Suppr超能文献

一项针对过敏性哮喘患者使用短效和长效β₂受体激动剂进行常规单一疗法的安慰剂对照临床试验。

A placebo-controlled clinical trial of regular monotherapy with short-acting and long-acting beta(2)-agonists in allergic asthmatic patients.

作者信息

Cloosterman S G, Bijl-Hofland I D, van Herwaarden C L, Akkermans R P, van Den Elshout F J, Folgering H T, van Schayck C P

机构信息

Department of General Practice and Social Medicine, University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Chest. 2001 May;119(5):1306-15. doi: 10.1378/chest.119.5.1306.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Some recent studies suggest that regular beta(2)-agonist use may result in inadequate control of asthma. It has been hypothesized that this occurs particularly in allergic asthmatic patients exposed to relevant allergens. Moreover, it is still unclear whether this occurs during the use of both short-acting and long-acting beta(2)-agonists.

METHODS

Asthmatic patients (n = 145) allergic to house dust mite (HDM) were randomly allocated to monotherapy with a short-acting beta(2)-agonist (SA; n = 48), a long-acting beta(2)-agonist (LA; n = 50), or placebo (n = 47), double blind, double dummy. The study covered three periods: (1) a 4-week run-in period, in which no changes took place; followed by (2) cessation of treatment with asthma medication including inhaled corticosteroids, introduction of allergen avoidance measures (active/placebo treatment) to lower HDM exposure in the active group, and an 8-week washout period to adjust patients to these changes; followed by (3) a 12-week study medication period. At the start of the 12-week medication period, and every 4 weeks thereafter, spirometric measurements (FEV(1) and provocative concentration of histamine causing a 20% fall in FEV(1) [PC(20)]) were performed. Peak flow and asthma symptoms were recorded daily. Additionally, at the start and every 6 weeks thereafter, dust samples were collected from mattresses and living room and bedroom floors to assess HDM (der p 1) concentrations. Effects on FEV(1), PC(20), peak flow, and asthma symptoms were analyzed with repeated-measurement analysis and corrected for the exposure to HDM allergens.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences among the three medication groups after 12 weeks for FEV(1). However, a significant decrease in mean FEV(1) percent predicted (95% confidence interval [CI]) was observed within the SA group: - 6.6 (- 10.4 to - 2.8) (p = 0.0002). A decrease in geometric mean PC(20) (95% CI) of - 1.2 (- 1.96 to - 0.44) doubling concentration was observed within the SA group (p = 0.05). No significant changes in FEV(1) and PC(20) were observed > 12 weeks within the LA group or the placebo group. There were neither changes in peak flow and asthma symptom scores among the three medication groups nor within the groups. Moreover, none of the parameters showed interactive effects with allergen exposure.

CONCLUSION

There were no significant differences among the three medication groups for FEV(1) and PC(20). The within-treatment group comparison showed a significant small decline in FEV(1) for the SA group (but not for the LA group), which could indicate that monotherapy with SAs might have negative effects on FEV(1). This was not seen during regular use of LAS: No clear pathophysiologic mechanism can explain these findings at the moment. Relatively high or low exposure to allergens did not alter these findings.

摘要

背景

最近的一些研究表明,长期使用β2受体激动剂可能导致哮喘控制不佳。据推测,这种情况尤其发生在接触相关过敏原的过敏性哮喘患者中。此外,目前尚不清楚这是否发生在短效和长效β2受体激动剂的使用过程中。

方法

将145名对屋尘螨(HDM)过敏的哮喘患者随机分为三组,双盲、双模拟治疗,分别接受短效β2受体激动剂单药治疗(SA组,n = 48)、长效β2受体激动剂单药治疗(LA组,n = 50)或安慰剂治疗(n = 47)。该研究包括三个阶段:(1)为期4周的导入期,此期间无变化;接着是(2)停止包括吸入性糖皮质激素在内的哮喘药物治疗,在积极治疗组引入避免接触过敏原措施(积极治疗/安慰剂治疗)以降低HDM暴露,并进行为期8周的洗脱期,使患者适应这些变化;随后是(3)为期12周的研究用药期。在12周用药期开始时及之后每4周,进行肺功能测量(第一秒用力呼气容积[FEV1]和使FEV1下降20%的组胺激发浓度[PC20])。每天记录峰值流速和哮喘症状。此外,在开始时及之后每6周,从床垫以及客厅和卧室地板采集灰尘样本,以评估HDM(Der p 1)浓度。采用重复测量分析对FEV1、PC20、峰值流速和哮喘症状的影响进行分析,并对HDM过敏原暴露进行校正。

结果

12周后,三组用药组的FEV1无显著差异。然而,SA组观察到预计FEV1平均百分比显著下降(95%置信区间[CI]):-6.6(-10.4至-2.8)(p = 0.0002)。SA组观察到几何平均PC20(95%CI)下降-1.2(-1.96至-0.44)倍浓度(p = 0.05)。LA组或安慰剂组在12周后FEV1和PC20无显著变化。三组用药组之间以及组内的峰值流速和哮喘症状评分均无变化。此外,所有参数均未显示与过敏原暴露的交互作用。

结论

三组用药组在FEV1和PC20方面无显著差异。组内比较显示SA组FEV1有显著小幅下降(LA组未出现),这可能表明SA单药治疗可能对FEV1有负面影响。在长期使用LA时未观察到这种情况:目前尚无明确的病理生理机制可以解释这些发现。相对高或低的过敏原暴露并未改变这些结果。

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