Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists

肾上腺素能 β 2 受体激动剂
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    根据全球哮喘倡议(GINA)指南,长效毒蕈碱拮抗剂(LAMA)应用于尽管采用中剂量(MD)或大剂量(HD)吸入性糖皮质激素(ICS)/长效β2受体激动剂(LABA)联合治疗仍未得到控制的哮喘患者,应将其视为附加治疗.在≥18岁的患者中,LAMA可以与ICS和LABA三重组合添加。迄今为止,对于未控制的哮喘患者,ICS/LABA/LAMA三联疗法对急性加重风险的影响仍不确定.因此,我们进行了一项综述,以系统总结现有的有关ICS/LABA/LAMA三联用药对哮喘加重风险影响的数据.
    已根据先前的声明进行了总括审查。
    从5项系统评价和荟萃分析获得的总体结果表明,ICS/LABA/LAMA三联疗法可降低哮喘加重的风险。HD-ICS显示出更大的效果,特别是在减少严重的哮喘恶化,尤其是有2型炎症生物标志物证据的患者。
    这项综述的结果表明,ICS/LABA/LAMA三联组合中ICS剂量的优化,基于加重的严重程度和2型生物标志物的表达。
    UNASSIGNED: According to Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines, long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) should be considered as add-on therapy in patients with asthma that remains uncontrolled, despite treatment with medium-dose (MD) or high-dose (HD) inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) combinations. In patients ≥ 18 years, LAMA may be added in triple combination with an ICS and a LABA. To date, the precise efficacy of triple ICS/LABA/LAMA combination remains uncertain concerning the impact on exacerbation risk in patients with uncontrolled asthma. Therefore, an umbrella review was performed to systematically summarize available data on the effect of triple ICS/LABA/LAMA combination on the risk of asthma exacerbation.
    UNASSIGNED: An umbrella review has been performed according to the PRIOR statement.
    UNASSIGNED: The overall results obtained from 5 systematic reviews and meta-analyses suggest that triple ICS/LABA/LAMA combination reduces the risk of asthma exacerbation. HD-ICS showed a greater effect particularly in reducing severe asthma exacerbation, especially in patients with evidence of type 2 inflammation biomarkers.
    UNASSIGNED: The findings of this umbrella review suggest an optimization of ICS dose in triple ICS/LABA/LAMA combination, based on the severity of exacerbation and type 2 biomarkers expression.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Comparative Study
    暂无摘要。
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Meta-Analysis
    背景:对慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者使用短效支气管扩张剂联合长效支气管扩张剂进行额外治疗的理由尚未充分研究。
    方法:我们进行了系统评价和荟萃分析,以评估短效毒蕈碱拮抗剂(SAMA)联合长效β-2激动剂(LABA)治疗稳定期COPD患者的疗效和安全性。肺功能,呼吸困难,与健康相关的生活质量,运动耐受力,身体活动,COPD恶化,定期使用期间的不良事件被设定为感兴趣的结局.
    结果:我们纳入了5项对照试验,包括两组公开的在线数据,没有文章发表,用于荟萃分析。额外使用SAMA加LABA显示FEV1的峰值响应显着改善(平均差(MD)98.70mL,p<.00001),过渡性呼吸困难指数评分(MD.85,p=.02),和圣乔治呼吸问卷评分(MD-2.00,p=.008)与LABA治疗相比。COPD恶化的风险无显著差异(p=.20),严重不良事件(OR:2.16,p=.08)和心血管事件(OR:2.38,p=.06)仅有轻微增加的趋势。
    结论:SAMA联合LABA的额外治疗由于其疗效和安全性可能是可行的选择。
    The rationale for additional treatment with short-acting bronchodilators combined with long-acting bronchodilators for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is not adequately studied.
    We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a short-acting muscarinic antagonist (SAMA) therapy combined with a long-acting beta-2 agonist (LABA) in patients with stable COPD. Pulmonary function, dyspnea, health-related quality of life, exercise tolerance, physical activity, exacerbations of COPD, and adverse events during regular use were set as outcomes of interest.
