Rayner Daniel G, Ferri Dario M, Guyatt Gordon H, O'Byrne Paul M, Brignardello-Petersen Romina, Foroutan Farid, Chipps Bradley, Sumino Kaharu, Perry Tamara T, Nyenhuis Sharmilee, Oppenheimer John, Israel Elliot, Hoyte Flavia, Rivera-Spoljaric Katherine, McCabe Ellen, Rangel Susana, Shade Lindsay E, Press Valerie G, Hall Lisa, Sue-Wah-Sing Dia, Melendez Angel, Orr Hilarry, Winders Tonya, Gardner Donna D, Przywara Kathyrn, Rank Matthew A, Bacharier Leonard B, Mosnaim Giselle, Chu Derek K
Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
JAMA. 2025 Jan 14;333(2):143-152. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.22700.
The optimal inhaled reliever therapy for asthma remains unclear.
To compare short-acting β agonists (SABA) alone with SABA combined with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and with the fast-onset, long-acting β agonist formoterol combined with ICS for asthma.
The MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched from January 1, 2020, to September 27, 2024, without language restrictions.
Pairs of reviewers independently selected randomized clinical trials evaluating (1) SABA alone, (2) ICS with formoterol, and (3) ICS with SABA (combined or separate inhalers).
Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses synthesized outcomes. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence.
Asthma symptom control (5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire; range, 0-6, lower scores indicate better asthma control; minimum important difference [MID], 0.5 points), asthma-related quality of life (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire; range, 1-7, higher scores indicate better quality of life; MID, 0.5 points), risk of severe exacerbations, and risk of serious adverse events.
A total of 27 randomized clinical trials (N = 50 496 adult and pediatric patients; mean age, 41.0 years; 20 288 male [40%]) were included. Compared with SABA alone, both ICS-containing relievers were associated with fewer severe exacerbations (ICS-formoterol risk ratio [RR], 0.65 [95% CI, 0.60-0.72]; risk difference [RD], -10.3% [95% CI, -11.8% to -8.3%]; ICS-SABA RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.73-0.95]; RD, -4.7% [95% CI, -8.0% to -1.5%]) with high certainty. Compared with SABA alone, both ICS-containing relievers were associated with improved asthma control (ICS-formoterol RR improvement [MID] in total score, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.04-1.10]; RD, 4.1% [95% CI, 2.3%-5.9%]; ICS-SABA RR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.03-1.15]; RD, 5.4% [95% CI, 1.8%-8.5%]) with high certainty. In an indirect comparison with ICS-SABA, ICS-formoterol was associated with fewer severe exacerbations (RR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.66-0.92]; RD, -5.5% [95% CI, -8.4% to -2.0%]) with moderate certainty. Compared with SABA alone, ICS-formoterol (RD, -0.6% [95% CI, -1.3% to 0%]) was not associated with increased risk of serious adverse events (high certainty) and ICS-SABA (RD, 0% [95% CI, -1.1% to 1.2%]) was not associated with increased risk of serious adverse events (moderate certainty).
In this network meta-analysis of patients with asthma, ICS combined with formoterol and ICS combined with SABA were each associated with reduced asthma exacerbations and improved asthma control compared with SABA alone.
哮喘的最佳吸入缓解药物治疗仍不明确。
比较单独使用短效β受体激动剂(SABA)、SABA联合吸入性糖皮质激素(ICS)以及速效长效β受体激动剂福莫特罗联合ICS治疗哮喘的效果。
检索了MEDLINE、Embase和CENTRAL数据库,时间范围为2020年1月1日至2024年9月27日,无语言限制。
由两位评审员独立选择评估以下内容的随机临床试验:(1)单独使用SABA;(2)ICS与福莫特罗联合使用;(3)ICS与SABA联合使用(联合或分开吸入器)。
两位评审员独立提取数据并评估偏倚风险。采用随机效应荟萃分析来综合结果。使用GRADE(推荐分级评估、制定和评价)来评估证据的确定性。
哮喘症状控制(5项哮喘控制问卷;范围0 - 6,分数越低表明哮喘控制越好;最小重要差异[MID],0.5分)、哮喘相关生活质量(哮喘生活质量问卷;范围1 - 7,分数越高表明生活质量越好;MID,0.5分)、严重加重的风险以及严重不良事件的风险。
共纳入27项随机临床试验(N = 50496名成人和儿童患者;平均年龄41.0岁;男性20288名[40%])。与单独使用SABA相比,两种含ICS的缓解药物均与较少的严重加重相关(ICS - 福莫特罗风险比[RR],0.65[95%CI,0.60 - 0.72];风险差[RD], - 10.3%[95%CI, - 11.8%至 - 8.3%];ICS - SABA RR,0.84[95%CI,0.73 - 0.95];RD, - 4.7%[95%CI, - 8.0%至 - 1.5%]),证据确定性高。与单独使用SABA相比,两种含ICS的缓解药物均与改善哮喘控制相关(ICS - 福莫特罗总分改善[MID]的RR,1.07[95%CI,1.04 - 1.10];RD,4.1%[95%CI,2.3% - 5.9%];ICS - SABA RR,1.09[95%CI,1.03 - 1.15];RD,5.4%[95%CI,1.8% - 8.5%]),证据确定性高。在与ICS - SABA的间接比较中,ICS - 福莫特罗与较少的严重加重相关(RR,0.78[95%CI,0.66 - 0.92];RD, - 5.5%[95%CI, - 8.4%至 - 2.0%]),证据确定性中等。与单独使用SABA相比,ICS - 福莫特罗(RD, - 0.6%[95%CI, - 1.3%至0%])与严重不良事件风险增加无关(证据确定性高),ICS - SABA(RD,0%[95%CI, - 1.1%至1.2%])与严重不良事件风险增加无关(证据确定性中等)。
在这项针对哮喘患者的网状荟萃分析中,与单独使用SABA相比,ICS联合福莫特罗和ICS联合SABA均与哮喘加重减少和哮喘控制改善相关。