比较双三联吸入疗法与吸入性皮质类固醇不同剂量治疗青少年和成人哮喘的有效性和耐受性:系统评价和网络荟萃分析。

Effectiveness and tolerability of dual and triple combination inhaler therapies compared with each other and varying doses of inhaled corticosteroids in adolescents and adults with asthma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

机构信息

Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA.

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Dec 6;12(12):CD013799. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013799.pub2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend a higher-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or adding a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) when asthma is not controlled with medium-dose (MD) ICS/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) combination therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of dual (ICS/LABA) and triple therapies (ICS/LABA/LAMA) compared with each other and with varying doses of ICS in adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched multiple databases for pre-registered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks of study duration from 2008 to 18 February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched studies, including adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma who had been treated with, or were eligible for, MD-ICS/LABA, comparing dual and triple therapies. We excluded cluster- and cross-over RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis according to the previously published protocol. We used Cochrane's Screen4ME workflow to assess search results and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. The primary outcome was steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations and asthma-related hospitalisations (moderate to severe and severe exacerbations).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17,161 patients with uncontrolled asthma from 17 studies (median duration 26 weeks; mean age 49.1 years; male 40%; white 81%; mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second (MEF 1)1.9 litres and 61% predicted). The quality of included studies was generally good except for some outcomes in a few studies due to high attrition rates. Medium-dose (MD) and high-dose (HD) triple therapies reduce steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations (hazard ratio (HR) 0.84 [95% credible interval (CrI) 0.71 to 0.99] and 0.69 [0.58 to 0.82], respectively) (high-certainty evidence), but not asthma-related hospitalisations, compared to MD-ICS/LABA. High-dose triple therapy likely reduces steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations compared to MD triple therapy (HR 0.83 [95% CrI 0.69 to 0.996], [moderate certainty]). Subgroup analyses suggest the reduction in steroid-requiring exacerbations associated with triple therapies may be only for those with a history of asthma exacerbations in the previous year but not for those without. High-dose triple therapy, but not MD triple, results in a reduction in all-cause adverse events (AEs) and likely reduces dropouts due to AEs compared to MD-ICS/LABA (odds ratio (OR) 0.79 [95% CrI 0.69 to 0.90], [high certainty] and 0.50 [95% CrI 0.30 to 0.84], [moderate certainty], respectively). Triple therapy results in little to no difference in all-cause or asthma-related serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to dual therapy (high certainty). The evidence suggests triple therapy results in little or no clinically important difference in symptoms or quality of life compared to dual therapy considering the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) and HD-ICS/LABA is unlikely to result in any significant benefit or harm compared to MD-ICS/LABA.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Medium-dose and HD triple therapies reduce steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations, but not asthma-related hospitalisations, compared to MD-ICS/LABA especially in those with a history of asthma exacerbations in the previous year. High-dose triple therapy is likely superior to MD triple therapy in reducing steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations. Triple therapy is unlikely to result in clinically meaningful improvement in symptoms or quality of life compared to dual therapy considering the MCIDs. High-dose triple therapy, but not MD triple, results in a reduction in all-cause AEs and likely reduces dropouts due to AEs compared to MD-ICS/LABA. Triple therapy results in little to no difference in all-cause or asthma-related SAEs compared to dual therapy. HD-ICS/LABA is unlikely to result in any significant benefit or harm compared to MD-ICS/LABA, although long-term safety of higher rather than MD- ICS remains to be demonstrated given the median duration of included studies was six months. The above findings may assist deciding on a treatment option when asthma is not controlled with MD-ICS/LABA.

摘要

背景

目前的指南建议,对于中剂量吸入皮质激素(ICS)/长效β2-激动剂(LABA)联合治疗未能控制的哮喘患者,应使用高剂量 ICS 或添加长效抗毒蕈碱药物(LAMA)。

目的

评估在青少年和成人中,与中剂量 ICS/LABA 相比,ICS/LABA/LAMA 三联疗法和 ICS/LABA 二联疗法在控制不佳的哮喘患者中的有效性和安全性。

检索方法

我们从 2008 年至 2022 年 2 月 18 日,对预先注册的随机对照试验(RCT)进行了多项数据库检索,研究时长至少为 12 周。

选择标准

我们检索了包括青少年和成人在内的研究,这些患者使用过或有资格使用中剂量 ICS/LABA,比较了二联和三联疗法。我们排除了群组和交叉 RCT。

数据收集和分析

我们根据预先发布的方案进行了系统评价和网络荟萃分析。我们使用 Cochrane 的 Screen4ME 工作流程来评估检索结果,并使用推荐评估、制定与评价(GRADE)来评估证据的确定性。主要结局是需要使用激素的哮喘恶化和哮喘相关住院(中度至重度和重度恶化)。

主要结果

我们纳入了来自 17 项研究的 17161 名控制不佳的哮喘患者(中位研究时长 26 周;平均年龄 49.1 岁;男性占 40%;白种人占 81%;用力呼气量 1 秒(MEF 1)为 1.9 升,预测值为 61%)。除了少数研究中的一些结局因高失访率而存在较高的不确定性外,纳入研究的质量通常较好。与中剂量 ICS/LABA 相比,高剂量(HD)三联疗法和高剂量(HD)三联疗法可降低需要使用激素的哮喘恶化发生率(风险比(HR)0.84[95%可信区间(CrI)0.71 至 0.99]和 0.69[0.58 至 0.82])(高确定性证据),但不能降低哮喘相关住院率。与中剂量三联疗法相比,高剂量三联疗法可能降低需要使用激素的哮喘恶化发生率(HR 0.83[95%CrI 0.69 至 0.996])(中等确定性)。亚组分析表明,三联疗法降低需要使用激素的恶化率可能仅适用于过去一年有哮喘恶化史的患者,而不适用于无哮喘恶化史的患者。与中剂量 ICS/LABA 相比,高剂量三联疗法可降低全因不良事件(AE)的发生率,可能降低因 AE 导致的停药率(比值比(OR)0.79[95%CrI 0.69 至 0.90]和 0.50[95%CrI 0.30 至 0.84])(高确定性)。与二联疗法相比,三联疗法对全因或哮喘相关严重不良事件(SAE)的发生率差异较小(高确定性)。考虑到最小临床重要差异(MCIDs),与二联疗法相比,三联疗法在症状或生活质量方面几乎没有或没有临床意义上的差异,而与中剂量 ICS/LABA 相比,HD-ICS/LABA 不太可能带来显著的益处或危害。

作者结论

与中剂量 ICS/LABA 相比,中剂量和高剂量三联疗法可降低需要使用激素的哮喘恶化发生率,但不能降低哮喘相关住院率,尤其是在过去一年有哮喘恶化史的患者中。与中剂量三联疗法相比,高剂量三联疗法可能降低需要使用激素的哮喘恶化发生率。与二联疗法相比,考虑到 MCIDs,三联疗法在症状或生活质量方面不太可能有临床意义上的改善。与中剂量 ICS/LABA 相比,高剂量三联疗法可降低全因不良事件的发生率,可能降低因不良事件导致的停药率。与二联疗法相比,三联疗法对全因或哮喘相关严重不良事件的发生率差异较小。与中剂量 ICS/LABA 相比,HD-ICS/LABA 不太可能带来显著的益处或危害,尽管鉴于纳入研究的中位时长为 6 个月,仍需要证明高剂量而非中剂量 ICS 的长期安全性。上述发现可能有助于在中剂量 ICS/LABA 治疗未能控制哮喘时选择治疗方案。

相似文献

本文引用的文献

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索