Division of Pulmonology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch.
S Afr Fam Pract (2004). 2020 Mar 5;62(1):e1-e4. doi: 10.4102/safp.v62i1.5104.
Recognising that mild asthmatics are at risk of exacerbations and mortality, the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) issued an updated strategy in 2019. This was premised on two studies culminating in their recommendation that mild asthma should be treated by using a combination of a rapid and long-acting beta 2 agonist and an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) administered as required. Their rationale is, however, debatable, as the studies actually showed that regular daily ICS administration was more effective for a number of asthma control endpoints. A patient-driven treatment strategy is also questionable, as there are a number of concerns about behaviour of patients suffering from asthma and perception of airway narrowing that should trigger medication intake but in fact does not do so. These deficiencies also influence a similar maintenance and reliever treatment (MART) approach that would be suboptimal. Intermittent ICS regimens are also inferior when compared to regular treatment. Not all asthmatics respond to the same dose of ICS. The best way to manage asthma is by adopting a step-up ICS approach, to encompass varying disease severity, with a long-acting beta agonist taken on a daily basis, ideally in a single combination inhaler.
认识到轻度哮喘患者有恶化和死亡的风险,全球哮喘倡议(GINA)在 2019 年发布了更新的策略。这一策略基于两项研究的结果,最终建议轻度哮喘应通过使用快速和长效β2 激动剂和按需吸入皮质类固醇(ICS)的组合来治疗。然而,他们的理由是有争议的,因为这些研究实际上表明,定期每日使用 ICS 对许多哮喘控制终点更为有效。患者驱动的治疗策略也值得怀疑,因为有许多关于哮喘患者行为和气道狭窄感知的担忧,这些担忧应该引发药物摄入,但实际上并没有这样做。这些缺陷也会影响类似的维持和缓解治疗(MART)方法,这种方法不太理想。与常规治疗相比,间歇性 ICS 方案也较差。并非所有哮喘患者对相同剂量的 ICS 都有反应。管理哮喘的最佳方法是采用逐步增加 ICS 的方法,涵盖不同的疾病严重程度,每天使用长效β激动剂,理想情况下在单一组合吸入器中使用。