U.O. Pneumology, "Misericordia" Hospital, Grosseto, Italy.
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2010 Dec;14(12):1037-44.
Many asthmatics take therapy intermittently because of their scarce compliance. It is not known if this is effective in controlling and slowing down the lung function decline in asthma. Our aim was to compare the effect of a regular treatment and an intermittent one on some clinical aspects and on the forced expiratory volume 1 (FEV1) decline in 165 persistent asthmatics with FEV1 > 70% (60 men; age 40.87 +/- 14.05; FEV1 95.03 +/- 13.1%), in a retrospective way over 4 years.
Eighty-four patients took inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) plus long-acting bronchodilator agents (LABAs) regularly (regular) and 81 patients took ICSs plus LABAs intermittently for short periods when symptoms appeared (intermittent).
Less patients (p < 0.05) took oral corticosteroids, short-acting bronchodilators as needed in regular compared to intermittent. More patients increased the therapy (step-up) in intermittent (p < 0.01) More patients reported a subjective improvement while fewer reported a worsening in regular (p < 0.05). After 4 years, the variation in maximal mid expiratory flow (FEF25-75) was lower in regular (-159.40 +/- 472.79 ml/sec; CI 95% -261.99, 56.82) than in intermittent (-324.44 +/- 569.97 ml/sec; CI 95% -450.48, -198.41); whereas the FEV1 decline was similar between regular (-276.97 +/- 199.37 ml; CI 95% -316.24, -229.71) and Intermittent (-317.65 +/- 194.05 ml; CI 95% -360.56, -274.74). In males and females, in smokers and non-smokers no differences were found in the FEV1 decline.
In conclusion, the regular use of ICSs plus LABAs is better than the irregular use of them in controlling asthma over a long period of time. Whereas, after 4 years the regular treatment may not decrease the FEV1 decline more effectively than the intermittent therapy.
许多哮喘患者因依从性差而间歇性接受治疗。目前尚不清楚这种治疗方法是否能有效控制和减缓哮喘患者的肺功能下降。我们的目的是比较 165 例持续性哮喘患者(60 名男性;年龄 40.87 +/- 14.05;FEV1 95.03 +/- 13.1%,FEV1 > 70%)中常规治疗和间歇性治疗对某些临床方面和用力呼气量 1(FEV1)下降的影响,这是一项回顾性研究,历时 4 年。
84 例患者接受吸入皮质类固醇(ICSs)加长效支气管扩张剂(LABAs)常规治疗(常规组),81 例患者在症状出现时间歇性接受 ICSs 加 LABAs 治疗(间歇性组)。
与间歇性组相比,常规组患者(p < 0.05)接受口服皮质类固醇和按需使用短效支气管扩张剂的比例较低。间歇性组患者(p < 0.01)更频繁地增加治疗(升级)。更多患者报告症状改善(p < 0.05),而更少患者报告症状恶化(p < 0.05)。4 年后,常规组患者的最大中期呼气流量(FEF25-75)变化(-159.40 +/- 472.79 ml/sec;95%CI -261.99,56.82)低于间歇性组(-324.44 +/- 569.97 ml/sec;95%CI -450.48,-198.41);而 FEV1 下降在常规组(-276.97 +/- 199.37 ml;95%CI -316.24,-229.71)和间歇性组(-317.65 +/- 194.05 ml;95%CI -360.56,-274.74)之间无差异。在男性和女性、吸烟者和非吸烟者中,FEV1 下降无差异。
综上所述,长期使用 ICSs 加 LABAs 比间歇性使用更能有效控制哮喘。然而,4 年后,常规治疗可能不会比间歇性治疗更有效地降低 FEV1 下降。