<p>Asthma is a common chronic respiratory illness worldwide, consisting of longstanding airway inflammation with acute exacerbations. Traditionally, asthma has been managed in a step-wise fashion, with older guidance recommending short-acting beta-agonists (SABAs) as required for mild cases, and the addition of regular inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for more persistent symptoms [<span>1</span>]. Since 2019, GINA has highlighted the risks of SABA-only treatment, and advised for a combination ICS and long-acting beta agonist (LABA), to be used as required with mild symptoms, and regularly for more persistent symptoms [<span>2</span>]. Long-acting muscarinic agonists (LAMAs) are considered a later add-on therapy if initial stages of therapy are not sufficient to control symptoms.</p><p>This Cochrane review addresses the approach to a patient with residual asthma symptoms despite the use of a first-line preventer therapy (MD-ICS), a common consultation in both the primary and secondary care setting.</p><p>We included 38,276 participants from 35 studies (median duration 24 weeks [range 12–78]; mean age 44.1; 38% male; 69% white; mean forced expiratory volume in one second 2.1 L and 68% of predicted).</p><p>MD- and HD-ICS/LABA likely reduce and MD-ICS/LAMA possibly reduces moderate to severe asthma exacerbations compared to MD-ICS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.70, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.59–0.82; moderate certainty; HR 0.59, 95% CrI 0.46–0.76; moderate certainty; and HR 0.56, 95% CrI 0.38–0.82; low certainty, respectively), whereas HD-ICS probably does not (HR 0.94, 95% CrI 0.70–1.24; moderate certainty). There is no clear evidence to suggest that any combination therapy or HD-ICS reduces severe asthma exacerbations compared to MD-ICS (low to moderate certainty).</p><p>This study suggests no clinically meaningful differences in the symptom or quality of life score between dual combinations and monotherapy (low to high certainty).</p><p>MD- and HD-ICS/LABA increase or likely increase the odds of Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) responders at 6 and 12 months compared to MD-ICS (odds ratio [OR] 1.47, 95% CrI 1.23–1.76; high certainty; and OR 1.59, 95% CrI 1.31–1.94; high certainty at 6 months; and OR 1.61, 95% CrI 1.22–2.13; moderate certainty and OR 1.55, 95% CrI 1.20–2.00; high certainty at 12 months, respectively).</p><p>MD-ICS/LAMA probably increases the odds of ACQ responders at 6 months (OR 1.32, 95% CrI 1.11–1.57; moderate certainty). No data were available at 12 months. There is no clear evidence to suggest that HD-ICS increases the odds of ACQ responders or improves the symptom or quality of life score compared to MD-ICS (very low to high certainty).</p><p>There is no evidence to suggest that ICS/LABA or ICS/LAMA reduces asthma-related or all-cause serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to MD-ICS (very low to high certainty). HD-ICS results in or likely results in little or no difference in the included safety outcomes compared to MD-ICS as well as
BTS/SIGN[1]和美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)[4]的指南建议,如果患者症状未得到控制,可在低剂量 ICS 的基础上加用 LABA,而 GINA[2] 则建议从一开始就使用低剂量 ICS/LABA。与单独使用 HD-ICS 相比,两种组合都能减少中度-重度病情恶化。尽管如此,所有指南都将 LABA 作为 ICS 的首选附加疗法。有研究表明,在 ICS/LABA 组合中添加 LAMA 有益[5],但指南将其保留为专科治疗[1, 2]。只有在添加 LABA 无益,或 LABA 不能耐受或无法获得的情况下,指南才会推荐使用 ICS/LAMA(不含 LABA)[2]。LAMA 的证据不足,以及指南后期增加 LAMA(依赖于这些证据)的原因可能是,与许多可用于 ICS/LABA 的联合吸入器(表 1)相比,目前还没有市售的 ICS/LAMA 联合吸入器。我们知道,通过简化治疗方案可以最大限度地提高哮喘患者的依从性,因此增加第二个吸入器来提供 LAMA 很可能会降低依从性,从而降低哮喘控制率。在本综述包括的两项 LAMA 研究中,一项研究排除了有不依从风险的参与者[6],另一项研究指出,临床试验中的依从性高于常规临床实践[7]。据估计,50% 的患者对药物的依从性不完全[2],因此,尽管本综述发现 ICS/LABA 与 ICS/LAMA 的影响没有显著差异,但在实践中,含有 ICS/LABA 的单一组合装置可能更胜一筹。Baigel博士在攻读过敏与免疫学硕士学位时获得了利洁时公司和ALK公司的资助,并获得了利洁时公司提供的出席国际会议的资助。
{"title":"Cochrane Corner: Addition of Long-Acting Beta2 Agonists or Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonists Versus Doubling the Dose of Inhaled Corticosteroids (ICS) in Adolescents and Adults With Uncontrolled Asthma With Medium-Dose ICS","authors":"Rachel Baigel, Ian Gregory","doi":"10.1111/cea.14554","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cea.14554","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Asthma is a common chronic respiratory illness worldwide, consisting of longstanding airway inflammation with acute exacerbations. Traditionally, asthma has been managed in a step-wise fashion, with older guidance recommending short-acting beta-agonists (SABAs) as required for mild cases, and the addition of regular inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for more persistent symptoms [<span>1</span>]. Since 2019, GINA has highlighted the risks of SABA-only treatment, and advised for a combination ICS and long-acting beta agonist (LABA), to be used as required with mild symptoms, and regularly for more persistent symptoms [<span>2</span>]. Long-acting muscarinic agonists (LAMAs) are considered a later add-on therapy if initial stages of therapy are not sufficient to control symptoms.