svenonius E, Svensson M. Treatment of asthma in pre-school children with inhalation of terbutaline in Turbuhaler compared with nebuhaler. Allergy. 1989;44:515–518. doi: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.1989.tb04191.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Anderson PB, Stahl E, Hansen NCG. Terbutaline via Turbuhaler is effective in reversing metacholine-induced bronchoconstriction. J Clin Res. 1998;1:49–54. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Baumgarten CR, Dorow P, Weber HH, Gebhardt R, Kettner J, Sykes AP. Equivalence of as-required salbutamol propelled by propellants 11 and 12 or HFA 134-a in mild to moderate asthmatics. Respir Med. 2000;94(suppl B):S17–S21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Bleecker ER, Tinkleman DG, Ramsdell J, Ekholm BP, Klinger NM, Colice GL, et al. Proventil HFA provides bronchodilation comparable to ventolin over 12 weeks of regular use in asthmatics. Chest. 1998;113:283–289. doi: 10.1378/chest.113.2.283. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Boye K. A comparison of fenoterol powder capsules and fenoterol metered dose spray in bronchial asthma. Eur J Respir Dis. 1983;64(suppl 130):9–11. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bronsky E, Bucholtz GA, Busse WW, Chervinsky P, Condemi J, Ghafouri MA, et al. Comparison of inhaled albuterol powder and aerosol in asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1987;79:741–747. doi: 10.1016/0091-6749(87)90205-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Chapman KR, Friberg K, Balter MS, Hyland RH, Alexander M, Abboud RT, et al. Albuterol via Turbuhaler versus albuterol via pressurized metered-dose inhaler in asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 1997;78:59–63. doi: 10.1016/s1081-1206(10)63373-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Cohen RM, Plescow WW, Webb DR, Devorin DJ, Rooklin AR, Barnhart FH, et al. Albuterol in HFA propellant (ALB-HFA) 180mcg QID is comparable in safety and efficacy to albuterol in CFC propellant (ALB-CFC) 180mcg QID in adolescent and adult patients with asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1999;103:S128. (489). [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Dockhorn RJ, Wagner DE, Burgess GL, Hafner KB, Letourneau K, Colice GL, et al. Proventil HFA provides protection from exercise-induced bronchoconstriction comparable to proventil and ventolin. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 1997;79:85–88. doi: 10.1016/S1081-1206(10)63091-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Duncan D, Paterson IC, Harris D, Crompton GK. Comparison of the bronchodilator effects of salbutamol inhaled as a dry powder and by conventional pressurised aerosol. Br Clin Pharm. 1977;4:669–671. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Giannini D, Di Franco A, Bacci E, Dente F, Taccola M, Vagaggini B, et al. The protective effect of salbutamol inhaled using different devices on methacholine bronchoconstriction. Chest. 2000;117:1319–1323. doi: 10.1378/chest.117.5.1319. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Golish J, Curtis-McCarthy P, McCarthy K, Kavuru M, Wagner W, Beck G, et al. Albuterol delivered by metered-dose inhaler (MDI), MDI with spacer and Rotahaler device—a comparison of efficacy and safety. J Asthma. 1998;35:373–379. doi: 10.3109/02770909809075671. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Harris R, Rothwell RP. A comparison between aerosol and inhaled powder administration of fenoterol in adult asthmatics. NZ Med J. 1981;94:421–422. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Hartley JP, Nogrady SG, Gibby OM, Seaton A. Bronchodilator effects of dry salbutamol powder administered by Rotahaler. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1977;4:673–675. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Hartley JPR, Nogrady SG, Seaton A. Long-term comparison of salbutamol powder with salbutamol aerosol in asthmatic out-patients. Br J Dis Chest. 1979;73:271–276. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Jackson L, Stahl E, Holgate ST. Terbutaline via pressurised metered dose inhaled (P-MDI) and Turbuhaler in highly reactive asthmatic patients. Eur Respir J. 1994;7(9):1598–1601. doi: 10.1183/09031936.94.07091598. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kiviranta K. Fenoterol inhalation powder and aerosol in the treatment of asthma. Allergy. 1985;40:305–307. doi: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.1985.tb00237.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Kou M, Kumana CR, Lauder IJ, Lam WK, Chan JCK. Bronchodilator responses to salbutamol using Diskhaler versus metered-dose inhaler. J Asthma. 