Icahn School of Medicine at Mt Sinai, New York, NY.
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Md.
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2018 Mar-Apr;6(2):633-643.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2017.07.030. Epub 2017 Sep 30.
Stepping down therapy when asthma is well controlled on combination inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) is recommended, but it is not known whether lowering the ICS dose or stopping LABA is superior.
To evaluate whether step-down therapy with LABA is superior to one without; and, secondarily, to evaluate whether reducing the ICS dose while maintaining LABA is noninferior to remaining on stable-ICS/LABA.
The study was a randomized, double-masked 3-arm parallel group trial in participants aged 12 years or older. Following an 8-week run-in, 459 participants were randomly assigned to continue medium-dose ICS/LABA, reduced-dose ICS/LABA, or ICS alone (LABA-step-off) and followed for 48 weeks. The primary outcome was time to treatment failure, a composite of health care utilization, systemic corticosteroid use, increase in rescue therapy, decline in lung function, or participant or physician decision.
Time to treatment failure did not differ significantly between reduced- ICS/LABA and LABA-step-off (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95.3% CI, 0.69-1.65, P = .76). Nor was there a difference between stable-ICS/LABA and reduced-ICS/LABA (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.70-1.76; P = .67), but the 10% noninferiority margin was exceeded. Lung function declines and hospitalization rates were significantly greater in the LABA-step-off group.
The 2 step-down regimens did not differ in terms of treatment failure, although stopping LABA was associated with a decline in lung function and more hospitalizations. There was no evidence to support the noninferiority of reduced-ICS/LABA as compared with stable-ICS/LABA.
当哮喘在吸入性皮质类固醇(ICS)和长效β-激动剂(LABA)联合治疗下得到良好控制时,建议逐步减少治疗,但尚不清楚降低 ICS 剂量或停用 LABA 是否更优。
评估 LABA 逐步减量治疗是否优于无 LABA 治疗;其次,评估在维持 LABA 的同时减少 ICS 剂量是否不劣于继续使用稳定剂量的 ICS/LABA。
这是一项在年龄为 12 岁及以上的参与者中进行的随机、双盲、三臂平行组临床试验。经过 8 周的导入期后,459 名参与者被随机分为继续使用中剂量 ICS/LABA、低剂量 ICS/LABA 或 ICS 单药(停用 LABA)治疗,并随访 48 周。主要结局是治疗失败时间,这是健康护理利用、全身皮质类固醇使用、急救治疗增加、肺功能下降或参与者或医生决定的综合指标。
低剂量 ICS/LABA 与停用 LABA 之间的治疗失败时间无显著差异(风险比,1.07;95%置信区间,0.69-1.65,P=0.76)。稳定剂量 ICS/LABA 与低剂量 ICS/LABA 之间也没有差异(风险比,1.11;95%置信区间,0.70-1.76;P=0.67),但超出了 10%的非劣效性边界。停用 LABA 组的肺功能下降和住院率显著更高。
这两种逐步减量方案在治疗失败方面没有差异,尽管停用 LABA 与肺功能下降和更多的住院治疗有关。没有证据支持低剂量 ICS/LABA 与稳定剂量 ICS/LABA 相比具有非劣效性。