Suppr超能文献

吸入抗生素治疗成人支气管扩张症的疗效和安全性:系统评价和荟萃分析。

The efficacy and safety of inhaled antibiotics for the treatment of bronchiectasis in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

机构信息

Scottish Centre for Respiratory Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.

Scottish Centre for Respiratory Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK; Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.

出版信息

Lancet Respir Med. 2019 Oct;7(10):855-869. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(19)30185-7. Epub 2019 Aug 9.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Although use of inhaled antibiotics is the standard of care in cystic fibrosis, there is insufficient evidence to support use of inhaled antibiotics in patients with bronchiectasis not due to cystic fibrosis. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of inhaled antibiotics for the long-term treatment of adults with bronchiectasis and chronic respiratory tract infections.

METHODS

We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomised controlled trials of inhaled-antibiotic use in adult patients with bronchiectasis and chronic respiratory tract infections. Eligible publications were identified by searching MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Randomised controlled trials of inhaled antibiotics were included if the patients were adults with stable bronchiectasis diagnosed by CT or bronchography, the trials had treatment a duration of at least 4 weeks, and their outcomes met at least one of the endpoints of interest. Studies in cystic fibrosis were excluded. Efficacy endpoints assessed were bacterial load, bacterial eradication from sputum, frequency of exacerbations, time to first exacerbation, proportion of patients with at least one exacerbation, frequency of severe exacerbations, quality of life, change in FEV, 6-min walk distance, mortality, adherence to treatment, and sputum volume; safety endpoints were adverse events and bacterial resistance in sputum. Each study was independently reviewed for methodological quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool individual studies. Heterogeneity was assessed using I. The review is registered on PROSPERO, number CRD42019122892.

FINDINGS

16 trials (n=2597 patients) were included for analysis. The mean reduction of colony forming units per g of sputum with inhaled antibiotics was -2·32 log units (95% CI -3·20 to -1·45; p<0·0001). Bacterial eradication was increased with inhaled antibiotic therapy (odds ratio [OR] 3·36, 1·63 to 6·91; p=0·0010). Inhaled antibiotics significantly reduced exacerbation frequency (rate ratio 0·81, 0·67 to 0·97; p=0·020). Time to first exacerbation was significantly prolonged with inhaled antibiotics (hazard ratio 0·83, 0·69 to 0·99; p=0·028). The proportion of patients with at least one exacerbation decreased (risk ratio 0·85, 0·74 to 0·97; p=0·015). There was a significant reduction in the frequency of severe exacerbations (rate ratio 0·43, 0·24 to 0·78; p=0·0050). The scores for neither the Quality of Life Bronchiectasis questionnaire nor St George's Respiratory Questionnaire improved above the minimal clinically important difference. The relative change in FEV was a deterioration of 0·87% predicted value (-2·00 to 0·26%; p=0·13). Other efficacy endpoints were reported in only few studies or had few events. There was no difference in treatment-emergent adverse effects (OR 0·97, 0·67 to 1·40; p=0·85) or bronchospasm (0·99, 0·66 to 1·48; p=0·95). Emergence of bacterial resistance was evident at the end of the treatment period (risk ratio 1·91, 1·46 to 2·49; p<0·0001).

INTERPRETATION

Inhaled antibiotics are well tolerated, reduce bacterial load, and achieve a small but statistically significant reduction in exacerbation frequency without clinically significant improvements in quality of life in patients with bronchiectasis and chronic respiratory tract infections.

FUNDING

British Lung Foundation through the GSK/British Lung Foundation Chair of Respiratory Research and European Respiratory Society through the EMBARC2 consortium. EMBARC2 is supported by project partners Chiesi, Grifols, Insmed, Novartis, and Zambon.

摘要

背景

虽然吸入抗生素是囊性纤维化患者的标准治疗方法,但在非囊性纤维化引起的支气管扩张症患者中使用吸入抗生素的证据不足。我们旨在评估吸入抗生素长期治疗支气管扩张症和慢性呼吸道感染患者的疗效和安全性。

方法

我们对所有随机对照试验进行了系统评价和荟萃分析,评估了吸入抗生素在患有慢性呼吸道感染的支气管扩张症成年患者中的使用。通过搜索 MEDLINE、Embase、Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库、Web of Science 和 ClinicalTrials.gov 来确定符合条件的出版物。如果患者是通过 CT 或支气管造影诊断为稳定的支气管扩张症的成年人,试验的治疗时间至少为 4 周,并且其结果符合至少一个感兴趣的终点之一,则将吸入抗生素的随机对照试验纳入研究。排除囊性纤维化的研究。评估的疗效终点包括细菌负荷、痰中细菌清除率、恶化频率、首次恶化时间、至少一次恶化的患者比例、严重恶化频率、生活质量、FEV 变化、6 分钟步行距离、死亡率、治疗依从性和痰量;安全性终点包括不良事件和痰中细菌耐药性。每个研究都使用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具进行独立的方法学质量审查。使用随机效应荟萃分析来汇总个别研究。使用 I 来评估异质性。该综述在 PROSPERO 上注册,编号为 CRD42019122892。

结果

共纳入 16 项试验(n=2597 名患者)进行分析。吸入抗生素使痰中每克菌落形成单位的减少量为 -2.32 对数单位(95%CI -3.20 至 -1.45;p<0.0001)。细菌清除率增加与吸入抗生素治疗相关(比值比 3.36,1.63 至 6.91;p=0.0010)。吸入抗生素显著降低恶化频率(比率比 0.81,0.67 至 0.97;p=0.020)。首次恶化时间显著延长(风险比 0.83,0.69 至 0.99;p=0.028)。至少有一次恶化的患者比例降低(风险比 0.85,0.74 至 0.97;p=0.015)。严重恶化的频率显著降低(比率比 0.43,0.24 至 0.78;p=0.0050)。生活质量支气管扩张问卷或圣乔治呼吸问卷的评分均未改善至最小临床重要差异以上。FEV 的相对变化为预计值下降 0.87%(-2.00 至 0.26%;p=0.13)。其他疗效终点仅在少数研究中报告或事件较少。治疗中出现的不良事件(比值比 0.97,0.67 至 1.40;p=0.85)或支气管痉挛(比值比 0.99,0.66 至 1.48;p=0.95)没有差异。治疗期末细菌耐药性明显出现(风险比 1.91,1.46 至 2.49;p<0.0001)。

解释

吸入抗生素耐受性良好,可降低细菌负荷,并在慢性呼吸道感染的支气管扩张症患者中实现轻微但具有统计学意义的恶化频率降低,而生活质量无明显改善。

资助

英国肺脏基金会通过 GSK/英国肺脏基金会呼吸研究主席和欧洲呼吸学会通过 EMBARC2 联盟提供。EMBARC2 由 Chiesi、Grifols、Insmed、Novartis 和 Zambon 等项目合作伙伴支持。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验