Nair Parameswaran, Milan Stephen J, Rowe Brian H
Asthma Research Group, Firestone Institute for Respiratory Health, Hamilton,
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Dec 12;12(12):CD002742. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002742.pub2.
Asthma is a chronic condition in which sufferers may have occasional or frequent exacerbations resulting in visits to the emergency department (ED). Aminophylline has been used extensively to treat exacerbations in acute asthma settings; however, it's role is unclear especially with respect to any additional benefit when added to inhaled beta(2)-agonists.
To determine the magnitude of effect of the addition of intravenous aminophylline to inhaled beta(2)-agonists in adult patients with acute asthma treated in the ED setting.
We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Group register (derived from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL standardised searches) and handsearched respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. Two independent review authors screened and obtained potentially relevant articles and handsearched their bibliographic lists for additional articles. In the original version of this review published in 2000 we included searches of the database up to 1999. The 2012 review was updated with a revised search from inception to September 2012.
Randomised controlled trials comparing intravenous aminophylline versus placebo in adults with acute asthma and treated with inhaled beta(2)-agonists. We included patients who were treated with or without corticosteroids or other bronchodilators provided this was not part of the randomised treatment.
Two review authors independently extracted data and one review author entered data into RevMan, which was checked by a second review author. Results are reported as mean differences (MD) or odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidential intervals (CI).
Fifteen studies were included in the previous version of the review, and we included two new studies in this update, although we were unable to pool new data. Overall, the quality of the studies was moderate; concealment of allocation was assessed as clearly adequate in only seven (45%) of the trials. There was significant clinical heterogeneity between studies as the doses of aminophylline and other medications and the severity of the acute asthma varied between studies.There was no statistically significant advantage when adding intravenous aminophylline with respect to hospital admissions (OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.30 to 1.12; 6 studies; n = 315). In 2000 it was found that there was no statistically significant effect of aminophylline on airflow outcomes at any time period; the addition of two trials in 2012 has not challenged this conclusion. People treated with aminophylline and beta(2)-agonists had similar peak expiratory flow (PEF) values compared to those treated with beta(2)-agonists alone at 12 h (MD 8.30 L/min; 95% CI -20.69 to 37.29 L/min) or (MD -1.21% predicted; 95% CI -14.21% to 11.78% predicted) and 24 h (MD 22.20 L/min; 95% CI -56.65 to 101.05 L/min). Two subgroup analyses were performed by grouping studies according to mean baseline airflow limitation (11 studies) and the use of any corticosteroids (nine studies). There was no relationship between baseline airflow limitation or the use of corticosteroids on the effect of aminophylline. Aminophylline-treated patients reported more palpitations/arrhythmias (OR 3.02; 95% CI 1.15 to 7.90; 6 studies; n = 249) and vomiting (OR 4.21; 95% CI 2.20 to 8.07; 7 studies; n = 321); however, no significant difference was found in tremor (OR 2.60; 95% CI 0.62 to 11.02; 5 studies; n = 249).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The use of intravenous aminophylline did not result in significant additional bronchodilation compared to standard care with inhaled beta(2)-agonists in patients experiencing an asthma exacerbation in the ED setting, or in a significant reduction in the risk of hospital admission. For every 100 people treated with aminophylline an additional 20 people had vomiting and 15 people arrhythmias or palpitations. No subgroups in which aminophylline might be more effective were identified. Our update in 2012 is consistent with the original conclusions that the risk-benefit balance of intravenous aminophylline is unfavourable.
哮喘是一种慢性病,患者可能会偶尔或频繁发作,从而需要前往急诊科就诊。氨茶碱已被广泛用于治疗急性哮喘发作;然而,其作用尚不清楚,尤其是在与吸入性β2受体激动剂联合使用时的额外益处方面。
确定在急诊科治疗的成年急性哮喘患者中,静脉注射氨茶碱联合吸入性β2受体激动剂的疗效大小。
我们从Cochrane气道组注册库(源自MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL标准化检索)中识别试验,并手工检索呼吸期刊和会议摘要。两位独立的综述作者筛选并获取了可能相关的文章,并手工检索其参考文献列表以查找其他文章。在2000年发表的本综述的原始版本中,我们纳入了截至1999年的数据库检索结果。2012年的综述更新为从创刊到2012年9月的修订检索。
比较静脉注射氨茶碱与安慰剂对接受吸入性β2受体激动剂治疗的成年急性哮喘患者疗效的随机对照试验。我们纳入了接受或未接受皮质类固醇或其他支气管扩张剂治疗的患者,前提是这不是随机治疗的一部分。
两位综述作者独立提取数据,一位综述作者将数据录入RevMan,由另一位综述作者进行检查。结果以平均差(MD)或比值比(OR)及95%置信区间(CI)报告。
上一版综述纳入了15项研究,本次更新纳入了两项新研究,尽管我们无法汇总新数据。总体而言,研究质量中等;仅7项(45%)试验的分配隐藏情况被评估为明确充分。由于各研究中氨茶碱和其他药物的剂量以及急性哮喘的严重程度不同,研究之间存在显著的临床异质性。在住院方面,添加静脉注射氨茶碱没有统计学上的显著优势(OR 0.58;95% CI 0.30至1.12;6项研究;n = 315)。2000年发现,氨茶碱在任何时间段对气流结果均无统计学上的显著影响;2012年增加的两项试验并未挑战这一结论。与仅接受β2受体激动剂治疗的患者相比,接受氨茶碱和β2受体激动剂治疗的患者在12小时时的呼气峰值流速(PEF)值相似(MD 8.30 L/分钟;95% CI -20.69至37.29 L/分钟)或(MD -1.21%预测值;95% CI -14.21%至11.78%预测值),在24小时时也相似(MD 22.20 L/分钟;95% CI -56.65至101.05 L/分钟)。根据平均基线气流受限情况(11项研究)和是否使用皮质类固醇(9项研究)对研究进行分组,进行了两项亚组分析。基线气流受限或皮质类固醇的使用与氨茶碱的疗效之间没有关系。接受氨茶碱治疗的患者报告更多心悸/心律失常(OR 3.02;95% CI 1.15至7.90;6项研究;n = 249)和呕吐(OR 4.21;95% CI 2.20至8.07;7项研究;n = 321);然而,在震颤方面未发现显著差异(OR 2.60;95% CI 0.62至11.02;5项研究;n = 249)。
在急诊科哮喘发作的患者中,与使用吸入性β2受体激动剂的标准治疗相比,静脉注射氨茶碱并未导致显著的额外支气管扩张,也未显著降低住院风险。每100名接受氨茶碱治疗的患者中,额外有20人出现呕吐,15人出现心律失常或心悸。未发现氨茶碱可能更有效的亚组。我们2012年的更新与最初的结论一致,即静脉注射氨茶碱的风险效益比不理想。