MethodsA prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial in
China was conducted. One hundred and fifty-nine patients diagnosed with CVA (aged 18-75 years) were randomly divided into two groups to receive twice daily for 8 weeks, inhaled budesonide 100g plus either oral procaterol 25g or placebo. Primary and secondary efficacy variables were cough symptom severity scores and Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) life quality scores. Adverse events were also assessed.
ResultsThe budesonide/placebo and budesonide/procaterol groups contained drug discovery 80 and 78 participants (one excluded for later diagnosis of eosinophilic bronchitis), respectively, with similar baseline characteristics. Daily cough score declined during treatment in both groups and was lower in the budesonide/procaterol group at 8 (0.44 vs 0.73) and 10 (0.36 vs 0.69) weeks (P<0.05). Compared with the budesonide/placebo group, the proportion of patients with a reduction of 3 points or greater (66% vs 42%) and that of patients scoring 0 points (63% vs 51%) was higher in the budesonide/procaterol group for daily cough scores (P<0.05). At 8 weeks, LCQ score improvement was superior in the budesonide/procaterol group (38.9419.24 vs 32.7118.92; P<0.05).
ConclusionProcaterol
combined with budesonide was well tolerated and effective at improving cough click here symptoms and quality of life in patients with CVA.
A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Adavosertib concentration multicenter trial was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy and safety of procaterol combined with budesonide for treatment of patients with cough-variant asthma. Procaterol combined with budesonide was well tolerated and superior to budesonide
alone at improving cough symptoms and patient quality of life.”
“Health related quality of life (HRQoL) was characterized among patients with neuroendocrine tumor (NET) and compared with the general Norwegian population.
A cross sectional, comparative design was chosen, and the samples comprised 196 NET patients and 5,258 individuals from the general Norwegian population.
We used Chi-square cross tab calculations to evaluate sociodemographic characteristics, T-tests for independent samples and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) in order to compare HRQoL (SF-36) scores across a range of background variables. Furthermore, T-tests were used to analyze differences in HRQoL scores between the samples.
NET patients demonstrated significantly lower on all HRQoL subscales when compared with the general population with the lowest values on general health, physical limitation and vitality. Individuals above 70 years reported lower scores on physical functioning and physical limitations compared with those who were younger.