Suppr超能文献

雾化高渗盐水治疗囊性纤维化。

Nebulised hypertonic saline for cystic fibrosis.

机构信息

Centre for Healthy Lungs, Hunter Medical Research Institute, University of Newcastle, New Lambton, Australia.

Centre of Excellence in Severe Asthma and Priority Research Centre for Healthy Lungs, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Jun 14;6(6):CD001506. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001506.pub5.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Hypertonic saline enhances mucociliary clearance and may lessen the destructive inflammatory process in the airways. This is an update of a previously published review.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate efficacy and tolerability of nebulised hypertonic saline treatment in people with cystic fibrosis (CF) compared to placebo or other treatments that enhance mucociliary clearance.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched ongoing trials databases. Most recent search: 25 April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials assessing hypertonic saline compared to placebo or other mucolytic therapy, for any duration or dose regimen in people with CF (any age or disease severity).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently reviewed all identified trials and data, and assessed trial quality. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. For cross-over trials we stipulated a one-week washout period. We planned to use results from a paired analysis in the review, but this was only possible in one trial. For other cross-over trials, we chose to treat the trials as if they were parallel.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 24 trials (1318 participants, aged one month to 56 years); we excluded 29 trials, two trials are ongoing and six are awaiting classification. We judged 15 of the 24 included trials to have a high risk of bias due to participants' ability to discern the taste of the solutions. Hypertonic saline 3% to 7% versus placebo (stable disease) We are uncertain whether the regular use of nebulised hypertonic saline in stable lung disease leads to an improvement in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV) % predicted at four weeks, (mean difference (MD) 3.30%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 5.89; 4 trials, 246 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In preschool children we found no difference in lung clearance index (LCI) at four weeks, but a small improvement after 48 weeks of treatment with hypertonic saline compared to isotonic saline (MD -0.60, 95% CI -1.00 to -0.19; 2 trials, 192 participants). We are also uncertain whether hypertonic saline made a difference to mucociliary clearance, pulmonary exacerbations or adverse events compared to placebo. Hypertonic saline versus control (acute exacerbation) Two trials compared hypertonic saline to control, but only one provided data. There may be little or no difference in lung function measured by FEV % predicted after hypertonic saline compared to isotonic saline (MD 5.10%, 95% CI -14.67 to 24.87; 1 trial, 130 participants). Neither trial reported any deaths or measures of sputum clearance. There were no serious adverse events. Hypertonic saline versus rhDNase Three trials compared a similar dose of hypertonic saline to recombinant deoxyribonuclease (rhDNase); two trials (61 participants) provided data for inclusion in the review. We are uncertain whether there was an effect of hypertonic saline on FEV % predicted after three weeks (MD 1.60%, 95% CI -7.96 to 11.16; 1 trial, 14 participants; very low-certainty evidence). At three months, rhDNase may lead to a greater increase in FEV % predicted than hypertonic saline (5 mL twice daily) at 12 weeks in participants with moderate to severe lung disease (MD 8.00%, 95% CI 2.00 to 14.00; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether adverse events differed between the two treatments. No deaths were reported. Hypertonic saline versus amiloride One trial (12 participants) compared hypertonic saline to amiloride but did not report on most of our outcomes. The trial found that there was no difference between treatments in measures of sputum clearance (very low-certainty evidence). Hypertonic saline compared with sodium-2-mercaptoethane sulphonate (Mistabron®) One trial (29 participants) compared hypertonic saline to sodium-2-mercaptoethane sulphonate. The trial did not measure our primary outcomes. There was no difference between treatments in any measures of sputum clearance, courses of antibiotics or adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). Hypertonic saline versus mannitol One trial (12 participants) compared hypertonic saline to mannitol, but did not report lung function at relevant time points for this review; there were no differences in sputum clearance, but mannitol was reported to be more 'irritating' (very low-certainty evidence). Hypertonic saline versus xylitol Two trials compared hypertonic saline to xylitol, but we are uncertain whether there is any difference in FEV % predicted or median time to exacerbation between groups (very low-certainty evidence). No other outcomes were reported in the review. Hypertonic saline 7% versus hypertonic saline 3% We are uncertain whether there was an improvement in FEV % predicted after treatment with 7% hypertonic saline compared with 3% (very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are very uncertain if regular use of nebulised hypertonic saline by adults and children over the age of 12 years with CF results in an improvement in lung function after four weeks (three trials; very low-certainty evidence); there was no difference seen at 48 weeks (one trial; low-certainty evidence). Hypertonic saline improved LCI modestly in children under the age of six years. Evidence from one small cross-over trial in children indicates that rhDNase may lead to better lung function than hypertonic saline at three months; qualifying this, we highlight that while the study did demonstrate that the improvement in FEV was greater with daily rhDNase, there were no differences seen in any of the secondary outcomes. Hypertonic saline does appear to be an effective adjunct to physiotherapy during acute exacerbations of lung disease in adults. However, for the outcomes assessed, the certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to low at best, according to the GRADE criteria. The role of hypertonic saline in conjunction with cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulator therapy now needs to be considered, and future research needs to focus on this aspect.

