Dengue is the most important arboviral disease in the world. As chloroquine, an antimalarial agent, has shown some antiviral effects, this study evaluated its effect in patients with dengue. A randomised, double-blind study was performed by administering chloroquine or placebo for three days to 129 patients with dengue-related symptoms. Of these patients, 37 were confirmed as having dengue and completed the study; in total, 19 dengue patients received chloroquine and 18 received placebo. There was no significant difference in the duration of the disease or the degree and days of fever. However, 12 patients (63%) with confirmed dengue reported a substantial decrease in pain intensity and a great improvement in their ability to perform daily activities (p = 0.0004) while on the medication and the symptoms returned immediately after these patients stopped taking the medication. The same effect was not observed in patients with diseases other than dengue. Therefore, this study shows that patients with dengue treated with chloroquine had an improvement in their quality of life and were able to resume their daily activities. However, as chloroquine did not alter the duration of the disease or the intensity and days of fever, further studies are necessary to confirm the clinical effects and to assess the side effects of chloroquine in dengue patients.

OBJETIVO: Desenvolver e validar um questionário de conhecimento em asma para pacientes adultos asmáticos no Brasil. MÉTODOS: Um questionário autoaplicável com 34 itens foi desenvolvido e aplicado em asmáticos e controles adultos. A pontuação total máxima era 34. RESULTADOS: O questionário mostrou-se discriminante, com boa confiabilidade e reprodutibilidade. O escore médio para os asmáticos e controles foi, respectivamente, 21,47 ± 4,11 (variação: 9-31) e 17,27 ± 5,11 (variação: 7-28; p < 0,001). O teste de Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin revelou uma medida de adequação de 0,53, e o teste de esfericidade de Bartlett demonstrou uma adequação satisfatória dos dados para a análise fatorial (p < 0,001). Não houve diferença significativa entre os escores totais obtidos na primeira e na segunda aplicação do questionário, com um intervalo de duas semanas (p = 0,43). O coeficiente de consistência interna (coeficiente KR-20) foi 0,69. CONCLUSÕES: Este estudo validou um questionário de educação em asma para uso no Brasil.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate an asthma knowledge questionnaire for use in adult asthma patients in Brazil. METHODS: A 34-item self-report questionnaire was constructed and administered to adult asthma patients and adult controls. The maximum total score was 34. RESULTS: The questionnaire was shown to be discriminatory, with good reliability and reproducibility. The mean score for asthma patients and controls was, respectively, 21.47 ± 4.11 (range: 9-31) and 17.27 ± 5.11 (range: 7-28; p < 0.001). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.53, and the Bartlett's test of sphericity demonstrated a satisfactory suitability of the data to factor analysis (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the total scores obtained in the first and in the second application of the questionnaire within a two-week interval (p = 0.43). The internal consistency reliability (KR-20 coefficient) was 0.69. CONCLUSIONS: This study has validated an asthma knowledge questionnaire for use in Brazil.

OBJETIVO: Avaliar a compreensão e a técnica de uso dos dispositivos inalatórios prescritos de pacientes com asma ou DPOC atendidos em um hospital-escola terciário. MÉTODOS: Os pacientes foram avaliados na sala de pós-consulta sem que o médico soubesse do estudo. Foi solicitado que o paciente demonstrasse como utiliza a medicação inalatória e, em seguida, esse foi entrevistado sobre a compreensão dos dispositivos inalatórios, controle da doença e orientações recebidas durante as consultas. RESULTADOS: Foram avaliados 120 voluntários: 60 asmáticos e 60 com DPOC. Todos os asmáticos e 98,3% do grupo DPOC relataram saber utilizar os medicamentos inalatórios. Na amostra como um todo, 113 pacientes (94,2%) cometeram pelo menos um erro ao utilizar o dispositivo inalatório. Os pacientes cometeram mais erros ao utilizar aerossol dosimetrado do que ao utilizar os inaladores de pó seco Aerolizer® (p < 0,001) ou Pulvinal® (p < 0,001), assim como mais erros ao utilizar Aerolizer® do que ao utilizar Pulvinal® (p < 0,05). O grupo DPOC cometeu significativamente mais erros que o grupo asma ao utilizar o aerossol dosimetrado (p = 0,0023), Pulvinal® (p = 0,0065) e Aerolizer® (p = 0,012). CONCLUSÕES: Embora a maioria dos pacientes relatasse saber a técnica adequada de utilização dos dispositivos inalatórios, 94,2% cometeu pelo menos um erro na utilização dos dispositivos, demonstrando técnica insatisfatória e discrepância entre a compreensão e a prática. Portanto, apenas questionar os pacientes sobre o uso dos dispositivos inalatórios não é suficiente. Medidas práticas devem ser tomadas a fim de diminuir os erros e otimizar a terapêutica.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate knowledge of and techniques for using prescribed inhalation devices among patients with asthma or COPD treated at a tertiary teaching hospital. METHODS: Patients were assessed after medical visits, and their physicians were blinded to this fact. Patients were asked to demonstrate their inhaler technique and were then interviewed regarding their knowledge of inhalation devices, control of the disease and instructions received during medical visits. RESULTS: We included 120 volunteers: 60 with asthma and 60 with COPD. All of the asthma patients and 98.3% of the COPD patients claimed to know how to use inhaled medications. In the sample as a whole, 113 patients (94.2%) committed at least one error when using the inhalation device. Patients committed more errors when using metered-dose inhalers than when using the dry-powder inhalers Aerolizer® (p < 0.001) or Pulvinal® (p < 0.001), as well as committing more errors when using the Aerolizer® inhaler than when using the Pulvinal® inhaler (p < 0.05). Using the metered-dose, Pulvinal® and Aerolizer® inhalers, the COPD group patients committed more errors than did the asthma group patients (p = 0.0023, p = 0.0065 and p = 0.012, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Although the majority of the patients claimed to know how to use inhalation devices, the fact that 94.2% committed at least one error shows that their technique was inappropriate and reveals a discrepancy between understanding and practice. Therefore, it is not sufficient to ask patients whether they know how to use inhalation devices. Practical measures should be taken in order to minimize errors and optimize treatment.