Division Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.
Respirology. 2010 Aug;15(6):881-5; discussion 885-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1843.2010.01800.x. Epub 2010 Jul 6.
There is controversy regarding the possibility that long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) may paradoxically contribute adversely to asthma mortality. While studies and meta-analyses indicate increased risk, epidemiological data indicate a slow fall in asthma mortality since the introduction of LABA. Advocates for LABA propose that mandatory simultaneous use of inhaled corticosteroids satisfactorily reduce any potential risk. In the face of lingering doubts, others propose that LABA should be withdrawn from use. In this pro-con article, Kazani et al. provide the rationale for a modified randomized controlled trial that would define the level of risk more clearly, and provide the basis for a clear judgment to be made. Sears argues that current knowledge about the risks associated with LABA, especially when prescribed as monotherapy, provides sufficient evidence for clinicians and licensing authorities alike, and that the logistics and likely outcomes for a large prospective study are unjustified.
关于长效β-激动剂(LABA)是否可能适得其反地导致哮喘死亡率增加,存在争议。虽然研究和荟萃分析表明风险增加,但流行病学数据表明,自 LABA 问世以来,哮喘死亡率呈缓慢下降趋势。LABA 的支持者提出,强制性同时使用吸入皮质类固醇可以充分降低任何潜在风险。面对挥之不去的疑虑,其他人则提出应停止使用 LABA。在这篇赞成和反对的文章中,Kazani 等人提供了进行改良随机对照试验的理由,该试验将更明确地定义风险水平,并为做出明确判断提供依据。Sears 认为,目前关于 LABA 相关风险的知识,尤其是在作为单一疗法开处方时,为临床医生和许可机构提供了足够的证据,而且进行大型前瞻性研究的后勤工作和可能结果是不合理的。