摘要

背景

高渗盐水可增强黏液清除功能,并减轻气道内破坏性炎症过程。这是对先前发表的综述的更新。

目的

旨在调查与安慰剂或其他增强黏液清除功能的治疗相比,雾化高渗盐水治疗囊性纤维化(CF)患者的疗效和耐受性。

检索方法

我们检索了 Cochrane 囊性纤维化和遗传疾病组的囊性纤维化试验注册库,该数据库包含从全面的电子数据库检索、相关期刊的手工检索以及会议论文集的摘要中识别出的参考文献。我们还检索了正在进行的试验数据库。最近一次检索日期:2022 年 4 月 25 日。

选择标准

我们纳入了评估高渗盐水与安慰剂或其他黏液溶解疗法相比的随机和半随机对照试验,无论治疗时间或剂量方案如何,均适用于 CF 患者(任何年龄或疾病严重程度)。

数据收集和分析

两位作者独立审查了所有确定的试验和数据,并评估了试验质量。我们使用 GRADE 评估证据的确定性。对于交叉试验,我们规定了一周的洗脱期。我们计划在综述中使用配对分析的结果,但在一项试验中仅可能使用。对于其他交叉试验,我们选择将试验视为平行试验。

主要结果

我们纳入了 24 项试验(1318 名参与者,年龄 1 个月至 56 岁);我们排除了 29 项试验,其中两项试验正在进行,六项试验有待分类。我们判断 24 项纳入试验中的 15 项存在高偏倚风险,因为参与者能够辨别溶液的味道。高渗盐水 3%至 7%与安慰剂(稳定疾病)我们不确定常规使用雾化高渗盐水是否会导致 CF 患者在 4 周时用力呼气量(FEV)%预计值的改善(平均差值(MD)3.30%,95%置信区间(CI)0.71 至 5.89;4 项试验,246 名参与者;极低确定性证据)。我们发现,在学龄前儿童中,4 周时的肺清除指数(LCI)没有差异,但与等渗盐水相比,48 周的高渗盐水治疗后 LCI 有较小的改善(MD -0.60,95%CI -1.00 至 -0.19;2 项试验,192 名参与者)。我们还不确定高渗盐水是否在与安慰剂相比时,在黏液清除率、肺部恶化或不良事件方面存在差异。高渗盐水与对照(急性恶化)两项试验比较了高渗盐水与对照,但只有一项提供了数据。与等渗盐水相比,高渗盐水治疗后 FEV%预计值可能没有差异或仅有微小差异(MD 5.10%,95%CI -14.67 至 24.87;1 项试验,130 名参与者)。两项试验均未报告任何死亡或痰液清除的措施。没有严重的不良事件。高渗盐水与 rhDNase 有三项试验比较了类似剂量的高渗盐水与重组脱氧核糖核酸酶(rhDNase);两项试验(61 名参与者)提供的数据可纳入综述。我们不确定高渗盐水是否对 FEV%在 3 周时的预测值有影响(MD 1.60%,95%CI -7.96 至 11.16;1 项试验,14 名参与者;极低确定性证据)。在有中度至重度肺部疾病的参与者中,rhDNase 可能会在 12 周时导致比高渗盐水(每日两次 5mL)更高的 FEV%预计值改善(MD 8.00%,95%CI 2.00 至 14.00;低确定性证据)。我们不确定两种治疗方法的不良事件是否存在差异。未报告死亡。高渗盐水与氨甲酰甲硫氨酸(Mistabron®)一项试验(12 名参与者)比较了高渗盐水与氨甲酰甲硫氨酸,但未报告大多数我们的结局。该试验发现,在痰液清除的措施方面,两种治疗方法之间没有差异(极低确定性证据)。高渗盐水与甘露糖醇一项试验(12 名参与者)比较了高渗盐水与甘露糖醇,但没有报告该试验中与本综述相关的时间点的肺功能;在痰液清除、抗生素疗程或不良事件方面,两种治疗方法之间没有差异(极低确定性证据)。高渗盐水与木糖醇两项试验比较了高渗盐水与木糖醇,但我们不确定两组之间 FEV%预计值或恶化中位时间是否存在差异(极低确定性证据)。综述中未报告其他结局。高渗盐水 7%与高渗盐水 3%我们不确定与 3%高渗盐水相比,使用 7%高渗盐水治疗后 FEV%预计值是否会改善(极低确定性证据)。

