Ni Chroinin Muireann, Greenstone Ilana, Lasserson Toby J, Ducharme Francine M
Division of Children's Services, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Oct 7;2009(4):CD005307. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005307.pub2.
Consensus statements recommend the addition of long-acting inhaled ss2-agonists (LABA) only in asthmatic patients who are inadequately controlled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). It is not uncommon for some patients to be commenced on ICS and LABA together as initial therapy.
To compare the efficacy of combining inhaled corticosteroids with long-acting ss2-agonists (ICS+LABA) with inhaled corticosteroids alone (ICS alone) in steroid-naive children and adults with persistent asthma. We assessed two protocols: (1) LABA + ICS versus a similar dose of ICS (comparison 1) and (2) LABA + ICS versus a higher dose of ICS (comparison 2).
We identified randomised controlled trials through electronic database searches (May 2008).
Randomised trials comparing ICS + LABA with ICS alone in children and adults with asthma who had no inhaled corticosteroids in the preceding 28 days prior to enrolment.
Each author assessed studies independently for risk of bias and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from the trialists when possible. The primary endpoint was rate of patients with one or more asthma exacerbations requiring rescue systemic corticosteroids. Results are expressed as relative risks (RR) for dichotomous data and as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous data.
Twenty-eight study comparisons drawn from 27 trials (22 adult; five paediatric) met the review entry criteria (8050 participants). Baseline data from the studies indicated that trial populations had moderate or mild airway obstruction (FEV1>/=65% predicted), and that they were symptomatic prior to randomisation. In comparison 1, the combination of ICS and LABA was not associated with a significantly lower risk of patients with exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (RR 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.47) or requiring hospital admissions (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.09 to 1.65) compared to a similar dose of ICS alone. The combination of LABA and ICS led to a significantly greater improvement from baseline in FEV1 (0.12 L/sec; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.17), in symptoms (SMD -0.26; 95% CI -0.37 to -0.14) and in rescue ss2-agonist use (-0.41 puffs/day; 95% CI -0.73 to -0.09) compared with a similar dose of ICS alone. There was no significant group difference in the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.64 to 2.09), any adverse events (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.09), study withdrawals (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.11), or withdrawals due to poor asthma control (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.41).In comparison 2, the combination of LABA and ICS was associated with a higher risk of patients requiring oral corticosteroids (RR 1.24; 95% CI 1 to 1.53) and study withdrawal (RR 1.31; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.59) than a higher dose of ICS alone. For every 100 patients treated over 43 weeks, nine patients using a higher dose ICS compared to 11 (95% CI 9 to 14) on LABA and ICS suffered one or more exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids. There was a high level of statistical heterogeneity for FEV1 and morning peak flow. There was no statistically significant group difference in the risk of serious adverse events. Due to insufficient data we could not aggregate results for hospital admission, symptoms and other outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In steroid-naive patients with mild to moderate airway obstruction, the combination of ICS and LABA does not significantly reduce the risk of patients with exacerbations requiring rescue oral corticosteroids over that achieved with a similar dose of ICS alone. However, it significantly improves lung function, reduces symptoms and marginally decreases rescue ss2-agonist use. Initiation of a higher dose of ICS is more effective at reducing the risk of exacerbations requiring rescue systemic corticosteroids, and of withdrawals, than combination therapy. Although children appeared to respond similarly to adults, no firm conclusions can be drawn regarding combination therapy in steroid-naive children, given the small number of children contributing data.
共识声明建议仅在吸入皮质类固醇(ICS)治疗效果不佳的哮喘患者中加用长效吸入型β2激动剂(LABA)。有些患者一开始就同时使用ICS和LABA作为初始治疗,这种情况并不少见。
比较吸入皮质类固醇与长效β2激动剂联合使用(ICS+LABA)和单独使用吸入皮质类固醇(单用ICS)对未使用过类固醇的持续性哮喘儿童和成人的疗效。我们评估了两种方案:(1)LABA+ICS与相似剂量的ICS对比(比较1);(2)LABA+ICS与更高剂量的ICS对比(比较2)。
我们通过电子数据库检索(2008年5月)确定了随机对照试验。
随机试验,比较在入组前28天内未使用过吸入皮质类固醇的哮喘儿童和成人中,ICS+LABA与单用ICS的效果。
每位作者独立评估研究的偏倚风险并提取数据。如有可能,我们向试验者进行了确认。主要终点是需要全身使用皮质类固醇进行急救的一次或多次哮喘加重患者的比例。二分类数据的结果以相对风险(RR)表示,连续性数据的结果以均值差(MD)或标准化均值差(SMD)表示。
从27项试验(22项成人试验;5项儿科试验)中得出的28项研究比较符合综述纳入标准(8050名参与者)。研究的基线数据表明,试验人群存在中度或轻度气道阻塞(FEV1≥预测值的65%),并且在随机分组前有症状。在比较1中,与单用相似剂量的ICS相比,ICS和LABA联合使用与需要口服皮质类固醇进行急救的患者风险显著降低无关(RR 1.04;95%置信区间(CI)0.73至1.47),也与需要住院治疗的患者风险无关(RR 0.38;95%CI 0.09至1.65)。与单用相似剂量的ICS相比,LABA和ICS联合使用使FEV1从基线有显著更大改善(0.12L/秒;95%CI 0.07至0.17),症状有显著改善(SMD -0.26;95%CI -0.37至-0.14),急救β2激动剂的使用也有显著减少(-0.41吸/天;95%CI -0.73至-0.09)。在严重不良事件风险(RR 1.15;95%CI 0.64至2.09)、任何不良事件风险(RR 1.02;95%CI 0.96至1.09)、研究退出率(RR 0.95;95%CI 0.82至1.11)或因哮喘控制不佳而退出率(RR 0.94;95%CI 0.63至1.41)方面,两组没有显著差异。在比较2中,与单用更高剂量的ICS相比,LABA和ICS联合使用使需要口服皮质类固醇进行急救的患者风险更高(RR 1.24;95%CI 1至1.53),研究退出率更高(RR 1.31;95%CI 1.07至1.59)。在43周内每治疗100名患者,使用更高剂量ICS的9名患者与使用LABA和ICS联合治疗的11名患者(95%CI 9至14)相比,有一次或多次加重需要急救口服皮质类固醇。FEV1和晨起峰流速存在高度统计学异质性。在严重不良事件风险方面,两组没有统计学显著差异。由于数据不足,我们无法汇总住院治疗、症状及其他结局的结果。
在未使用过类固醇且气道阻塞为轻度至中度的患者中,与单用相似剂量的ICS相比,ICS和LABA联合使用并不能显著降低需要急救口服皮质类固醇进行急救的患者风险。然而,它能显著改善肺功能,减轻症状,并略微减少急救β2激动剂的使用。起始使用更高剂量的ICS在降低需要全身使用皮质类固醇进行急救的加重风险和退出率方面比联合治疗更有效。尽管儿童的反应似乎与成人相似,但鉴于提供数据的儿童数量较少,对于未使用过类固醇的儿童联合治疗无法得出确切结论。