Gøtzsche P C, Johansen H K
Rigshospitalet, Dept. 3343, Nordic Cochrane Centre. Blegdamsvej 9, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark, 2100.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Apr 16;2008(2):CD001187. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001187.pub3.
This 2011 review predates current reporting standards and methodological expectations for Cochrane Reviews. It should not be used for clinical decision‐making.
The major allergen in house dust comes from mites. Chemical, physical and combined methods of reducing mite allergen levels are intended to reduce asthma symptoms in people who are sensitive to house dust mites.
To assess the effects of reducing exposure to house dust mite antigens in the homes of people with mite-sensitive asthma.
PubMed and The Cochrane Library (last searches Nov 2007), reference lists.
Randomised trials of mite control measures vs placebo or no treatment in people with asthma known to be sensitive to house dust mites.
Two authors applied the trial inclusion criteria and evaluated the data. Trial authors were contacted to clarify information.
Fifty-four trials (3002 patients) were included. Thirty-six trials assessed physical methods (26 mattress encasings), 10 chemical methods, and 8 a combination of chemical and physical methods. Despite the fact that many trials were of poor quality and would be expected to exaggerate the reported effect, we did not find an effect of the interventions. For the most frequently reported outcome, peak flow in the morning (1565 patients), the standardised mean difference was 0.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.10 to 0.10). There were no statistically significant differences either in number of patients improved (relative risk 1.01, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.27), asthma symptom scores (standardised mean difference -0.04, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.07), or in medication usage (standardised mean difference -0.06, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.07).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Chemical and physical methods aimed at reducing exposure to house dust mite allergens cannot be recommended. It is doubtful whether further studies, similar to the ones in our review, are worthwhile. If other types of studies are considered, they should be methodologically rigorous and use other methods than those used so far, with careful monitoring of mite exposure and relevant clinical outcomes.
本2011年综述早于当前Cochrane系统评价的报告标准和方法学期望。不应将其用于临床决策。
室内灰尘中的主要过敏原来自螨虫。降低螨虫过敏原水平的化学、物理及联合方法旨在减轻对屋尘螨敏感人群的哮喘症状。
评估降低对螨虫敏感的哮喘患者家中屋尘螨抗原暴露的效果。
PubMed和Cochrane图书馆(最后检索时间为2007年11月),参考文献列表。
针对已知对屋尘螨敏感的哮喘患者,比较螨虫控制措施与安慰剂或不治疗的随机试验。
两名作者应用试验纳入标准并评估数据。联系试验作者以澄清信息。
纳入54项试验(3002例患者)。36项试验评估物理方法(26项床垫套),10项评估化学方法,8项评估化学与物理联合方法。尽管许多试验质量较差,预期会夸大报告的效果,但我们未发现干预措施有效果。对于最常报告的结局指标,即早晨的呼气峰值流速(1565例患者),标准化均差为0.00(95%置信区间(CI)-0.10至0.10)。在症状改善的患者数量(相对风险1.01,95%CI 0.80至1.27)、哮喘症状评分(标准化均差-0.04,95%CI -0.15至0.07)或药物使用情况(标准化均差-0.06,95%CI -0.18至0.07)方面均无统计学显著差异。
不推荐采用旨在降低屋尘螨过敏原暴露的化学和物理方法。与我们综述中的研究类似的进一步研究是否值得进行值得怀疑。如果考虑其他类型的研究,其方法应严谨,且采用与迄今所用方法不同的方法,并仔细监测螨虫暴露及相关临床结局。