Suppr超能文献

雾化抗生素治疗慢性囊性纤维化气道感染:连续还是间歇?

Aerosolized antibiotic therapy for chronic cystic fibrosis airway infections: continuous or intermittent?

机构信息

Division of Child Health, School of Clinical Sciences, Queens Medical Center, Nottingham, UK.

出版信息

Respir Med. 2011 Dec;105 Suppl 2:S9-17. doi: 10.1016/S0954-6111(11)70022-1.

Abstract

The use of inhaled therapies for chronic respiratory infections in cystic fibrosis represents a substantive treatment burden to patients. In this paper, we review the evidence supporting two commonly used inhaled antibiotic regimens for chronic respiratory infections - continuous vs. intermittent (28 days on followed by 28 days off) therapy. We included trials of good methodological quality and excluded those in which the primary intent was eradication. In total, we included 13 trials (5 of intermittent therapy and 8 of continuous therapy) and summarized their main findings, placing particular emphasis on change in FEV(1), emergence of resistance and patient adherence. What is evident from our review is that both continuous and intermittent inhaled therapies work. Although an intermittent regimen would be intuitively "better" in terms of cost savings and patient tolerability, there is currently a lack of head-to-head trials that compare the same drugs (and dosages) using the two different regimens to make such a recommendation based on robust clinical evidence.

摘要

在囊性纤维化患者中,使用吸入疗法治疗慢性呼吸道感染会给患者带来实质性的治疗负担。在本文中,我们回顾了支持两种常用吸入抗生素方案治疗慢性呼吸道感染的证据——连续治疗与间歇治疗(28 天治疗后休息 28 天)。我们纳入了方法学质量较好的试验,并排除了主要目的是根除感染的试验。总共纳入了 13 项试验(5 项为间歇治疗,8 项为连续治疗),总结了它们的主要发现,特别强调了 FEV1 的变化、耐药性的出现和患者的依从性。从我们的综述中可以明显看出,连续和间歇吸入治疗都有效。虽然从成本节约和患者耐受性方面来看,间歇治疗方案在直觉上更“好”,但目前缺乏头对头试验来比较两种不同方案使用相同药物(和剂量),因此无法基于可靠的临床证据提出这样的建议。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验