    We included five controlled trials including two sets of publicly available online data without article publications for the meta-analysis. Additional use of SAMA plus LABA showed a significant improvement in the peak response in FEV1 (mean difference (MD) 98.70 mL, p < .00001), transitional dyspnea index score (MD .85, p = .02), and St George\'s Respiratory Questionnaire score (MD -2.00, p = .008) compared to LABA treatment. There was no significant difference in the risk of exacerbation of COPD (p = .20) and only a slight trend of increased severe adverse events (OR: 2.16, p = .08) and cardiovascular events (OR: 2.38, p = .06).
    Additional treatment with SAMA combined with LABA could be a feasible choice due to its efficacy and safety.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Review
    回顾使用开放式吸入器(吸入性皮质类固醇[ICS]加长效β2激动剂[LABA])和单独的附加长效毒蕈碱拮抗剂[LAMA])与单吸入器三联疗法(ICS/LABA/LAMA组合)的证据,以及在不受控制的哮喘患者中在ICS/LABA基础上附加LAMA的优点。
    原始研究文章来自PubMed,使用搜索词“三联疗法哮喘”。“信息也从ClinicalTrials.gov网站检索。
    文章详细介绍了在ICS加LABA(开放式吸入器三联疗法)中使用附加LAMA的方法,封闭三联疗法与ICS加LABA双联疗法相比,解决病人的症状,恶化,和健康相关的生活质量。
    开放吸入器三联疗法可显著降低住院率,急诊部门的访问,减少ICS剂量,口服皮质类固醇和抗生素的使用。急性加重和急性呼吸道事件也减少。单吸入器三联疗法显示肺功能改善更大,哮喘控制,和健康状况,哮喘生活质量问卷评分不劣于开放吸入器三联疗法。单吸入器三联疗法也可以改善治疗依从性。
    在ICS中添加LAMA加LABA(开放或单吸入三联疗法)可改善仍有症状的患者的反应,并为治疗难治性患者的ICS剂量增加提供了合理的替代方案。
    To review the evidence for the use of open-inhaler (inhaled corticosteroid [ICS] plus long-acting β2-agonist [LABA] with separate add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]) versus single-inhaler triple therapy (ICS/LABA/LAMA combination) and the merits of add-on LAMA to ICS/LABA in patients with uncontrolled asthma.
    Original research articles were identified from PubMed using the search term \"triple therapy asthma.\" Information was also retrieved from the ClinicalTrials.gov website.
    Articles detailing the use of add-on LAMA to ICS plus LABA (open-inhaler triple therapy), and closed triple therapy compared with ICS plus LABA dual therapy, addressing patient symptoms, exacerbations, and health-related quality of life.
    Open-inhaler triple therapy was associated with a significantly reduced incidence of hospitalizations and emergency department visits and a decrease in ICS dose, oral corticosteroids use, and antibiotics use. Exacerbations and acute respiratory events were also reduced. Single-inhaler triple therapy showed a greater improvement in lung function, asthma control, and health status and was noninferior to open-inhaler triple therapy for Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire scores. Single-inhaler triple therapy may also lead to improved therapy adherence.
    Add-on LAMA to ICS plus LABA (open- or single-inhaler triple therapy) improves the response in patients who remain symptomatic and provides a reasonable alternative to ICS dose escalation in treatment-refractory patients.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Review
    未经证实:吸入性皮质类固醇(ICS)三联方案治疗哮喘的价值,长效β2-激动剂(LABA),和使用多种吸入器(MITT)递送的长效毒蕈碱拮抗剂(LAMA),或者单个吸入器(SITT)得到越来越多证据的支持,尽管关于使用MITT的研究仍然有限。
    未经证实:临床特征,治疗模式,疾病负担,以及与哮喘中MITT使用相关的持久性/依从性。为了识别参考,从数据库开始到2022年10月搜索MEDLINE数据库。
    UASSIGNED:在哮喘患者中使用MITT不是很频繁,虽然它可以改善肺功能并降低严重加重的发生率。这可能是由于对使用不同设备对治疗依从性和持久性的影响的现有担忧。对结果有负面影响,并担心患者会停止ICS/LABA而不是LAMA。然而,尽管目前的趋势倾向于采用SITT方法,一些医生可能会被诱导开MITT而不是SITT,因为它允许增加或减少三联疗法的单个成分的滴定。显然,有必要进行务实的现实生活研究,以记录何时选择SITT以及何时使用MITT。
    The value of treating asthma with the triple regimen of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), long-acting β2-agonist (LABA), and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) delivered using multiple inhalers (MITT), or a single inhaler (SITT) is supported by a growing body of evidence, although research is still limited regarding the use of MITT.
    Clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, disease burden, and persistence/adherence associated with MITT use in asthma. The MEDLINE database was searched to identify references from inception until October 2022.
    The use of MITT is not very frequent in asthma patients, although it improves lung function and reduces the incidence of severe exacerbations. This may be due to existing concerns about using different devices on adherence and persistence to treatment, with a negative influence on outcomes, and to the fear that the patient will discontinue ICS/LABA but not LAMA. Nevertheless, although the current trend favors the SITT approach, some physicians may be induced to prescribe MITT over SITT because it allows the titration of individual components of triple therapy to be increased or decreased. Therefore, there is an evident need for pragmatic real-life studies to document when to prefer SITT and when MITT should be used.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Meta-Analysis
    背景:持续的气流受限和呼吸困难可能会降低慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者的运动能力和体力活动,破坏他们的身体状况和生活质量。长效毒蕈碱拮抗剂和长效β-2激动剂(LAMA/LABA)组合是中重度COPD推荐的治疗方法之一。本文分析了LAMA/LABA组合对COPD患者运动能力和体力活动结果的影响。
    方法:对将LAMA/LABA组合与单药或安慰剂进行比较的双盲随机对照试验进行了系统评价和荟萃分析。
    结果:确定了17篇文献(N=4041例患者)。在耐力穿梭行走测试和恒定工作速率循环测功中,LAMA/LABA组合比安慰剂获得更好的结果,但不是单一疗法,而在6分钟步行测试中,结果有利于LAMA/LABA而不是单一疗法(四项研究),但不是安慰剂(一项研究)。此外,LAMA/LABA组合在每天的步数上比安慰剂获得了更好的结果,减少不活动患者的百分比和与日常活动相关的能量消耗,在测量任务活动的代谢当量≥1.0-1.5,≥2.0和≥3.0的时间时,优于单药治疗。
    结论:在COPD患者中,LAMA/LABA组合在大多数运动能力和身体活动结果方面比单一疗法或安慰剂提供更好的结果。
    BACKGROUND: Persistent airflow limitation and dyspnoea may reduce chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients exercise capacity and physical activity, undermining their physical status and quality of life. Long-acting muscarinic antagonists and long-acting beta-2 agonists (LAMA/LABA) combinations are amongst moderate-to-severe COPD recommended treatments. This article analyses LAMA/LABA combinations effect on COPD patients exercise capacity and physical activity outcomes.
    METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of double-blind randomized controlled trials comparing LAMA/LABA combinations against monotherapy or placebo was conducted.
    RESULTS: Seventeen articles were identified (N = 4041 patients). In endurance shuttle walk test and constant work rate cycle ergometry, LAMA/LABA combinations obtained better results than placebo, but not monotherapy, whereas in 6-min walking test, results favoured LAMA/LABA over monotherapy (four studies), but not over placebo (one study). Moreover, LAMA/LABA combinations obtained better results than placebo in number of steps per day, reduction in percentage of inactive patients and daily activity-related energy expenditure, and better than monotherapy when measuring time spent on ≥ 1.0-1.5, ≥ 2.0 and ≥ 3.0 metabolic equivalents of task activities.
