Greenstone I R, Ni Chroinin M N, Masse V, Danish A, Magdalinos H, Zhang X, Ducharme F M
McGill University Health Centre, Pediatrics, 2300 Tupper Street, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3H 1P3.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Oct 19(4):CD005533. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005533.
In asthmatic patients inadequately controlled on inhaled corticosteroids and/or those with moderate persistent asthma, two main options are recommended: the combination of a long-acting inhaled beta2 agonist (LABA) with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or use of a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids.
To determine, in asthmatic patients, the effect of the combination of long-acting beta2 agonists and inhaled corticosteroids compared to a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids on the incidence of asthma exacerbations, on pulmonary function and on other measures of asthma control and to look for characteristics associated with greater benefit for either treatment option.
We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through electronic database searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL), bibliographies of RCTs and correspondence with manufacturers until April 2004.
RCTs were included that compared the combination of inhaled LABA and ICS to a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids, in children aged 2 years and older, and in adults with asthma.
Studies were assessed independently by two authors for methodological quality and data extraction. Confirmation was obtained from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was rate of patients experiencing one or more asthma exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids. Secondary endpoints included pulmonary function tests (PFTs), symptoms, use of rescue beta2 agonists, adverse events and withdrawal rates. The meta-analysis was done with RevMan Analyses and the meta-regression, with Stata.
Of 593 citations identified, 30 (three pediatric; 27 adult) trials were analysed recruiting 9509 participants, including one study providing two control-intervention comparisons. Only one trial included corticosteroid-naive patients. Participants were symptomatic, generally (N=20 trials) presenting with moderate (FEV1 60-79% of predicted) rather than mild airway obstruction. Trials tested the combination of salmeterol (N=22) or formoterol (N=8) with a median of 400 mcg of beclomethasone or equivalent (BDP-eq) compared to a median of 800 to 1000 mcg/day of BDP-eq. Trial duration was 24 weeks or less in all but four trials. There was no significant group difference in the rate of patients with exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids [N=15, RR=0.88 (95% CI: 0.77, 1.02)]. The combination of LABA and ICS resulted in greater improvement from baseline in FEV1 [N=7, WMD=0.10 L (95% CI: 0.07, 0.12)], in symptom-free days [N=8 , WMD=11.90% (95% CI:7.37, 16.44), random effects model], and in the daytime use of rescue beta2 agonists than a higher dose of ICS [N=4, WMD= -0.99 puffs/day (95% CI: -1.41, -0.58), random effects model]. There was no significant group difference in the rate of overall adverse events [N=15, RR=0.93 (95% CI: 0.84, 1.03), random effects model], or specific side effects, with the exception of a three-fold increase rate of tremor in the LABA group [N= 10, RR=2.96 (95%CI: 1.60, 5.45)]. The rate of withdrawals due to poor asthma control favoured the combination of LABA and ICS [N=20, RR=0.69 (95%CI: 0.52, 0.93)].
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In adult asthmatics, there was no significant difference between the combination of LABA and ICS and a higher dose of ICS for the prevention of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids. Overall, the combination therapy led to greater improvement in lung function, symptoms and use of rescue beta2 agonists, (although most of the results are from trials of up to 24 weeks duration). There were less withdrawals due to poor asthma control in this group than when using a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids. Apart from an increased rate of tremor, the two options appear safe although adverse effects associated with long-term ICS treatment were seldom monitored.
对于吸入性糖皮质激素控制不佳的哮喘患者和/或中度持续性哮喘患者,推荐两种主要选择:长效吸入β2激动剂(LABA)与吸入性糖皮质激素(ICS)联合使用,或使用更高剂量的吸入性糖皮质激素。
在哮喘患者中,确定长效β2激动剂与吸入性糖皮质激素联合使用相较于更高剂量吸入性糖皮质激素,对哮喘急性加重发生率、肺功能及其他哮喘控制指标的影响,并寻找与任一治疗方案获益更大相关的特征。
通过电子数据库检索(MEDLINE、EMBASE和CINAHL)、随机对照试验(RCT)的参考文献以及与制造商通信,直至2004年4月,以识别随机对照试验。
纳入的RCT研究比较了2岁及以上儿童和成年哮喘患者中吸入LABA与ICS联合使用和更高剂量吸入性糖皮质激素的效果。
由两位作者独立评估研究的方法学质量并进行数据提取。如有可能,向试验者进行确认。主要终点是经历一次或多次需要口服糖皮质激素的哮喘急性加重的患者比例。次要终点包括肺功能测试(PFT)、症状、急救β2激动剂的使用、不良事件和退出率。使用RevMan软件进行荟萃分析,使用Stata软件进行荟萃回归分析。
在识别出的593篇文献中,分析了30项试验(3项儿科试验;27项成人试验),共纳入9509名参与者,其中一项研究提供了两组对照-干预比较。仅一项试验纳入了未使用过糖皮质激素的患者。参与者普遍有症状(N = 20项试验),一般表现为中度气道阻塞(FEV1为预测值的60 - 79%)而非轻度气道阻塞。试验比较了沙美特罗(N = 22)或福莫特罗(N = 8)与中位剂量400 mcg倍氯米松或等效物(BDP - eq)的联合使用,与中位剂量800至1000 mcg/天的BDP - eq相比。除四项试验外,所有试验的持续时间均为24周或更短。在需要全身使用糖皮质激素的急性加重患者比例方面,两组无显著差异 [N = 15,RR = 0.88(95%CI:0.77,1.02)]。与更高剂量的ICS相比,LABA与ICS联合使用使FEV1自基线的改善更大 [N = 7,WMD = 0.10 L(95%CI:0.07,0.12)],无症状天数更多 [N = 8,WMD = 11.90%(95%CI:7.37,16.44),随机效应模型],且日间急救β2激动剂的使用更少 [N = 4,WMD = -0.99喷/天(95%CI:-1.41,-0.58),随机效应模型]。在总体不良事件发生率方面,两组无显著差异 [N = 15,RR = 0.93(95%CI:0.84,1.03),随机效应模型],除LABA组震颤发生率增加三倍外,特定副作用方面两组无显著差异 [N = 10,RR = 2.96(95%CI:1.60,5.45)]。因哮喘控制不佳导致的退出率方面,LABA与ICS联合使用组更有利 [N = 20,RR = 0.69(95%CI:0.52,0.93)]。
在成年哮喘患者中,LABA与ICS联合使用和更高剂量的ICS在预防需要全身使用糖皮质激素的急性加重方面无显著差异。总体而言,联合治疗在肺功能、症状及急救β2激动剂的使用方面改善更大(尽管大多数结果来自持续时间长达24周的试验)。该组因哮喘控制不佳导致的退出率低于使用更高剂量吸入性糖皮质激素时。除震颤发生率增加外,两种方案似乎均安全,尽管很少监测与长期ICS治疗相关的不良反应。