4.1 Article

The association between inhaled corticosteroid and pneumonia in COPD patients: the improvement of patients' life quality with COPD in Taiwan (IMPACT) study

Journal

Publisher

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/COPD.S116750

Keywords

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; inhaled corticosteroid; pneumonia

Funding

  1. National Science Council [NSC 101-2325-B-002-064, NSC 102-2325-B-002-087, NSC 103-2325-B-002-027, NSC 104-2325-B-002-035]
  2. National Health Research Institutes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To investigate the association between inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) exposure patterns and the risk of pneumonia in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, we performed a nested case-control study. Between 1998 and 2010, 51,739 patients, including 19,838 cases of pneumonia, were matched to 74,849 control subjects selected from a cohort of COPD patients using ICSs via risk-set sampling of the database constructed by the National Health Research Institutes of Taiwan. After adjusting for covariates, the current use of ICSs was associated with a 25% increase in the risk of pneumonia (odds ratio [OR] = 1.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.20-1.30), and there was an increase in the OR with increase in the average daily dosage. Additionally, users of fluticasone/salmeterol, fluticasone, and either fluticasone/salmeterol or fluticasone were more likely to be at a higher risk of pneumonia (OR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.28-1.41; OR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.10-1.35; and OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.27-1.39, respectively). In contrast, there were no statistically significant associations between the risk of pneumonia and the use of budesonide/formoterol, budesonide, or either budesonide/formoterol or budesonide. In conclusion, ICSs are significantly associated with an increased risk of pneumonia in COPD patients. The effect is prominent for fluticasone-containing ICSs but not for budesonide-containing ICSs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available