Suppr超能文献

支气管扩张和气流阻塞患者长期吸入联合治疗的临床结局。

Clinical outcomes of long-term inhaled combination therapies in patients with bronchiectasis and airflow obstruction.

机构信息

Division of Respiratory and Critical Care, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul Metropolitan Government-Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea.

Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul Metropolitan Government-Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, 20, Boramae-ro 5-gil, Dongjak-gu, Seoul, 07061, South Korea.

出版信息

BMC Pulm Med. 2024 Jan 23;24(1):49. doi: 10.1186/s12890-024-02867-4.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Few studies have reported which inhaled combination therapy, either bronchodilators and/or inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs), is beneficial in patients with bronchiectasis and airflow obstruction. Our study compared the efficacy and safety among different inhaled combination therapies in patients with bronchiectasis and airflow obstruction.

METHODS

Our retrospective study analyzed the patients with forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV)/forced vital capacity < 0.7 and radiologically confirmed bronchiectasis in chest computed tomography between January 2005 and December 2021. The eligible patients underwent baseline and follow-up spirometric assessments. The primary endpoint was the development of a moderate-to-severe exacerbation. The secondary endpoints were the change in the annual FEV and the adverse events. Subgroup analyses were performed according to the blood eosinophil count (BEC).

RESULTS

Among 179 patients, the ICS/long-acting beta-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), ICS/LABA, and LABA/LAMA groups were comprised of 58 (32.4%), 52 (29.1%), and 69 (38.5%) patients, respectively. ICS/LABA/LAMA group had a higher severity of bronchiectasis and airflow obstruction, than other groups. In the subgroup with BEC ≥ 300/uL, the risk of moderate-to-severe exacerbation was lower in the ICS/LABA/LAMA group (adjusted HR = 0.137 [95% CI = 0.034-0.553]) and the ICS/LABA group (adjusted HR = 0.196 [95% CI = 0.045-0.861]) compared with the LABA/LAMA group. The annual FEV decline rate was significantly worsened in the ICS/LABA group compared to the LABA/LAMA group (adjusted β-coefficient=-197 [95% CI=-307--87]) in the subgroup with BEC < 200/uL.

CONCLUSION

In patients with bronchiectasis and airflow obstruction, the use of ICS/LABA/LAMA and ICS/LABA demonstrated a reduced risk of exacerbation compared to LABA/LAMA therapy in those with BEC ≥ 300/uL. Conversely, for those with BEC < 200/uL, the use of ICS/LABA was associated with an accelerated decline in FEV in comparison to LABA/LAMA therapy. Further assessment of BEC is necessary as a potential biomarker for the use of ICS in patients with bronchiectasis and airflow obstruction.

摘要

背景与目的

鲜有研究报道支气管扩张症伴气流受限患者中,哪种吸入性联合治疗(支气管扩张剂和/或吸入性皮质类固醇)更有效。本研究比较了支气管扩张症伴气流受限患者中不同吸入性联合治疗的疗效和安全性。

方法

本回顾性研究纳入了 2005 年 1 月至 2021 年 12 月期间用力呼气量(FEV)/用力肺活量(FVC)<0.7 且胸部 CT 证实为支气管扩张症的患者。合格患者接受了基线和随访的肺量计评估。主要终点是中重度加重的发生。次要终点是每年 FEV 的变化和不良事件。根据血嗜酸性粒细胞计数(BEC)进行亚组分析。

结果

在 179 名患者中,ICS/长效β激动剂(LABA)/长效抗胆碱能药物(LAMA)、ICS/LABA 和 LABA/LAMA 组分别包括 58(32.4%)、52(29.1%)和 69(38.5%)名患者。ICS/LABA/LAMA 组支气管扩张症和气流受限的严重程度更高。在 BEC≥300/μL 的亚组中,ICS/LABA/LAMA 组(调整 HR=0.137[95%CI=0.034-0.553])和 ICS/LABA 组(调整 HR=0.196[95%CI=0.045-0.861])发生中重度加重的风险低于 LABA/LAMA 组。在 BEC<200/μL 的亚组中,与 LABA/LAMA 组相比,ICS/LABA 组的年 FEV 下降率明显恶化(调整β系数=-197[95%CI=-307--87])。

结论

在支气管扩张症伴气流受限患者中,与 LABA/LAMA 治疗相比,在 BEC≥300/μL 的患者中,使用 ICS/LABA/LAMA 和 ICS/LABA 治疗可降低加重风险。相反,对于 BEC<200/μL 的患者,与 LABA/LAMA 治疗相比,使用 ICS/LABA 治疗与 FEV 加速下降相关。需要进一步评估 BEC 作为支气管扩张症伴气流受限患者使用 ICS 的潜在生物标志物。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bfb0/10804611/f6897780b4fe/12890_2024_2867_Fig1_HTML.jpg

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

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验