Sobieraj Diana M, Weeda Erin R, Nguyen Elaine, Coleman Craig I, White C Michael, Lazarus Stephen C, Blake Kathryn V, Lang Jason E, Baker William L
Department of Pharmacy Practice, University of Connecticut School of Pharmacy, Storrs.
Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
JAMA. 2018 Apr 10;319(14):1485-1496. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.2769.
Combined use of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β-agonists (LABAs) as the controller and the quick relief therapy termed single maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART) is a potential therapeutic regimen for the management of persistent asthma.
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of SMART in patients with persistent asthma.
The databases of MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from database inception through August 2016 and updated through November 28, 2017. Two reviewers selected randomized clinical trials or observational studies evaluating SMART vs inhaled corticosteroids with or without a LABA used as the controller therapy and short-acting β-agonists as the relief therapy for patients aged 5 years or older with persistent asthma and reporting on an outcome of interest.
Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs), risk differences (RDs), and mean differences with corresponding 95% CIs. Citation screening, data abstraction, risk assessment, and strength of evidence grading were completed by 2 independent reviewers.
Asthma exacerbations.
The analyses included 16 randomized clinical trials (N = 22 748 patients), 15 of which evaluated SMART as a combination therapy with budesonide and formoterol in a dry-powder inhaler. Among patients aged 12 years or older (n = 22 524; mean age, 42 years; 14 634 [65%] were female), SMART was associated with a reduced risk of asthma exacerbations compared with the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids and LABA as the controller therapy (RR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.58 to 0.80]; RD, -6.4% [95% CI, -10.2% to -2.6%]) and a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids and LABA as the controller therapy (RR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.60 to 0.98]; RD, -2.8% [95% CI, -5.2% to -0.3%]). Similar results were seen when SMART was compared with inhaled corticosteroids alone as the controller therapy. Among patients aged 4 to 11 years (n = 341; median age, 8 [range, 4-11] years; 69 [31%] were female), SMART was associated with a reduced risk of asthma exacerbations compared with a higher dose of inhaled corticosteroids as the controller therapy (RR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.32 to 0.94]; RD, -12.0% [95% CI, -22.5% to -1.5%]) or the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids and LABA as the controller therapy (RR, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.23 to 0.63]; RD, -23.2% [95% CI, -33.6% to -12.1%]).
In this meta-analysis of patients with persistent asthma, the use of single maintenance and reliever therapy compared with inhaled corticosteroids as the controller therapy (with or without a long-acting β-agonist) and short-acting β-agonists as the relief therapy was associated with a lower risk of asthma exacerbations. Evidence for patients aged 4 to 11 years was limited.
联合使用吸入性糖皮质激素和长效β受体激动剂(LABAs)作为控制药物,并将快速缓解治疗称为单药维持和缓解疗法(SMART),是一种用于治疗持续性哮喘的潜在治疗方案。
对SMART治疗持续性哮喘患者的效果进行系统评价和荟萃分析。
通过OVID检索MEDLINE数据库、EMBASE数据库、Cochrane对照试验中心注册库以及Cochrane系统评价数据库,检索时间从各数据库建库起至2016年8月,并更新至2017年11月28日。两名研究者筛选随机临床试验或观察性研究,这些研究评估了SMART与吸入性糖皮质激素(联合或不联合LABA作为控制药物)及短效β受体激动剂作为缓解药物,用于5岁及以上持续性哮喘患者,并报告了感兴趣的结局。
采用随机效应模型进行荟萃分析,以计算风险比(RRs)、风险差异(RDs)以及均值差异和相应的95%置信区间。文献筛选、数据提取、风险评估和证据强度分级由两名独立研究者完成。
哮喘急性发作。
分析纳入16项随机临床试验(N = 22748例患者),其中15项评估了SMART作为布地奈德和福莫特罗干粉吸入剂的联合疗法。在12岁及以上患者中(n = 22524;平均年龄42岁;14634例[65%]为女性),与相同剂量的吸入性糖皮质激素和LABA作为控制药物相比,SMART与哮喘急性发作风险降低相关(RR = 0.68 [95%CI,0.58至0.80];RD = -6.4% [95%CI,-10.2%至-2.6%]),与更高剂量的吸入性糖皮质激素和LABA作为控制药物相比也有类似结果(RR = 0.77 [95%CI,0.60至0.98];RD = -2.8% [95%CI,-5.2%至-0.3%])。当将SMART与单独使用吸入性糖皮质激素作为控制药物进行比较时,也观察到了类似结果。在4至11岁患者中(n = 341;中位年龄8岁[范围4 - 11岁];69例[31%]为女性),与更高剂量的吸入性糖皮质激素作为控制药物相比,SMART与哮喘急性发作风险降低相关(RR = 0.55 [95%CI,0.32至0.94];RD = -12.0% [95%CI,-22.5%至-1.5%]),与相同剂量的吸入性糖皮质激素和LABA作为控制药物相比也有类似结果(RR = 0.38 [95%CI,0.23至0.63];RD = -23.2% [95%CI,-33.6%至-12.1%])。
在这项对持续性哮喘患者的荟萃分析中,与吸入性糖皮质激素作为控制药物(联合或不联合长效β受体激动剂)及短效β受体激动剂作为缓解药物相比,使用单药维持和缓解疗法与哮喘急性发作风险较低相关。4至11岁患者的证据有限。