    CONCLUSIONS: LAMA/LABA combinations in COPD patients provided better results than monotherapy or placebo in most exercise capacity and physical activity outcomes.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Meta-Analysis
    当前的指南建议使用更高剂量的吸入性皮质类固醇(ICS)或添加长效毒蕈碱拮抗剂(LAMA),当哮喘无法通过中剂量(MD)ICS/长效β2激动剂(LABA)联合治疗得到控制时。
    评估双重疗法(ICS/LABA)和三联疗法(ICS/LABA/LAMA)的有效性和安全性,并比较不同剂量的ICS在青少年和成人未控制哮喘中的作用。
    我们在多个数据库中搜索了2008年至2022年2月18日至少12周研究时间的预注册随机对照试验(RCT)。
    我们搜索了研究,包括接受过哮喘治疗的青少年和成年人,或者有资格,MD-ICS/LABA,比较双重和三重疗法。我们排除了集群和交叉RCT。
    我们根据先前发表的协议进行了系统评价和网络荟萃分析。我们使用Cochrane的Screen4ME工作流程来评估搜索结果和建议评估分级,开发和评估(等级),以评估证据的确定性。主要结果是需要类固醇的哮喘加重和哮喘相关的住院治疗(中度至重度和重度加重)。
    我们纳入了17项研究中的17,161例哮喘未控制患者(中位持续时间26周;平均年龄49.1岁;男性40%;白人81%;1秒平均用力呼气量(MEF1)1.9升,预测为61%)。纳入研究的质量总体上是良好的,除了一些研究由于高流失率导致的一些结果。中剂量(MD)和高剂量(HD)三联疗法可减少需要类固醇的哮喘加重(风险比(HR)0.84[95%可信间隔(CrI)0.71至0.99]和0.69[0.58至0.82],分别)(高确定性证据),但不是哮喘相关的住院治疗,与MD-ICS/LABA相比。与MD三联疗法相比,高剂量三联疗法可能会减少需要类固醇的哮喘加重(HR0.83[95%CrI0.69至0.996],[适度的确定性])。亚组分析表明,与三联疗法相关的需要类固醇的恶化减少可能仅适用于前一年有哮喘发作史的患者,而不适用于没有哮喘发作史的患者。大剂量三联疗法,但不是MD三倍,与MD-ICS/LABA相比,全因不良事件(AEs)减少,并可能减少因AEs引起的退出(比值比(OR)0.79[95%CrI0.69至0.90],[高确定性]和0.50[95%CrI0.30至0.84],[适度的确定性],分别)。与双重治疗(高确定性)相比,三重治疗在全因或哮喘相关的严重不良事件(SAE)方面几乎没有差异。证据表明,与双重疗法相比,三联疗法在症状或生活质量方面几乎没有或没有临床上重要的差异,考虑到最小的临床重要差异(MCID)和HD-ICS/LABA相比,与MD-ICS/LABA相比,不太可能产生任何明显的益处或伤害。
    中等剂量和HD三联疗法可减少需要类固醇的哮喘加重,但不是哮喘相关的住院治疗,与MD-ICS/LABA相比,尤其是在前一年有哮喘发作史的患者中。在减少需要类固醇的哮喘加重方面,高剂量三联疗法可能优于MD三联疗法。与考虑MCID的双重治疗相比,三重治疗不太可能导致症状或生活质量的临床有意义的改善。大剂量三联疗法,但不是MD三倍,与MD-ICS/LABA相比,导致全因AE减少,并可能减少因AE导致的辍学。与双重疗法相比,三重疗法在全因或哮喘相关的SAE中几乎没有差异。与MD-ICS/LABA相比,HD-ICS/LABA不太可能产生任何重大益处或伤害,尽管考虑到纳入研究的中位持续时间为6个月,更高而非MD-ICS的长期安全性仍有待证明.当MD-ICS/LABA不能控制哮喘时,上述发现可能有助于决定治疗方案。
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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).
    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.
