[The Prolair Autohaler in the treatment of adult asthma in current practice]

To describe the use of the Prolair Autohaler (Prolair AH) in the conditions of "natural" prescription so as to define its place in the therapeutic arsenal available to practitioners. NATURE OF THE STUDY: Open study conducted in any practice of liberal chest physicians.

Three hundred and seventy six patients (56.1%) were treated by Prolair AH and 296 (43.9%) continued their usual treatment with a standard aerosol doser (BDP ADS) that contained the same active principle, used with an inhalation chamber (65 patients, around 22%) or without (231 patients around 78%). The comparisons between the two groups, made at the end of two months of treatment, showed significant differences in efficacy of the two therapies. The percentage of patients who presented a respiratory shortage was significantly lower at day 60 in the Prolair AH group than in the BDP ADS (33.6% vs 41.4%; p < 0.05) though the percentages were comparable at inclusion. Peak problems were significantly more frequent at inclusion in the Prolair AH group (45.5% vs 37.8%; p < 0.05) but at day 60 were significantly less frequent (14.6% vs 22.9%; p < 0.05). Up to day 60, in each treatment group, the same percentage of patients presented whistling (Prolair AH 21.8% vs 22.9%; p: NS) although initially they were significantly more frequent in the patients of the Prolair AH group (60.3% vd 49.8%; p < 0.01). Improvement of DEP measured theoretically was significantly more important (p < 0.05) in the Prolair AH group which passed from 67.6% to 78.8% against 70.5% to 75.6% in the BDP ADS group.

When prescribed to patients with a more evolutive asthma and poor coordinators, Prolair Ahas produced results that are comparable to or better than those of patients treated with ADS that contains the same active principle, together or not with an inhalation chamber.