Petsky Helen L, Kew Kayleigh M, Turner Cathy, Chang Anne B
Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Sep 1;9(9):CD011440. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011440.pub2.
Asthma guidelines aim to guide health practitioners to optimise treatment for patients so as to minimise symptoms, improve or maintain good lung function, and prevent acute exacerbations or flare-ups. The principle of asthma guidelines is based on a step-up or step-down regimen of asthma medications to maximise good health outcomes using minimum medications. Asthma maintenance therapies reduce airway inflammation that is usually eosinophilic. Tailoring asthma medications in accordance with airway eosinophilic levels may improve asthma outcomes such as indices of control or reduce exacerbations or both. Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) is a marker of eosinophilic inflammation, and as it is easy to measure, has an advantage over other measurements of eosinophilic inflammation (for example sputum eosinophils).
To evaluate the efficacy of tailoring asthma interventions based on exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), in comparison to not using FeNO, that is management based on clinical symptoms (with or without spirometry/peak flow) or asthma guidelines or both, for asthma-related outcomes in adults.
We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and reference lists of articles. The last searches were undertaken in June 2016.
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing adjustment of asthma medications based on exhaled nitric oxide levels compared to not using FeNO, that is management based on clinical symptoms (with or without spirometry/peak flow) or asthma guidelines or both.
We reviewed results of searches against predetermined criteria for inclusion. We independently selected relevant studies in duplicate. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for further information, receiving responses from four.
We included seven adult studies; these studies differed in a variety of ways including definition of asthma exacerbations, FeNO cutoff levels used (15 to 35 ppb), the way in which FeNO was used to adjust therapy, and duration of study (4 to 12 months). Of 1700 randomised participants, 1546 completed the trials. The mean ages of the participants ranged from 28 to 54 years old. The inclusion criteria for the participants in each study varied, but all had a diagnosis of asthma and required asthma medications. In the meta-analysis, there was a significant difference in the primary outcome of asthma exacerbations between the groups, favouring the FeNO group. The number of people having one or more asthma exacerbations was significantly lower in the FeNO group compared to the control group (odds ratio (OR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 0.84). The number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) over 52 weeks was 12 (95% CI 8 to 32). Those in the FeNO group were also significantly more likely to have a lower exacerbation rate than the controls (rate ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.77). However, we did not find a difference between the groups for exacerbations requiring hospitalisation (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.67) or rescue oral corticosteroids (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.48). There was also no significant difference between groups for any of the secondary outcomes (FEV, FeNO levels, symptoms scores, or inhaled corticosteroid doses at final visit).We considered three included studies that had inadequate blinding to have a high risk of bias. However, when these studies were excluded from the meta-analysis, the difference between the groups for the primary outcomes (exacerbations) remained statistically significant. The GRADE quality of the evidence ranged from moderate (for the outcome 'exacerbations') to very low (for the outcome 'inhaled corticosteroid dose at final visit') based on the lack of blinding and statistical heterogeneity. Six of the seven studies were industry supported, but the company had no role in the study design or data analyses.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: With new studies included since the last version of this review, which included adults and children, this updated meta-analysis in adults with asthma showed that tailoring asthma medications based on FeNO levels (compared with primarily on clinical symptoms) decreased the frequency of asthma exacerbations but did not impact on day-to-day clinical symptoms, end-of-study FeNO levels, or inhaled corticosteroid dose. Thus, the universal use of FeNO to help guide therapy in adults with asthma cannot be advocated. As the main benefit shown in the studies in this review was a reduction in asthma exacerbations, the intervention may be most useful in adults who have frequent exacerbations. Further RCTs encompassing different asthma severity, ethnic groups in less affluent settings, and taking into account different FeNO cutoffs are required.
哮喘指南旨在指导医疗从业者为患者优化治疗方案,从而将症状降至最低,改善或维持良好的肺功能,并预防急性加重或发作。哮喘指南的原则基于哮喘药物的逐步升级或降级方案,以使用最少的药物实现最佳健康结果。哮喘维持疗法可减轻通常为嗜酸性粒细胞性的气道炎症。根据气道嗜酸性粒细胞水平调整哮喘药物可能会改善哮喘治疗效果,如控制指标,或减少急性加重,或两者兼具。呼出一氧化氮分数(FeNO)是嗜酸性粒细胞炎症的标志物,由于其易于测量,相较于其他嗜酸性粒细胞炎症测量方法(如痰液嗜酸性粒细胞)具有优势。
与不使用FeNO(即基于临床症状(有或无肺功能测定/呼气峰值流速)或哮喘指南或两者结合的管理方法)相比,评估基于呼出一氧化氮(FeNO)调整哮喘干预措施对成人哮喘相关结局的疗效。
我们检索了Cochrane气道组专业试验注册库、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE、EMBASE以及文章的参考文献列表。最近一次检索于2016年6月进行。
所有比较基于呼出一氧化氮水平调整哮喘药物与不使用FeNO(即基于临床症状(有或无肺功能测定/呼气峰值流速)或哮喘指南或两者结合的管理方法)的随机对照试验(RCT)。
我们根据预定的纳入标准审查检索结果。我们独立重复筛选相关研究。两位综述作者独立评估试验质量并提取数据。我们联系研究作者获取更多信息,收到了四位作者的回复。
我们纳入了七项成人研究;这些研究在多种方面存在差异,包括哮喘急性加重的定义、使用的FeNO临界值水平(15至35 ppb)、使用FeNO调整治疗的方式以及研究持续时间(4至12个月)。在1700名随机参与者中,1546名完成了试验。参与者的平均年龄在28至54岁之间。每项研究中参与者的纳入标准各不相同,但均患有哮喘且需要使用哮喘药物。在荟萃分析中,两组在哮喘急性加重的主要结局方面存在显著差异,FeNO组更具优势。与对照组相比,FeNO组发生一次或多次哮喘急性加重的人数显著更少(比值比(OR)0.60,95%置信区间(CI)0.43至0.84)。52周内的需治疗获益人数(NNTB)为12(95%CI 8至32)。FeNO组患者的急性加重率也显著低于对照组(率比0.59,95%CI 0.45至0.77)。然而,我们未发现两组在需要住院治疗的急性加重(OR 0.14,95%CI 0.01至2.67)或使用口服急救糖皮质激素方面存在差异(OR 0.86,95%CI 0.50至1.48)。在任何次要结局(最后一次访视时的FEV、FeNO水平、症状评分或吸入糖皮质激素剂量)方面,两组之间也无显著差异。我们认为三项纳入研究因盲法不足而存在高偏倚风险。然而,当这些研究被排除在荟萃分析之外时,两组在主要结局(急性加重)方面的差异仍具有统计学意义。基于缺乏盲法和统计异质性,证据的GRADE质量从中等(针对“急性加重”结局)到极低(针对“最后一次访视时吸入糖皮质激素剂量”结局)不等。七项研究中有六项得到了行业支持,但公司在研究设计或数据分析中未发挥作用。
自本综述的上一版以来纳入了新的研究,其中包括成人和儿童,本次对成人哮喘患者的更新荟萃分析表明,根据FeNO水平调整哮喘药物(与主要基于临床症状相比)可降低哮喘急性加重的频率,但对日常临床症状、研究结束时的FeNO水平或吸入糖皮质激素剂量无影响。因此,不能提倡普遍使用FeNO来指导成人哮喘的治疗。由于本综述中的研究显示的主要益处是减少哮喘急性加重,该干预措施可能对频繁急性加重的成人最为有用。需要进一步开展涵盖不同哮喘严重程度、较贫困地区不同种族群体并考虑不同FeNO临界值的随机对照试验。