Rodriguez C, Sossa M, Lozano J M
Clínica Infantil Colsubsidio, Clínica Colsánitas, Department of Pediatric Respiratory Medicine, Calle 67 No. 10-67, Bogota, Colombia.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Apr 16;2008(2):CD005536. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005536.pub2.
Strong evidence supports the use of metered-dose inhalers combined with a spacer for delivering rapid-acting inhaled beta-2 agonists in the treatment of acute exacerbations of asthma in children. The high cost and lack of availability of commercially produced spacers however, have limited their use in developing countries.
The aim of this review was to compare the response to inhaled beta-2 agonists delivered through metered-dose inhaler using home-made spacers, to the use of commercially produced spacers, in children with acute exacerbations of wheezing or asthma.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2007,(up to August 2007) MEDLINE , EMBASE, CINHAL, LILACS and reference lists of included studies. We contacted authors and known experts in the field, and approached pharmaceutical companies that manufacture inhalation spacers to identify additional published or unpublished data. No language restrictions were applied.
Trials comparing treatment with rapid acting beta 2-agonists delivered though MDI attached to home-made spacers, with the same bronchodilator therapy delivered with MDI and commercially produced spacers, in children under 18 years with acute exacerbations of wheezing or asthma.
Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed trial quality. Missing data were obtained from the authors or estimated from information available in published reports.
Six trials with 658 participants met the inclusion criteria . At the time of this report, five trials were published in full text, and one study was available in abstract form only. No significant differences were demonstrated between the two delivery methods in terms of need for hospital admission (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.59), change in oxygen saturation (SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.33), PEFR (SMD 0.04, 95% CI -0.72 to 0.80), clinical score (WMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.37), in terms of need for additional treatment (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.65), or regarding change in heart rate per minute (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.42).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this review supports did not identify a difference between these two methods for delivering bronchodilator therapy to children with acute asthma or lower airways obstruction attacks. Care should be taken in the interpretation and applicability of our results because of the small number of RCTs along with few events available meeting the criteria for inclusion in the review, absence of the primary outcome of interest and other clinically important outcomes in the majority of included studies. The possible need for a face-mask in younger children using home-made spacers should also be considered in practice.
有力证据支持使用定量吸入器联合储物罐来递送速效吸入型β-2激动剂,用于治疗儿童哮喘急性发作。然而,商业生产的储物罐成本高昂且难以获取,这限制了它们在发展中国家的使用。
本综述的目的是比较使用自制储物罐的定量吸入器与使用商业生产的储物罐递送吸入型β-2激动剂,在喘息或哮喘急性发作儿童中的疗效。
我们检索了Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)、《Cochrane图书馆》2007年第3期(截至2007年8月)、MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL、LILACS以及纳入研究的参考文献列表。我们联系了该领域的作者和知名专家,并联系了生产吸入用储物罐的制药公司,以识别其他已发表或未发表的数据。未设语言限制。
比较使用连接自制储物罐的定量吸入器给予速效β-2激动剂治疗,与使用定量吸入器和商业生产的储物罐给予相同支气管扩张剂治疗,在18岁以下喘息或哮喘急性发作儿童中的试验。
两位综述作者独立提取数据并评估试验质量。缺失数据从作者处获取或根据已发表报告中的可用信息估算。
六项试验共658名参与者符合纳入标准。在撰写本报告时,五项试验全文发表,一项研究仅有摘要形式。两种给药方法在住院需求(RR 1.00,95%CI 0.63至1.59)、血氧饱和度变化(SMD -0.03,95%CI -0.39至0.33)、呼气峰流速(SMD 0.04,95%CI -0.72至0.80)、临床评分(WMD 0.00,95%CI -0.37至0.37)、额外治疗需求(RR 1.18,95%CI 0.84至1.65)或每分钟心率变化(SMD 0.09,95%CI -0.24至0.42)方面均未显示出显著差异。
总体而言,本综述并未发现这两种向急性哮喘或下呼吸道梗阻发作儿童递送支气管扩张剂治疗方法之间存在差异。由于随机对照试验数量较少,符合纳入本综述标准的事件较少,大多数纳入研究缺乏感兴趣的主要结局和其他临床重要结局,因此在解释和应用我们的结果时应谨慎。在实际应用中还应考虑年幼儿童使用自制储物罐时可能需要面罩的情况。