慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重期吸入与全身使用皮质类固醇的比较:系统综述和荟萃分析。

IF 9 1区 医学 Q1 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM European Respiratory Review Pub Date : 2024-03-20 Print Date: 2024-01-31 DOI:10.1183/16000617.0151-2023
Efthymia Papadopoulou, Sulaiman Bin Safar, Ali Khalil, Jan Hansel, Ran Wang, Alexandru Corlateanu, Konstantinos Kostikas, Stavros Tryfon, Jørgen Vestbo, Alexander G Mathioudakis
{"title":"慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重期吸入与全身使用皮质类固醇的比较:系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Efthymia Papadopoulou, Sulaiman Bin Safar, Ali Khalil, Jan Hansel, Ran Wang, Alexandru Corlateanu, Konstantinos Kostikas, Stavros Tryfon, Jørgen Vestbo, Alexander G Mathioudakis","doi":"10.1183/16000617.0151-2023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of inhaled <i>versus</i> systemic corticosteroids for COPD exacerbations.Following a pre-registered protocol, we appraised eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) according to Cochrane methodology, performed random-effects meta-analyses for all outcomes prioritised in the European Respiratory Society COPD core outcome set and rated the certainty of evidence as per Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology.We included 20 RCTs totalling 2140 participants with moderate or severe exacerbations. All trials were at high risk of methodological bias. Low-certainty evidence did not reveal significant differences between inhaled and systemic corticosteroids for treatment failure rate (relative risk 1.75, 95% CI 0.76-4.02, n=569 participants); breathlessness (mean change: standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.11, 95% CI -0.36-0.15, n=239; post-treatment scores: SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.41-0.05, n=293); serious adverse events (relative risk 1.47, 95% CI 0.56-3.88, n=246); or any other efficacy outcomes. Moderate-certainty evidence implied a tendency for fewer adverse events with inhaled compared to systemic corticosteroids (relative risk 0.80, 95% CI 0.64-1.0, n=480). Hyperglycaemia and oral fungal infections were observed more frequently with systemic and inhaled corticosteroids, respectively.Limited available evidence suggests potential noninferiority of inhaled to systemic corticosteroids in COPD exacerbations. Appropriately designed and powered RCTs are warranted to confirm these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":12166,"journal":{"name":"European Respiratory Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10951861/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Inhaled <i>versus</i> systemic corticosteroids for acute exacerbations of COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Efthymia Papadopoulou, Sulaiman Bin Safar, Ali Khalil, Jan Hansel, Ran Wang, Alexandru Corlateanu, Konstantinos Kostikas, Stavros Tryfon, Jørgen Vestbo, Alexander G Mathioudakis\",\"doi\":\"10.1183/16000617.0151-2023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of inhaled <i>versus</i> systemic corticosteroids for COPD exacerbations.Following a pre-registered protocol, we appraised eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) according to Cochrane methodology, performed random-effects meta-analyses for all outcomes prioritised in the European Respiratory Society COPD core outcome set and rated the certainty of evidence as per Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology.We included 20 RCTs totalling 2140 participants with moderate or severe exacerbations. All trials were at high risk of methodological bias. Low-certainty evidence did not reveal significant differences between inhaled and systemic corticosteroids for treatment failure rate (relative risk 1.75, 95% CI 0.76-4.02, n=569 participants); breathlessness (mean change: standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.11, 95% CI -0.36-0.15, n=239; post-treatment scores: SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.41-0.05, n=293); serious adverse events (relative risk 1.47, 95% CI 0.56-3.88, n=246); or any other efficacy outcomes. Moderate-certainty evidence implied a tendency for fewer adverse events with inhaled compared to systemic corticosteroids (relative risk 0.80, 95% CI 0.64-1.0, n=480). Hyperglycaemia and oral fungal infections were observed more frequently with systemic and inhaled corticosteroids, respectively.Limited available evidence suggests potential noninferiority of inhaled to systemic corticosteroids in COPD exacerbations. Appropriately designed and powered RCTs are warranted to confirm these findings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12166,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Respiratory Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10951861/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Respiratory Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0151-2023\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/31 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Print\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Respiratory Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0151-2023","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这项荟萃分析比较了吸入性与全身性皮质类固醇治疗慢性阻塞性肺疾病加重的疗效和安全性。根据预先登记的方案,我们按照科克伦方法对符合条件的随机对照试验(RCT)进行了评估,对欧洲呼吸学会慢性阻塞性肺疾病核心结果集中优先考虑的所有结果进行了随机效应荟萃分析,并按照建议分级评估、开发和评价方法对证据的确定性进行了评级。所有试验均存在方法学偏倚的高风险。SMD:-0.18,95% CI -0.41-0.05,人数=293);严重不良事件(相对风险1.47,95% CI 0.56-3.88,人数=246);或任何其他疗效结果。中度确定性证据表明,与全身用皮质类固醇相比,吸入用皮质类固醇的不良事件有减少的趋势(相对风险0.80,95% CI 0.64-1.0,n=480)。高血糖和口腔真菌感染在使用全身性皮质类固醇和吸入性皮质类固醇时分别出现的频率更高。为了证实这些研究结果,有必要进行适当设计和功率的 RCT 研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Inhaled versus systemic corticosteroids for acute exacerbations of COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

This meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of inhaled versus systemic corticosteroids for COPD exacerbations.Following a pre-registered protocol, we appraised eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) according to Cochrane methodology, performed random-effects meta-analyses for all outcomes prioritised in the European Respiratory Society COPD core outcome set and rated the certainty of evidence as per Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology.We included 20 RCTs totalling 2140 participants with moderate or severe exacerbations. All trials were at high risk of methodological bias. Low-certainty evidence did not reveal significant differences between inhaled and systemic corticosteroids for treatment failure rate (relative risk 1.75, 95% CI 0.76-4.02, n=569 participants); breathlessness (mean change: standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.11, 95% CI -0.36-0.15, n=239; post-treatment scores: SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.41-0.05, n=293); serious adverse events (relative risk 1.47, 95% CI 0.56-3.88, n=246); or any other efficacy outcomes. Moderate-certainty evidence implied a tendency for fewer adverse events with inhaled compared to systemic corticosteroids (relative risk 0.80, 95% CI 0.64-1.0, n=480). Hyperglycaemia and oral fungal infections were observed more frequently with systemic and inhaled corticosteroids, respectively.Limited available evidence suggests potential noninferiority of inhaled to systemic corticosteroids in COPD exacerbations. Appropriately designed and powered RCTs are warranted to confirm these findings.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Respiratory Review
European Respiratory Review Medicine-Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
CiteScore
14.40
自引率
1.30%
发文量
91
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Respiratory Review (ERR) is an open-access journal published by the European Respiratory Society (ERS), serving as a vital resource for respiratory professionals by delivering updates on medicine, science, and surgery in the field. ERR features state-of-the-art review articles, editorials, correspondence, and summaries of recent research findings and studies covering a wide range of topics including COPD, asthma, pulmonary hypertension, interstitial lung disease, lung cancer, tuberculosis, and pulmonary infections. Articles are published continuously and compiled into quarterly issues within a single annual volume.
期刊最新文献
Antibody-mediated protection against respiratory syncytial virus in children. Epidemiology of bronchiectasis. Epidemiology of severe asthma in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Impaired lung function and associated risk factors in children born prematurely: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Noninvasive diagnostic modalities and prediction models for detecting pulmonary hypertension associated with interstitial lung disease: a narrative review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1