Gøtzsche P C, Hammarquist C, Burr M
Nordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet, Department 7112, DK-2200 Copenhagen N, Denmark.
BMJ. 1998 Oct 24;317(7166):1105-10; discussion 1110. doi: 10.1136/bmj.317.7166.1105.
To determine whether patients with asthma who are sensitive to mites benefit from measures designed to reduce their exposure to house dust mite antigen in the home.
Meta-analysis of randomised trials that investigated the effects on asthma patients of chemical or physical measures to control mites, or both, in comparison with an untreated control group. All trials in any language were eligible for inclusion.
Patients with bronchial asthma as diagnosed by a doctor and sensitisation to mites as determined by skin prick testing, bronchial provocation testing, or serum assays for specific IgE antibodies.
Number of patients whose allergic symptoms improved, improvement in asthma symptoms, improvement in peak expiratory flow rate. Outcomes measured on different scales were combined using the standardised effect size method (the difference in effect was divided by the standard deviation of the measurements).
23 studies were included in the meta-analysis; 6 studies used chemical methods to reduce exposure to mites, 13 used physical methods, and 4 used a combination. Altogether, 41/113 patients exposed to treatment interventions improved compared with 38/117 in the control groups (odds ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 2.18). The standardised mean difference for improvement in asthma symptoms was -0.06 (95% confidence interval -0.54 to 0.41). For peak flow rate measured in the morning the standardised mean difference was -0.03 (-0.25 to 0.19). As measured in the original units this difference between the treatment and the control group corresponds to -3 l/min (95% confidence interval -25 l/min to 19 l/min). The results were similar in the subgroups of trials that reported successful reduction in exposure to mites or had long follow up times.
Current chemical and physical methods aimed at reducing exposure to allergens from house dust mites seem to be ineffective and cannot be recommended as prophylactic treatment for asthma patients sensitive to mites.
确定对螨虫敏感的哮喘患者是否能从旨在减少其在家中接触屋尘螨抗原的措施中获益。
对随机试验进行荟萃分析,这些试验研究了化学或物理措施或两者结合对螨虫进行控制,与未治疗的对照组相比,对哮喘患者的影响。所有语言的试验均符合纳入标准。
经医生诊断为支气管哮喘且经皮肤点刺试验、支气管激发试验或特异性IgE抗体血清检测确定对螨虫敏感的患者。
过敏症状改善的患者数量、哮喘症状的改善情况、呼气峰值流速的改善情况。使用标准化效应量方法(效应差异除以测量的标准差)合并不同量表上测量的结局。
荟萃分析纳入了23项研究;6项研究使用化学方法减少螨虫暴露,13项使用物理方法,4项使用联合方法。总体而言,接受治疗干预的113名患者中有41名症状改善,而对照组的117名患者中有38名症状改善(优势比1.20,95%置信区间0.66至2.18)。哮喘症状改善的标准化平均差为-0.06(95%置信区间-0.54至0.41)。早晨测量的峰值流速标准化平均差为-0.03(-0.25至0.19)。以原始单位衡量,治疗组与对照组之间的差异相当于-3升/分钟(95%置信区间-25升/分钟至19升/分钟)。在报告成功减少螨虫暴露或随访时间长的试验亚组中,结果相似。
目前旨在减少屋尘螨过敏原暴露的化学和物理方法似乎无效,不能推荐作为对螨虫敏感的哮喘患者的预防性治疗方法。