These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: An effectiveness community-based clinical trial of Respirgard II and Fisoneb nebulizers for Pneumocystis carinii prophylaxis with aerosol pentamidine in HIV-infected individuals. Toronto Aerosol Pentamidine Study (TAPS) Group.
    Author: McIvor RA, Berger P, Pack LL, Rachlis A, Chan CK.
    Journal: Chest; 1996 Jul; 110(1):141-6. PubMed ID: 8681618.
    Abstract:
    STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of a standard jet nebulizer, Respirgard II, and a standard ultrasonic nebulizer, Fisoneb, for the administration of aerosolized pentamidine (AP) as primary and secondary prophylaxis against Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) in HIV-infected individuals. DESIGN: A retrospective, nonrandomized, parallel group comparative study. SETTING: Patients were enrolled in a community-based AP program (APP) between May 1989 and April 1992 in Ontario, Canada. They received AP in either (1) a centralized treatment facility ("clinic") or (2) their attending physician's office or regionalized centers ("nonclinic"). Clinic administration of pentamidine was via Fisomeb; nonclinic via Respirgard II. PATIENTS: The study group comprised of 1,762 HIV-infected individuals requiring AP for either primary (CD4 < 200/mm3) or secondary PCP prophylaxis. Of these, 1,151 used Fisoneb (clinic) and 611 used Respirgard II (nonclinic). RESULTS: In the primary prophylaxis group, 41 of the 892 patients using Fisoneb (4.6%; mean follow-up, 18 months) compared with 16 of 435 patients using Respirgard II (3.7%; mean follow-up, 14.6 months) developed PCP (p = 0.44). A total of 28 of 259 (10.8%; mean follow-up, 15.3 months) patients using Fisoneb for secondary prophylaxis compared with 11 of 176 (6.3%; mean follow-up, 14.4 months) patients using Respirgard II for secondary prophylaxis developed PCP (p = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the difference in dosage (120 mg/mo vs 300 mg/mo), type of nebulizer (ultrasonic vs jet), and frequency of administration (twice vs once monthly), the results of this study indicate that both regimens of AP provide comparable protection against PCP. This study further supports the effectiveness of AP as a solid second-line prophylaxis for HIV-infected individuals who are intolerant to trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole or dapsone.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]