</p><p>This Cochrane review addresses the approach to a patient with residual asthma symptoms despite the use of a first-line preventer therapy (MD-ICS), a common consultation in both the primary and secondary care setting.</p><p>We included 38,276 participants from 35 studies (median duration 24 weeks [range 12–78]; mean age 44.1; 38% male; 69% white; mean forced expiratory volume in one second 2.1 L and 68% of predicted).</p><p>MD- and HD-ICS/LABA likely reduce and MD-ICS/LAMA possibly reduces moderate to severe asthma exacerbations compared to MD-ICS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.70, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.59–0.82; moderate certainty; HR 0.59, 95% CrI 0.46–0.76; moderate certainty; and HR 0.56, 95% CrI 0.38–0.82; low certainty, respectively), whereas HD-ICS probably does not (HR 0.94, 95% CrI 0.70–1.24; moderate certainty). There is no clear evidence to suggest that any combination therapy or HD-ICS reduces severe asthma exacerbations compared to MD-ICS (low to moderate certainty).</p><p>This study suggests no clinically meaningful differences in the symptom or quality of life score between dual combinations and monotherapy (low to high certainty).</p><p>MD- and HD-ICS/LABA increase or likely increase the odds of Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) responders at 6 and 12 months compared to MD-ICS (odds ratio [OR] 1.47, 95% CrI 1.23–1.76; high certainty; and OR 1.59, 95% CrI 1.31–1.94; high certainty at 6 months; and OR 1.61, 95% CrI 1.22–2.13; moderate certainty and OR 1.55, 95% CrI 1.20–2.00; high certainty at 12 months, respectively).</p><p>MD-ICS/LAMA probably increases the odds of ACQ responders at 6 months (OR 1.32, 95% CrI 1.11–1.57; moderate certainty). No data were available at 12 months. There is no clear evidence to suggest that HD-ICS increases the odds of ACQ responders or improves the symptom or quality of life score compared to MD-ICS (very low to high certainty).</p><p>There is no evidence to suggest that ICS/LABA or ICS/LAMA reduces asthma-related or all-cause serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to MD-ICS (very low to high certainty). HD-ICS results in or likely results in little or no difference in the included safety outcomes compared to MD-ICS as well as","PeriodicalId":10207,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Allergy","volume":"54 9","pages":"647-650"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2024-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cea.14554","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142016531","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
M P Morales-Palacios, J M Núñez-Córdoba, E Tejero, O Matellanes, C M D'Amelio, G Gastaminza
{"title":"Evaluation of a Novel Automated Allergy Intradermal Skin Test Reader: A Diagnostic Accuracy Study.","authors":"M P Morales-Palacios, J M Núñez-Córdoba, E Tejero, O Matellanes, C M D'Amelio, G Gastaminza","doi":"10.1111/cea.14553","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cea.14553","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10207,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Allergy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2024-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141995425","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Kirsten Stewart, Chris RuiWen Kuo, Rory Chan, Brian Lipworth
{"title":"Onset and Offset of Early Dupilumab Response Using Domiciliary Monitoring in Type 2 High Unified Airway Disease.","authors":"Kirsten Stewart, Chris RuiWen Kuo, Rory Chan, Brian Lipworth","doi":"10.1111/cea.14550","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cea.14550","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10207,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Allergy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2024-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141975232","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}