    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.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Meta-Analysis
    背景:来自随机对照试验(RCT)的大量高质量数据表明,长效毒蕈碱拮抗剂(LAMA)/长效β2激动剂(LABA)联合治疗可显著改善慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者的临床症状和健康状况,并降低恶化风险。然而,越来越多的人担心LAMA/LABA治疗可能会增加COPD患者的心血管疾病风险.本文的目的是确定使用LAMA/LABA联合治疗是否可以改善COPD患者的心血管疾病风险。
    方法:两名评审员独立搜索Embase,PubMed和Cochrane库确定LAMA/LABA或LABA/LAMA/吸入性皮质类固醇(ICS)的相关RCT,用于治疗报告心血管终点的COPD患者。主要结局是主要不良心血管事件(MACE),这是心血管死亡的复合物,心肌梗塞或中风。
    结果:共分析了51个RCTs,招募了91021名受试者。与ICS/LABA相比,LAMA/LABA双重疗法(1.6%对1.3%;相对风险1.42,95%CI1.11-1.81)和三联疗法(1.6%对1.4%;相对风险1.29,95%CI1.03-1.61)均显着增加了MACE的风险。在每年MACE的平均基础风险>1%的RCT中,超额风险最为明显。与仅LAMA相比,仅LABA或安慰剂,LAMA/LABA双重治疗并没有显著增加MACE的风险,尽管这些比较可能缺乏足够的统计能力。
    结论:与ICS/LABA相比,LAMA/LABA双联或三联疗法会增加COPD患者的心血管风险.这应该在这些治疗对COPD患者的症状和恶化率的增量益处的背景下考虑。尤其是那些每年MACE风险>1%的人。
    Accumulated high-quality data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) indicate that long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β2 agonist (LABA) combination therapy significantly improves clinical symptoms and health status in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and reduces exacerbation risk. However, there is a growing concern that LAMA/LABA therapy may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with COPD. The aim of this paper is to determine whether the use of LAMA/LABA combination therapy modifies the risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with COPD.
    Two reviewers independently searched Embase, PubMed and Cochrane Library to identify relevant RCTs of LAMA/LABA or LABA/LAMA/inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for the management of patients with COPD that reported on cardiovascular end-points. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), which was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke.
    A total of 51 RCTs enrolling 91 021 subjects were analysed. Both dual LAMA/LABA (1.6% versus 1.3%; relative risk 1.42, 95% CI 1.11-1.81) and triple therapy (1.6% versus 1.4%; relative risk 1.29, 95% CI 1.03-1.61) significantly increased the risk of MACE compared with ICS/LABA. The excess risk was most evident in RCTs in which the average underlying baseline risk for MACE was >1% per year. Compared with LAMA only, LABA only or placebo, dual LAMA/LABA therapy did not significantly increase the risk of MACE, though these comparisons may have lacked sufficient statistical power.
    Compared with ICS/LABA, dual LAMA/LABA or triple therapy increases cardiovascular risk in patients with COPD. This should be considered in the context of the incremental benefits of these therapies for symptoms and exacerbation rates in patients with COPD, especially in those with a MACE risk of >1% per year.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    有必要进行系统评价和贝叶斯网络荟萃分析,以评估不同剂量吸入性糖皮质激素(ICS)三联疗法在稳定期慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)中的疗效和安全性。我们选择了26项平行随机对照试验(41,366例患者),比较三联疗法与ICS/长效β受体激动剂(LABA),LABA/长效毒蕈碱拮抗剂(LAMA),来自PubMed的稳定期COPD患者的LAMA≥12周,EMBASE,Cochrane图书馆,和临床试验注册(搜索从开始到2022年6月30日)。与低剂量(LD)-ICS(比值比[OR]=0.66,95%可信间隔[CrI]=0.52-0.94,证据确定性低)或中剂量(MD)-ICS(OR=0.66,95%CrI=0.51-0.94,证据确定性低)治疗≥48周的预设亚组的总加重风险较低。与MD-ICS三联疗法相比,在1s内用力呼气量<65%(OR=0.6,95%CrI=0.37-0.98,证据确定性低)或先前的加重史(OR=0.6,95%CrI=0.36-0.999,证据确定性非常低)的预先指定的亚组中,HD-ICS三联疗法的中度至重度加重风险较低。HD-ICS三联疗法可以减少用其他药物治疗的COPD患者的急性加重,包括LD-或MD-ICS三联疗法或双重疗法。
