De Coster Daan A, Jones Melvyn, Thakrar Nikita
Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, Upper 3rd Floor, UCL Medical School (Royal Free Campus), Rowland Hill Street, London, UK, NW3 2PF.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Oct 9;2013(10):CD009769. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009769.pub2.
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic obstructive lung condition, diagnosed in patients with dyspnoea, chronic cough or sputum production and/or a history of risk factor exposure, if their postbronchodilator forced expiratory lung volume in 1 second (FEV1)/forced vital lung capacity (FVC) ratio is less than 0.70, according to the international GOLD (Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease) criteria.Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) medications are now recommended for COPD only in combination treatment with long-acting beta2-agonists (LABAs), and only for patients of GOLD stage 3 and stage 4 severity, for both GOLD groups C and D.ICS are expensive and how effective they are is a topic of controversy, particularly in relation to their adverse effects (pneumonia), which may be linked to more potent ICS. It is unclear whether beclometasone dipropionate (BDP), an unlicensed but widely used inhaled steroid, is a safe and effective alternative to other ICS.
To determine the effectiveness and safety in COPD of inhaled beclometasone alone compared with placebo, and of inhaled beclometasone in combination with LABAs compared with LABAs alone.
We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR) (includes Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO, and handsearching of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts) (February 2013), conference abstracts, ongoing studies and reference lists of articles. We contacted pharmaceutical companies and drug marketing authorisation bodies/ethics committees in 49 countries and obtained licensing information.
Randomised controlled trials of BDP compared with placebo, or BDP/LABA compared with LABA, in stable COPD. Minimum trial duration is 12 weeks.
Inclusion, bias assessment and data extraction were conducted by two review authors independently. The analysis was performed by one review author. Study authors were contacted to obtain missing information.
For BDP versus placebo, two studies were included, of which one trial (participants n = 194) was included in the quantitative analysis. This study was a very high-dose trial with stable stage 2 and 3 COPD participants. No statistically significant results in change in lung function, mortality, exacerbations, dyspnoea scores or withdrawal were obtained. The quality of the evidence of all these outcomes was graded low to very low. Data on risk of pneumonia were lacking.The main focus of the review was the more clinically relevant BDP/LABA versus LABA arm. Therefore the findings are reported more fully.For BDP/LABA versus LABA, one study (n = 474) was included, with a further ongoing study identified for future inclusion. The included trial was a high-dose study of stable stage 3 COPD participants. Compared with LABA, people receiving BDP/LABA showed a statistically significant improvement in FEV1 lung function measurements of 0.051 L (95% confidence Interval (CI) 0.001 to 0.102, P = 0.046) (high quality of evidence) and in (self-reported) days without rescue bronchodilators (mean difference 7.05, 95% CI 0.84 to 13.26, P = 0.03) (low quality), both of which are unlikely to be clinically significant. Participants receiving BDP/LABA also had a statistically significant increased rate of exacerbations leading to hospitalisation (risk ratio (RR) 1.84, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.90, P = 0.008) (moderate quality), although this finding is debatable as this study's post hoc analysis showed no statistically significant difference when accounting for country-specific differences in hospitalisation policies. We did not find statistically significant differences for mortality (very low quality), pneumonia (low quality), exacerbations, exercise capacity, quality of life and dyspnoea scores, adverse events and withdrawal (all moderate quality).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found little evidence to suggest that beclometasone is a safer or more effective treatment option for people with COPD when compared with placebo or when used in combination with LABA; when statistically significant differences were found, they mostly were not clinically meaningful or were based on data from only one study. The review was limited by an inability to obtain data from one study and likely publication bias for BDP versus placebo, and by the inclusion of one study only for BDP/LABA versus LABA. An ongoing study of BDP/LABA versus LABA may have a further impact on these conclusions.
慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)是一种慢性阻塞性肺部疾病,根据国际慢性阻塞性肺疾病全球倡议(GOLD)标准,对于有呼吸困难、慢性咳嗽或咳痰和/或有危险因素暴露史的患者,如果其支气管扩张剂后1秒用力呼气肺容积(FEV1)/用力肺活量(FVC)比值小于0.70,则可诊断为COPD。吸入性糖皮质激素(ICS)药物目前仅推荐与长效β2受体激动剂(LABA)联合用于COPD治疗,且仅适用于GOLD 3期和4期严重程度的患者,适用于GOLD C组和D组。ICS价格昂贵,其有效性存在争议,尤其是其不良反应(肺炎),这可能与更强效的ICS有关。目前尚不清楚二丙酸倍氯米松(BDP),一种未获许可但广泛使用的吸入性类固醇,是否是其他ICS的安全有效替代品。
确定单独吸入倍氯米松与安慰剂相比,以及吸入倍氯米松与LABA联合使用与单独使用LABA相比在COPD中的有效性和安全性。
我们检索了Cochrane Airways Group专业试验注册库(CAGR)(包括Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL、AMED和PsycINFO,以及对呼吸杂志和会议摘要的手工检索)(2013年2月)、会议摘要、正在进行的研究以及文章的参考文献列表。我们联系了49个国家的制药公司和药品上市许可机构/伦理委员会,并获取了许可信息。
在稳定期COPD患者中,将BDP与安慰剂或BDP/LABA与LABA进行比较的随机对照试验。最短试验持续时间为12周。
纳入、偏倚评估和数据提取由两位综述作者独立进行。分析由一位综述作者进行。我们联系了研究作者以获取缺失的信息。
对于BDP与安慰剂的比较,纳入了两项研究,其中一项试验(参与者n = 194)纳入了定量分析。该研究是一项针对稳定期2期和3期COPD参与者的高剂量试验。在肺功能变化、死亡率、急性加重、呼吸困难评分或退出研究方面未获得统计学上的显著结果。所有这些结果的证据质量被评为低至极低。缺乏关于肺炎风险的数据。本综述的主要重点是临床上更相关的BDP/LABA与LABA组的比较。因此,结果报告得更全面。对于BDP/LABA与LABA的比较,纳入了一项研究(n = 474),并确定了另一项正在进行的研究以供未来纳入。纳入的试验是一项针对稳定期3期COPD参与者的高剂量研究。与LABA相比,接受BDP/LABA的患者FEV1肺功能测量值有统计学上的显著改善,改善值为0.051 L(95%置信区间(CI)0.001至0.102,P = 0.046)(证据质量高),在(自我报告的)无需使用支气管扩张剂的天数方面也有改善(平均差异7.05,95%CI 0.84至13.26,P = 0.03)(证据质量低),但这两者在临床上都不太可能具有显著意义。接受BDP/LABA的参与者因急性加重导致住院的发生率也有统计学上的显著增加(风险比(RR)为1.84,95%CI 1.17至2.90,P = 0.008)(证据质量中等),尽管这一发现存在争议,因为该研究的事后分析在考虑不同国家住院政策差异时未显示出统计学上的显著差异。我们在死亡率(证据质量极低)、肺炎(证据质量低)、急性加重、运动能力、生活质量和呼吸困难评分、不良事件和退出研究方面未发现统计学上的显著差异(均为证据质量中等)。
我们发现几乎没有证据表明与安慰剂相比,或与LABA联合使用时,倍氯米松对COPD患者是一种更安全或更有效的治疗选择;当发现有统计学上的显著差异时,大多数差异在临床上并无意义,或仅基于一项研究的数据。本综述受到无法获取一项研究的数据以及BDP与安慰剂比较可能存在发表偏倚的限制,并且BDP/LABA与LABA的比较仅纳入了一项研究。一项正在进行的BDP/LABA与LABA的比较研究可能会对这些结论产生进一步影响。