作者结论

我们非常不确定,对于 12 岁以上的 CF 成人和儿童患者,常规使用雾化高渗盐水是否会在四周后改善肺功能(三项试验;极低确定性证据);在 48 周时未见差异(一项试验;低确定性证据)。高渗盐水可适度改善 6 岁以下儿童的 LCI。一项小型交叉试验表明,在儿童中,rhDNase 可能会导致比高渗盐水更好的肺功能在三个月时;需要指出的是,虽然研究确实表明,每天使用 rhDNase 可使 FEV 改善更大,但在任何次要结局上均未见差异。高渗盐水在 CF 患者急性肺疾病恶化期间似乎是一种有效的辅助治疗方法。然而,就评估的结局而言,根据 GRADE 标准,证据的确定性从极低到低不等。现在需要考虑高渗盐水与囊性纤维化跨膜电导调节体(CFTR)调节剂治疗的联合作用,未来的研究需要集中在这方面。

相似文献

1
Nebulised hypertonic saline for cystic fibrosis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Jun 14;6(6):CD001506. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001506.pub5.
2
Nebulised hypertonic saline for cystic fibrosis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Sep 27;9(9):CD001506. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001506.pub4.
3
Exercise versus airway clearance techniques for people with cystic fibrosis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Jun 22;6(6):CD013285. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013285.pub2.
4
Intravenous antibiotics for pulmonary exacerbations in people with cystic fibrosis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025 Jan 20;1(1):CD009730. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009730.pub3.
5
Inhaled mannitol for cystic fibrosis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 9;2(2):CD008649. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008649.pub3.
6
Short-acting inhaled bronchodilators for cystic fibrosis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Jun 24;6(6):CD013666. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013666.pub2.
7
Conventional chest physiotherapy compared to other airway clearance techniques for cystic fibrosis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 May 5;5(5):CD002011. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002011.pub3.
8
Inhaled anti-pseudomonal antibiotics for long-term therapy in cystic fibrosis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Nov 14;11(11):CD001021. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001021.pub4.
9
Mucolytics for children with chronic suppurative lung disease.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025 Mar 28;3(3):CD015313. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD015313.pub2.
10

引用本文的文献

1
Inhaled nebulised medications in palliative care - a survey among palliative care practitioners in Germany.
BMC Palliat Care. 2025 May 4;24(1):125. doi: 10.1186/s12904-025-01761-y.
2
Patient-managed interventions for adults with bronchiectasis: evidence, challenges and prospects.
Eur Respir Rev. 2024 Oct 30;33(174). doi: 10.1183/16000617.0087-2024. Print 2024 Oct.
3
detection of pulmonary mucociliary clearance: present challenges and future directions.
Eur Respir Rev. 2024 Sep 18;33(173). doi: 10.1183/16000617.0073-2024. Print 2024 Jul.
4
[Primary ciliary dyskinesia].
Inn Med (Heidelb). 2024 Jun;65(6):545-559. doi: 10.1007/s00108-024-01726-y. Epub 2024 May 27.
5
Expert group recommendation on inhaled mucoactive drugs in pediatric respiratory diseases: an Indian perspective.
Front Pediatr. 2023 Dec 4;11:1322360. doi: 10.3389/fped.2023.1322360. eCollection 2023.

本文引用的文献

3
Dornase alfa for cystic fibrosis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Mar 18;3(3):CD001127. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001127.pub5.
6
Inhaled mannitol for cystic fibrosis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 May 1;5(5):CD008649. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008649.pub4.
10
Preventive Inhalation of Hypertonic Saline in Infants with Cystic Fibrosis (PRESIS). A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Study.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019 May 15;199(10):1238-1248. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201807-1203OC.

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