1998;35(6):505–511. doi: 10.3109/02770909809071004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Latimer KM, Roberts R, Dolovich J, Hargreave FE. Salbutamol: comparison of bronchodilating effect of inhaled powder and aerosol in asthmatic subjects. Can Med Assoc J. 1982;127:857–859. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Lofdahl CG, Andersson L, Bondesson E, Carlsson LG, Friberg K, Hedner J, et al. Differences in bronchodilating potency of salbutamol in Turbuhaler as compared with pressurized metered-dose inhaler formulation in patients with reversible airway obstruction. Eur Respir J. 1997;10:2474–2478. doi: 10.1183/09031936.97.10112474. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Maesen FP, Smeets JJ, Bersen R, Cornelissen PJ. Ipratropium bromide (Atrovent) as inhalation powder. A double-blind trial of comparison with ipratropium as a pressure aerosol in patients with reversible airways obstruction. Allergy. 1986;41:37–42. doi: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.1986.tb00272.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Mathieu M, Goldman M, Lellouche N, Sartene R. Kinetics of action of salbutamol inhaled from a metered dose inhaler (MDI) and a “diskhaler”. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1992;42:435–438. doi: 10.1007/BF00280131. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Newman SP, Clarke SW. Bronchodilator delivery from Gentlehaler, a new low-velocity pressurized aerosol inhaler. Chest. 1993;103:1442–1446. doi: 10.1378/chest.103.5.1442. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.O'Callaghan C, Everard ML, Russell RIR, Bush A, Keeffe PO. Efficacy and safety of salbutamol delivered by a novel multidose dry powder inhaler (DPI) and a pressurized metered dose inhaler (MDI) in paediatric asthma. Eur Respir J. 1997;16:126s. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Osterman K, Norborg AM, Stahl E. A multiple dose powder inhaler (Turbuhaler) compared with a conventional aerosol. Allergy. 1989;44:294–297. doi: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.1989.tb01073.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Osterman K, Stahl E, Kallen A. Bricanyl Turbuhaler in the treatment of asthma: a six week multi-centre trial carried out in Sweden, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Norway and Finland. Eur Respir J. 1991;4:175–179. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Parameswaran KN, Inman MD, Ekholm BP, Morris MM, Summers E, O'Byrne PM, et al. Protection against methacholine bronchoconstriction to assess relative potency of inhaled beta-2 agonists. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999;160:354–357. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.160.1.9812035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Pover GM, Langdom CG, Jones SR, Fidler C. Evaluation of a breath operated powder inhaler. J Int Med Res. 1988;16(3):201–203. doi: 10.1177/030006058801600306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Salat D, Popov D, Sykes AP. Equivalence of salbutamol 200 μg four times daily propelled by propellants 11 and 12 or HFA 134-a in mild to moderate asthmatics. Respir Med. 2000;94(suppl B):S22–S28. doi: 10.1016/s0954-6111(00)90150-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Salorinne Y, Siren R. Ventilation effects of fenoterol powder and freon-propelled aerosol in patients with asthma. Eur J Respir Dis. 1983;130(suppl):6–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Selroos O, Lofroos AB, Pietinalho A, Riska H. Comparison of terbutaline and placebo from a pressurised metered dose inhaler and a dry powder inhaler in a subgroup of patients with asthma. Thorax. 1994;49:1228–1230. doi: 10.1136/thx.49.12.1228. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Seppala O-P, Herrala J, Hedman J, Alanko K, Liipo K, Terho E, et al. The bronchoprotective efficacy of salbutamol inhaled from a new metered-dose powder inhaler compared with a conventional pressurized metered-dose inhaler connected to a spacer. Respir Med. 1998;92:578–583. doi: 10.1016/s0954-6111(98)90312-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Taggart SC, Custovic A, Richards DH, Woodcock A. GR106642X: a new, non-ozone depleting propellant for inhalers. BMJ. 1995;310:1639–1640. doi: 10.1136/bmj.310.6995.1639a. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Tammivaara R, Aalto E, Lehtonen K, Vilkka V, Laurikainen K, Silvasti M, et al. Comparison of a novel salbutamol multidose powder inhaler with a salbutamol metered dose inhaler in patients with asthma. Curr Therap Res. 1997;58:734–744. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Thompson P. Cumulative dose-response trial of airomir (salbutamol sulphate in CFC-free system) versus CFC salbutamol sulphate and HFA-134a placebo in patients with asthma. Br J Clin Prac. 1995;49(suppl 79):31–32. