Chan Walter W, Chiou Eric, Obstein Keith L, Tignor April S, Whitlock Tom L
Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Endoscopy, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115.
Arch Intern Med. 2011 Apr 11;171(7):620-9. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.116.
Gastroesophageal reflux disease occurs frequently among patients with asthma. Therapy with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) to improve asthma control remains controversial. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of PPIs in treatment of asthma using objective and subjective outcome measures.
A literature search was undertaken using MEDLINE (1950-January 2010), PubMed (1950-January 2010), EMBASE (1980-January 2010), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through January 31, 2010). Randomized, placebo-controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of PPIs for treatment of asthma in adults were selected. The primary outcome of interest was morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) rate. Secondary outcomes included objective (evening PEF rate and forced expiratory volume in 1 second) and subjective (asthma symptoms score and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire score) measures. Influence of study characteristics on outcomes was examined by subgroup analyses and meta-regression.
Eleven trials (2524 patients) met inclusion criteria. Overall, patients had a higher mean morning PEF rate after treatment with PPIs compared with placebo (mean difference, 8.68 L/min [95% confidence interval, 2.35-15.02]). No significant single large-study effect, temporal effect, or publication bias was seen. Subgroup analysis revealed a trend toward a larger improvement in morning PEF rate in studies enrolling only patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (mean difference, 16.90 L/min [95% confidence interval, 0.85-32.95]). Analyses of secondary outcomes (asthma symptoms score, Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire score, evening PEF rate, and forced expiratory volume in 1 second) showed no significant difference between PPIs and placebo.
Proton pump inhibitor therapy in adults with asthma results in a small, statistically significant improvement in morning PEF rate. The magnitude of this improvement, however, is unlikely to be of meaningful clinical significance. There is insufficient evidence to recommend empirical use of PPIs for routine treatment of asthma.
胃食管反流病在哮喘患者中频繁发生。使用质子泵抑制剂(PPI)治疗以改善哮喘控制仍存在争议。我们试图使用客观和主观的结局指标来评估PPI治疗哮喘的疗效。
使用MEDLINE(1950年 - 2010年1月)、PubMed(1950年 - 2010年1月)、EMBASE(1980年 - 2010年1月)和Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(截至2010年1月31日)进行文献检索。选择评估PPI治疗成人哮喘疗效的随机、安慰剂对照试验。感兴趣的主要结局是早晨呼气峰值流速(PEF)率。次要结局包括客观指标(晚上PEF率和1秒用力呼气量)和主观指标(哮喘症状评分和哮喘生活质量问卷评分)。通过亚组分析和meta回归研究研究特征对结局的影响。
11项试验(2524例患者)符合纳入标准。总体而言,与安慰剂相比,PPI治疗后患者早晨的平均PEF率更高(平均差异为8.68 L/分钟[95%置信区间,2.35 - 15.02])。未观察到显著的单一大型研究效应、时间效应或发表偏倚。亚组分析显示,仅纳入胃食管反流病患者的研究中,早晨PEF率有更大改善的趋势(平均差异为16.90 L/分钟[95%置信区间,0.85 - 32.95])。对次要结局(哮喘症状评分、哮喘生活质量问卷评分、晚上PEF率和1秒用力呼气量)的分析显示,PPI与安慰剂之间无显著差异。
成人哮喘患者使用质子泵抑制剂治疗可使早晨PEF率有微小的、具有统计学意义的改善。然而,这种改善的幅度不太可能具有有意义的临床意义。没有足够的证据推荐经验性使用PPI进行哮喘的常规治疗。