The use of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation for severe asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis.
Luigi La Via, Giuseppe Cuttone, Giovanni Misseri, Massimiliano Sorbello, Federico Pappalardo, Antonino Maniaci, Gilberto Duarte-Medrano, Natalia Nuño-Lámbarri, Christian Zanza, Cesare Gregoretti
{"title":"The use of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation for severe asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis.","authors":"Luigi La Via, Giuseppe Cuttone, Giovanni Misseri, Massimiliano Sorbello, Federico Pappalardo, Antonino Maniaci, Gilberto Duarte-Medrano, Natalia Nuño-Lámbarri, Christian Zanza, Cesare Gregoretti","doi":"10.1080/17476348.2025.2454947","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>To evaluate the effectiveness of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) versus standard therapy in severe asthma exacerbations through meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Nine randomized controlled trials (344 patients) were analyzed from inception to August 2024. Primary outcomes included respiratory rate, forced expiratory volume in first second (FEV1), and oxygen saturation (SpO2). Random effect models and trial sequential analyses were employed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>NPPV demonstrated significant reduction in respiratory rate versus standard therapy (mean difference [MD] -3.97, 95% CI -7.32 to -0.61, <i>p</i> = 0.02), though with high heterogeneity (I<sup>2</sup> = 87%). FEV1 showed significant improvement with NPPV (MD 15.56%, 95% CI 6.86 to 24.26, <i>p</i> < 0.001) based on two studies. SpO2 showed no significant improvement (MD 0.62%, 95% CI -0.14 to 1.37, <i>p</i> = 0.11). No differences were found between pediatric and adult populations. Trial sequential analyses indicated insufficient evidence for definitive conclusions regarding respiratory rate and SpO2 improvements.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While NPPV may benefit severe asthma patients, particularly in reducing respiratory rate and improving FEV1, current evidence is insufficient for recommending routine clinical use. Larger randomized controlled trials are needed to establish NPPV's effectiveness in severe asthma exacerbation treatment.</p><p><strong>Protocol registration: </strong>registration ID CRD42024580051.</p>","PeriodicalId":94007,"journal":{"name":"Expert review of respiratory medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert review of respiratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17476348.2025.2454947","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: To evaluate the effectiveness of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) versus standard therapy in severe asthma exacerbations through meta-analysis.
Methods: Nine randomized controlled trials (344 patients) were analyzed from inception to August 2024. Primary outcomes included respiratory rate, forced expiratory volume in first second (FEV1), and oxygen saturation (SpO2). Random effect models and trial sequential analyses were employed.
Results: NPPV demonstrated significant reduction in respiratory rate versus standard therapy (mean difference [MD] -3.97, 95% CI -7.32 to -0.61, p = 0.02), though with high heterogeneity (I2 = 87%). FEV1 showed significant improvement with NPPV (MD 15.56%, 95% CI 6.86 to 24.26, p < 0.001) based on two studies. SpO2 showed no significant improvement (MD 0.62%, 95% CI -0.14 to 1.37, p = 0.11). No differences were found between pediatric and adult populations. Trial sequential analyses indicated insufficient evidence for definitive conclusions regarding respiratory rate and SpO2 improvements.
Conclusions: While NPPV may benefit severe asthma patients, particularly in reducing respiratory rate and improving FEV1, current evidence is insufficient for recommending routine clinical use. Larger randomized controlled trials are needed to establish NPPV's effectiveness in severe asthma exacerbation treatment.
Protocol registration: registration ID CRD42024580051.
前言:通过荟萃分析评估无创正压通气(NPPV)与标准治疗在严重哮喘加重中的有效性。方法:对9项随机对照试验(344例患者)进行分析。主要结局包括呼吸频率、第一秒用力呼气量(FEV1)和血氧饱和度(SpO2)。采用随机效应模型和试验序列分析。结果:与标准治疗相比,NPPV显示呼吸频率显著降低(平均差异[MD] -3.97, 95% CI -7.32至-0.61,p = 0.02),尽管异质性很高(I2 = 87%)。NPPV组FEV1明显改善(MD 15.56%, 95% CI 6.86 ~ 24.26, p p = 0.11)。在儿童和成人人群中没有发现差异。试验序列分析表明,没有足够的证据得出关于呼吸速率和SpO2改善的明确结论。结论:虽然NPPV可能对严重哮喘患者有益,特别是在降低呼吸频率和改善FEV1方面,但目前的证据不足以推荐常规临床应用。需要更大规模的随机对照试验来确定NPPV在严重哮喘加重治疗中的有效性。协议注册:注册号CRD42024580051。