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Tinkelman DG, Bleecker ER, Ramsdell J, Ekholm BP, Klinger NM, Colice GL, et al. Proventil HFA and Ventolin have similar safety profiles during regular use. Chest. 1998;113:290–296. doi: 10.1378/chest.113.2.290. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Tukiainen H, Terho EO. Comparison of inhaled salbutamol powder and aerosol in asthmatic patients with low peak expiratory flow level. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1985;27:645–647. doi: 10.1007/BF00547042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Vidgren M, Silvasti M, Korhonen P, Kinkelin A, Frischer B, Stern K. Clinical equivalence of a novel multiple dose powder inhaler versus a conventional metered dose inhaler on bronchodilating effects of salbutamol. Arzneimittelforschung. 1995;45:44–47. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Villiger B, Schwarz F. Comparison of inhaled terbutaline either via MDI or via a new DPI Turbuhaler. Eur Respir J. 1990;3:94s. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Waterhouse JC, Simmons JL, Wray H, Howard P. Comparative assessment of a new breath-actuated inhaler in patients with reversible airways obstruction. Respiration. 1992;59:155–158. doi: 10.1159/000196047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Zainudin BMZ, Biddiscombe M, Tolfree SEJ, Short M, Spiro SG. Comparison of bronchodilator responses and deposition patterns of salbutamol inhaled from a pressurized metered dose inhaler, as a dry powder, and as a nebulized solution. Thorax. 1990;45:469–473. doi: 10.1136/thx.45.6.469. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Bronsky EA, Spector SL, Pearlman DS, Justus SE, Bishop AL. Albuterol aerosol versus albuterol Rotacaps in exercise-induced bronchospasm in children. J Asthma. 1995;32:207–214. doi: 10.3109/02770909509089509. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Colice GL, Klinger NM, Ekholm BP, Dockhorn RJ. Proventil HFA prevents exercise-induced bronchoconstriction in children. J Asthma. 1999;36:671–676. doi: 10.3109/02770909909055419. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Croner S, Hedenskog S, Kjellman NI, Oderlram H. Salbutamol by powder or spray inhalation in childhood asthma. Allergy. 1980;35:589–592. doi: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.1980.tb01809.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Custovic A, Taggart SC, Stuart A, Robinson A, Woodcock A. Efficacy of a new non-ozone depleting formulation for salbutamol. J Pharm Med. 1995;5:161–168. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Fuglsang G, Pedersen S. Comparison of a new multidose powder inhaler with a pressurized aerosol in children with asthma. Pediatr Pulmonol. 1989;7:112–115. doi: 10.1002/ppul.1950070211. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Hirsch T, Peter-Kern M, Koch R, Leupold W. Influence of inspiratory capacity on bronchodilation via Turbuhaler or pressurized metered-dose inhaler in asthmatic children. Respir Med. 1997;91:341–346. doi: 10.1016/s0954-6111(97)90060-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Hultquist C, Ahlstrom H, Kjellman NM, Malmqvist LA, Svenonius E, Melin S. A double-blind comparison between a new multi-dose powder inhaler (Turbuhaler) and metered dose inhaler in children with asthma. Allergy. 1989;44:467–470. doi: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.1989.tb04184.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Kemp JP, Furukawa CT, Bronsky EA, Grossman J, Lemanske RF, Mansfield LE, et al. Albuterol treatment for children with asthma: a comparison of inhaled powder and aerosol. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1989;83:697–702. doi: 10.1016/0091-6749(89)90085-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Laberge S, Spier S, Drblik SP, Turgeon JP. Comparison of inhaled terbutaline administered by either the Turbuhaler dry powder or a metered-dose inhaler with spacer in preschool children with asthma. J Pediatrics. 1994;124(5, Pt 1):815–817. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3476(05)81381-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Razzouk H, dos Santos L, Giudicelli J, Queiros M, Chieira M, Castro A, et al. A comparison of the bronchodilatory effect of 50 and 100 μg salbutamol via Turbuhaler and 100 μg salbutamol via pressurized metered dose inhaler in children with stable asthma. Int J Pharm. 1999;180:169–175. doi: 10.1016/s0378-5173(98)00399-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Bronsky E, Ekholm BP, Klinger NM, Colice GL. Switching patients with asthma from chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) albuterol to hydrofluoroalkane-134a (HFA) albuterol. J Asthma. 