4.1 Article

Emergency Department Visits Due to Dyspnea: Association with Inhalation Therapy in COPD and Cases with Adverse Drug Reactions

出版社

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/COPD.S367062

关键词

emergency department; dyspnea; guideline therapy; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; adverse drug events

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that 41% of COPD patients in the emergency department received therapy that was underdosed according to current guidelines. Dyspnea was the most common symptom in this group and occurred more frequently in patients who received underdosed inhalation therapy.
Purpose: Dyspnea is a leading symptom of COPD that causes presentations in emergency departments or negatively impacts on them. Guideline-based inhalation therapies are intended to reduce dyspnea in COPD patients. This study analyzed how common guideline recommended inhalation therapy regimens are occurring in clinical practice among COPD patients presenting to emergency departments due to adverse drug reactions in polytherapy using data of the German ADRED database.Patients and Methods: In total, 269 COPD cases were identified. In a further analysis, all cases were analyzed for documented GOLD stage and guideline-recommended inhalation therapy for COPD. Dyspnea and other symptoms identified during ED presentation were analyzed and compared between patients who did and did not receive the guideline's recommended inhalation therapy.Results: In this observation, 41% (n = 46) of all 112 cases with a documented COPD and GOLD stage received an underdosed therapy according to current guidelines. Dyspnea was the most common identified symptom (32%, n = 36) in this cohort and occurred more often in patients who received an underdosage of inhalation therapy (p < 0.01).Conclusion: Patients with COPD presenting to ED with ADRs show a high rate of non-guideline-recommended inhalation therapy and present more often with dyspnea compared to those COPD patients who received an adequate dosing of inhalation therapy.

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

4.1
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