Cates C J, Adams N, Bestall J
Dept Physiological Medicine, St George's Hospital Medical School, Cranmer Terrace, London, UK, SW17 ORE.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001(2):CD001491. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001491.
Inhaled corticosteroids are available in the form of a suspension for nebulisation, although the role of this mode of therapy in the treatment of chronic asthma is still unclear.
To assess the efficacy and safety of inhaled corticosteroids delivered via nebuliser versus holding chamber for the treatment of chronic asthma.
We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trial Register (1999) and reference lists of articles. We contacted the authors of studies and pharmaceutical companies for additional studies and hand-searched the British Journal of Clinical Research, European Journal of Clinical Research and major respiratory society meeting abstracts (1997-1999).
Randomised controlled trials comparing nebuliser to holding chamber in the delivery of inhaled corticosteroids for the treatment of chronic asthma. All age groups of patients were considered. Two reviewers assessed articles for inclusion; two reviewers independently assessed included studies for methodological quality.
One reviewer extracted data; authors were contacted to clarify missing information. Quantitative analyses were undertaken using Review Manager 4.1 with MetaView 3.1.
Two studies were selected for inclusion (63 subjects), both concerned adults. Methodological quality was variable. Due to design differences it was not appropriate to pool the studies. The single high quality study compared budesonide 2000-8000 mcg delivered via Pari Inhalier Boy jet nebuliser with inspiration-only inhalation to budesonide 1600 mcg via large volume spacer. The nebuliser delivery led to higher morning peak expiratory flow values (25 L/min p<0.01), higher evening values (30L/min, p<0.01), lower rescue beta2 agonist use and symptom scores compared to the holding chamber delivery.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Budesonide in high dose delivered by the particular nebuliser used in the only double-blinded study that could be included in this review was more effective than budesonide 1600 mcg via a large volume spacer. However, it is not clear whether this was an effect of nominal dose delivered or delivery system. Cost, compliance and patient preference are important determinants of clinical effectiveness that have not been assessed. Future studies are needed to evaluate the relative effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids delivered by different combinations of nebuliser/compressor compared to holding chamber. Moreover, further studies assessing these delivery methods are needed in infants and pre-school children, as these are groups that are likely to be considered for treatment with nebulised corticosteroids.
吸入性糖皮质激素有雾化混悬液剂型,但其在慢性哮喘治疗中的作用仍不明确。
评估雾化吸入糖皮质激素与使用储雾罐吸入糖皮质激素治疗慢性哮喘的疗效和安全性。
我们检索了Cochrane Airways Group试验注册库(1999年)及文章的参考文献列表。我们联系了研究作者和制药公司以获取更多研究,并手工检索了《英国临床研究杂志》《欧洲临床研究杂志》以及主要呼吸学会会议摘要(1997 - 1999年)。
比较雾化吸入与使用储雾罐吸入糖皮质激素治疗慢性哮喘的随机对照试验。纳入所有年龄组的患者。两名评审员评估文章是否纳入;两名评审员独立评估纳入研究的方法学质量。
一名评审员提取数据;联系作者以澄清缺失信息。使用Review Manager 4.1和MetaView 3.1进行定量分析。
两项研究被选入(63名受试者),均涉及成人。方法学质量参差不齐。由于设计差异,合并这些研究不合适。唯一一项高质量研究比较了通过Pari Inhalier Boy喷射雾化器雾化吸入2000 - 8000微克布地奈德并仅在吸气时吸入与通过大容量储雾罐吸入1600微克布地奈德的效果。与使用储雾罐吸入相比,雾化吸入导致更高的早晨呼气峰值流速值(25升/分钟,p < 0.01)、更高的晚上值(30升/分钟,p < 0.01)、更低的急救β2激动剂使用量和症状评分。
在本综述唯一可纳入的双盲研究中,使用特定雾化器高剂量吸入布地奈德比通过大容量储雾罐吸入1600微克布地奈德更有效。然而,尚不清楚这是名义剂量还是给药系统的作用。成本、依从性和患者偏好是尚未评估的临床疗效的重要决定因素。未来需要开展研究以评估与使用储雾罐相比,不同雾化器/压缩机组合吸入糖皮质激素的相对有效性。此外,需要针对婴儿和学龄前儿童进一步开展评估这些给药方法的研究,因为这些人群可能会考虑使用雾化糖皮质激素进行治疗。