    A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis is necessary to evaluate the efficacy and safety of triple therapy with different doses of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We selected 26 parallel randomized controlled trials (41,366 patients) comparing triple therapy with ICS/long-acting beta-agonist (LABA), LABA/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and LAMA in patients with stable COPD for ≥ 12 weeks from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and clinical trial registries (search from inception to June 30, 2022). Triple therapy with high dose (HD)-ICS exhibited a lower risk of total exacerbation in pre-specified subgroups treated for ≥ 48 weeks than that with low dose (LD)-ICS (odds ratio [OR] = 0.66, 95% credible interval [CrI] = 0.52-0.94, low certainty of evidence) or medium dose (MD)-ICS (OR = 0.66, 95% CrI = 0.51-0.94, low certainty of evidence). Triple therapy with HD-ICS exhibited a lower risk of moderate-to-severe exacerbation in pre-specified subgroups with forced expiratory volume in 1 s < 65% (OR = 0.6, 95% CrI = 0.37-0.98, low certainty of evidence) or previous exacerbation history (OR = 0.6, 95% CrI = 0.36-0.999, very low certainty of evidence) than triple therapy with MD-ICS. Triple therapy with HD-ICS may reduce acute exacerbation in patients with COPD treated with other drug classes including triple therapy with LD- or MD-ICS or dual therapies.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:尽管哮喘在女性中更为普遍,而COPD在女性中的患病率正在增加,目前国际上关于治疗和预防哮喘和COPD的建议没有为这些疾病的治疗提供性别相关的指征.因此,我们系统回顾了关于哮喘和COPD治疗的性别相关有效性的文献证据.
    方法:本系统评价已在PROSPERO注册,并根据PRISMA-P进行。PICO框架用于文献检索策略:“患者问题”包括患有哮喘或COPD的成年患者,“干预”认为哮喘或COPD的药物治疗,“比较”是与基线,活动控件,或安慰剂,“结果”是干预效果的任何性别差异。
    结果:在哮喘中,有44%的证据报告说,男性对治疗的反应优于女性,而这一百分比在COPD中为28%。ICS在女性治疗哮喘方面通常不如男性有效,一致的证据表明,在哮喘患者中,ICS/LABA/LAMA组合可能在男性和女性中同样有效。由于现有证据不一致,在COPD患者中,无法确定疗效与性别差异相关的具体治疗方法.
    结论:非常需要研究哮喘和COPD治疗的性别相关影响。在未来的试验方案中,应计划对男性和女性进行预先指定的分析,监管机构也应要求的必要条件,以克服与患者不良结局相关的不合时宜的“一刀切”治疗方法。
    BACKGROUND: Although asthma is more prevalent in women and the prevalence of COPD is increasing in women, the current international recommendations for the management and prevention of asthma and COPD provide no sex-related indication for the treatment of these diseases. Therefore, we systematically reviewed the evidence across literature on the sex-related effectiveness of asthma and COPD therapy.
    METHODS: This systematic review has been registered in PROSPERO and performed according to PRISMA-P. The PICO framework was applied for the literature search strategy: \"patient problem\" included adult patients suffering from asthma or COPD, \"Intervention\" regarded the pharmacological treatments for asthma or COPD, \"Comparison\" was vs. baseline, active controls, or placebo, \"Outcome\" was any difference sex-related in the effectiveness of interventions.
    RESULTS: In asthma 44% of the evidence reported that men responded better than women to the therapy, whereas this percentage was 28% in COPD. ICS was generally less effective in women than in men to treat asthma, and consistent evidence suggests that in asthmatic patients ICS/LABA/LAMA combination may be equally effective in both men and women. Due to the inconsistent available evidence, it is not possible to identify specific treatments whose effectiveness is related to sex difference in COPD patients.
    CONCLUSIONS: There is a strong need of investigating the sex-related impact of asthma and COPD treatments. Pre-specified analyses in men and women should be planned in future trial protocols, a necessary condition that should be requested also by the regulatory agencies to overcome the anachronistic \"one-size-fits-all\" approach to therapeutics associated with suboptimal outcomes for patients.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

公众号