1999;36:107–114. doi: 10.3109/02770909909065154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Dockhorn R, Vanden Burgt JA, Ekholm BP, Donnell D, Cullen MT. Clinical equivalence of a novel non-chlorofluorocarbon-containing salbutamol sulfate metered-dose inhaler and a conventional chlorofluorocarbon inhaler in patients with asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1995;96:50–56. doi: 10.1016/s0091-6749(95)70032-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Hawksworth R, Sykes AP, Bogolubov M, Mant T, Stahl EG, Lee TH. Comparison of the bronchoprotective effect of single doses of albuterol/HFA 134a and albuterol/CFC against exercise induced bronchoconstriction. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1999;103:S129. [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Kemp JP, Hill MR, Vaughan LM, Meltzer EO, Welch MJ, Ostrom NK. Pilot trial of bronchodilator response to inhaled albuterol delivered by metered-dose inhaler and a novel dry powder inhaler. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 1997;79:322–326. doi: 10.1016/S1081-1206(10)63022-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Newhouse MT, Nantel NP, Chambers CB, Pratt B, Parry-Billings M. Clickhaler (a novel dry powder inhaler) provides similar bronchodilation to pressurized metered-dose inhaler, even at low flow rates. Chest. 1999;115:952–956. doi: 10.1378/chest.115.4.952. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Nelson H, Kemp J, Bieler S, Vaughan LM, Hill MR. Comparative efficacy and safety of albuterol sulfate Spiros inhaler and albuterol metered-dose inhaler in asthma. Chest. 1999;115:329–335. doi: 10.1378/chest.115.2.329. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Nieminen NM, Vidgren M, Laurikainen K, Jarvinen M, Liippo K, Tammivaara R, et al. Easyhaler, a novel multiple dose powder inhaler clinically equivalent to salbutamol metered dose inhaler and easier to use. Respiration. 1994;61:37–41. doi: 10.1159/000196301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Ramsdell JW, Klinger NM, Ekholm BP, Colice GL. Safety of long-term treatment with HFA albuterol. Chest. 1999;115:945–951. doi: 10.1378/chest.115.4.945. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Seppala OP, Kari E, Elo E, Loyttyniemi E, Kunkel G. Comparison of the bronchodilating efficacies of a novel salbutamol metered dose powder inhaler and a pressurised metered dose aerosol with a spacer. Arzneimittelforschung. 1998;48:919–923. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Silvasti M, Laurikainen K, Nieminen M, Jarvinen M, Liippo K, Tammivaara R, et al. Single dose comparison between a novel multiple dose powder inhaler and a conventional metered dose inhaler in asthmatic patients. Acta Therapeutica. 1993;19:125–135. [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Borgstrom L, Derom E, Stahl E, Wahlin-Boll E, Pauwels R. The inhalation device influences lung deposition and bronchodilating effect of terbutaline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1996;153:1636–1640. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.153.5.8630614. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Geoffroy P, Lalonde RL, Ahrens R, Clarke W, Hill MR. Clinical comparability of albuterol delivered by the breath-actuated inhaler (Spiros) and albuterol by MDI in patients with asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 1999;82:377–382. doi: 10.1016/S1081-1206(10)63287-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Langley SJ, Masterton CM, Batty EP, Jones M, Sykes A, Bogolubov M, et al. Comparison of single doses of HFA-134a propellant and CFC salbutamol in mild to moderate asthmatic patients. Eur Respir J. 1998;12(suppl 28):67S. [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Hindle M, Newton DAG, Chrystyn H. Dry powder inhalers are bioequivalent to metered dose inhalers. Chest. 1995;107:629–633. doi: 10.1378/chest.107.3.629. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Cleophas TJ. Carry-over biases in clinical pharmacology. Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem. 1993;31:803–809. doi: 10.1515/cclm.1993.31.12.803. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Sellroos O, Pietinalho A, Riska H. Delivery devices for asthma medication. Clinical implications of differences in effectiveness. Clin Immunotherapy. 1996;6:273–299. [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Guyatt GH, Juniper EF, Walter SD, Griffith LE, Goldstein RS. Interpreting treatment effects in randomised trials. BMJ. 1998;316:690–693. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7132.690. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from BMJ : British Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES