Ahmad Shaleen, Kew Kayleigh M, Normansell Rebecca
Population Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jun 19;2015(6):CD011306. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011306.pub2.
Poorly controlled asthma often leads to preventable exacerbations that require additional medications, as well as unscheduled hospital and clinic visits.Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) are commonly given to adults with asthma whose symptoms are not well controlled by inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). US and UK regulators have issued warnings for LABA in asthma, and now recommend they be used "for the shortest duration of time required to achieve control of asthma symptoms and discontinued, if possible, once asthma control is achieved".
To compare cessation of long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) versus continued use of LABA/inhaled corticosteroids (LABA/ICS) for adults whose asthma is well controlled, and to determine whether stopping LABA:1. results in loss of asthma control or deterioration in quality of life;2. increases the likelihood of asthma attacks or 'exacerbations'; or3. increases or decreases the likelihood of serious adverse events of any cause.
We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), www.ClinicalTrials.gov, www.who.int/ictrp/en/, reference lists of primary studies and existing reviews and manufacturers' trial registries (GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and AstraZeneca). We searched all databases from their inception to April 2015, and we imposed no restriction on language of publication.
We looked for parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least eight weeks' duration, in which adults whose asthma was well controlled by any dose of ICS+LABA combination therapy were randomly assigned to (1) step-down therapy to ICS alone versus (2) continuation of ICS and LABA.
Two review authors independently screened all records identified by the search strategy. We used an Excel extraction tool to manage searches, document reasons for inclusion and exclusion and extract descriptive and numerical data from trials meeting inclusion criteria.Prespecified primary outcomes were (1) exacerbations requiring oral steroids, (2) asthma control and (3) all-cause serious adverse events.
Six randomised, double-blind studies between 12 and 24 weeks' long met the inclusion criteria. Five studies contributed data to the meta-analysis, assigning 2781 people with stable asthma to the comparison of interest. The definition of stable asthma and inclusion criteria varied across studies, and Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) criteria were not used. Risk of bias across studies was generally low, and most evidence was rated as moderate quality.Stopping LABA might increase the number of people having exacerbations and requiring oral corticosteroids (odds ratio (OR) 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 3.65; participants = 1257; studies = 4), although the confidence intervals did not exclude the possibility that stopping LABA was beneficial; over 17 weeks, 19 people per 1000 who continued their LABA had an exacerbation, compared with 32 per 1000 when LABA were stopped (13 more per 1000, 95% CI 3 fewer to 46 more).People who stopped LABA had worse scores on the Asthma Control Questionnaire (mean difference (MD) 0.24, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.35; participants = 645; studies = 3) and on measures of asthma-related quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.57; participants = 359; studies = 2) than those who continued LABA, but the effects were not clinically relevant.Too few events occurred for investigators to tell whether stopping LABA has a greater effect on serious adverse events compared with continuing LABA+ICS (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.42; participants = 1342; studies = 5), and no study reported exacerbations requiring an emergency department visit or hospitalisation as a separate outcome. Stopping LABA may result in fewer adverse events of any kind compared with continuing, although the effect was not statistically significant (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.05; participants = 1339; studies = 5), and stopping LABA made people more likely to withdraw from participation in research studies (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.58; participants = 1352; studies = 5).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that stopping LABA in adults who have stable asthma while they are taking a combination of LABA and ICS inhalers may increase the likelihood of asthma exacerbations that require treatment with oral corticosteroids, but this is not certain. Stopping LABA may slightly reduce asthma control and quality of life, but evidence was insufficient to show whether this had an effect on important outcomes such as serious adverse events and exacerbations requiring hospital admission, and longer trials are warranted. Trialists should include patient-important outcomes such as asthma control and quality of life and should use validated measurement tools. Definitions of exacerbations should be provided.
哮喘控制不佳常导致可预防的病情加重,这需要额外用药,还会导致计划外的医院和门诊就诊。长效β2受体激动剂(LABA)通常用于症状未得到吸入性糖皮质激素(ICS)良好控制的成年哮喘患者。美国和英国监管机构已就LABA用于哮喘治疗发布警告,现在建议在“达到哮喘症状控制所需的最短时间内使用,并在哮喘得到控制后尽可能停用”。
比较在哮喘得到良好控制的成年人中停用长效β2受体激动剂(LABA)与继续使用LABA/吸入性糖皮质激素(LABA/ICS)的效果,并确定停用LABA是否:1. 导致哮喘控制丧失或生活质量恶化;2. 增加哮喘发作或“病情加重”的可能性;或3. 增加或降低任何原因导致的严重不良事件的可能性。
我们检索了Cochrane气道组专业注册库(CAGR)、www.ClinicalTrials.gov、www.who.int/ictrp/en/、原始研究的参考文献列表、现有综述以及制造商的试验注册库(葛兰素史克(GSK)和阿斯利康)。我们检索了所有数据库从创建至2015年4月的内容,且对发表语言未作限制。
我们查找了至少为期八周的平行随机对照试验(RCT),其中任何剂量的ICS+LABA联合治疗能良好控制哮喘的成年人被随机分配至:(1)降级至单独使用ICS治疗与(2)继续使用ICS和LABA。
两位综述作者独立筛选检索策略识别出的所有记录。我们使用Excel提取工具管理检索、记录纳入和排除的原因,并从符合纳入标准的试验中提取描述性和数值数据。预先设定的主要结局为:(1)需要口服类固醇的病情加重,(2)哮喘控制情况,以及(3)所有原因导致的严重不良事件。
六项为期12至24周 的随机双盲研究符合纳入标准。五项研究为荟萃分析提供了数据,将2781例哮喘稳定的患者分配至感兴趣的比较组。不同研究中稳定哮喘的定义和纳入标准各异,且未使用全球哮喘防治创议(GINA)标准。各研究的偏倚风险总体较低,多数证据被评为中等质量。停用LABA可能会增加病情加重且需要口服皮质类固醇的人数(比值比(OR)1.74,95%置信区间(CI)0.83至3.65;参与者 = 1257;研究 =
4),尽管置信区间并未排除停用LABA有益的可能性;在17周的时间里,每1000名继续使用LABA的患者中有19例病情加重,而停用LABA时每1000名患者中有32例病情加重(每1000名多13例,95%CI为少3例至多46例)。停用LABA的患者在哮喘控制问卷上的得分(平均差(MD)0.24,95%CI 0.13至0.35;参与者 = 645;研究 = 3)以及哮喘相关生活质量指标上的得分(标准化平均差(SMD)0.36,95%CI 0.15至0.57;参与者 = 359;研究 = 2)均低于继续使用LABA的患者,但这些影响在临床上并不显著。发生的事件过少,以至于研究人员无法判断与继续使用LABA+ICS相比,停用LABA对严重不良事件的影响是否更大(OR 0.82,95%CI 0.28至2.42;参与者 = 1342;研究 = 5),且没有研究将需要急诊就诊或住院治疗的病情加重作为单独结局进行报告。与继续使用相比,停用LABA可能导致任何类型的不良事件减少,尽管该效果无统计学意义(OR 0.83,95%CI 0.66至1.05;参与者 = 1339;研究 = 5),且停用LABA使人们更有可能退出研究(OR 1.95,95%CI 1.47至2.58;参与者 = 1352;研究 = 5)。
本综述表明,在同时使用LABA和ICS吸入剂且哮喘稳定的成年人中停用LABA可能会增加需要口服皮质类固醇治疗的哮喘病情加重的可能性,但尚不确定。停用LABA可能会轻微降低哮喘控制和生活质量,但证据不足以表明这对诸如严重不良事件和需要住院治疗的病情加重等重要结局有影响,因此需要更长时间 的试验。试验者应纳入如哮喘控制和生活质量等对患者重要的结局,并应使用经过验证的测量工具。应提供病情加重的定义。