慢性阻塞性肺病患者吸入皮质类固醇的风险效益比。

David Price, Barbara Yawn, Guy Brusselle, Andrea Rossi
{"title":"慢性阻塞性肺病患者吸入皮质类固醇的风险效益比。","authors":"David Price, Barbara Yawn, Guy Brusselle, Andrea Rossi","doi":"10.4104/pcrj.2012.00092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>While the pharmacological management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has evolved from the drugs used to treat asthma, the treatment models are different and the two diseases require clear differential diagnosis in order to determine the correct therapeutic strategy. In contrast to the almost universal requirement for anti-inflammatory treatment of persistent asthma, the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) is less well established in COPD and their role in treatment is limited. There is some evidence of a preventive effect of ICS on exacerbations in patients with COPD, but there is little evidence for an effect on mortality or lung function decline. As a result, treatment guidelines recommend the use of ICS in patients with severe or very severe disease (forced expiratory volume in 1 second <50% predicted) and repeated exacerbations. Patients with frequent exacerbations - a phenotype that is stable over time - are likely to be less common among those with moderate COPD (many of whom are managed in primary care) than in those with more severe disease. The indiscriminate use of ICS in COPD may expose patients to an unnecessary increase in the risk of side-effects such as pneumonia, osteoporosis, diabetes and cataracts, while wasting healthcare spending and potentially diverting attention from other more appropriate forms of management such as pulmonary rehabilitation and maximal bronchodilator use. Physicians should carefully weigh the likely benefits of ICS use against the potential risk of side-effects and costs in individual patients with COPD.</p>","PeriodicalId":48998,"journal":{"name":"Primary Care Respiratory Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6548052/pdf/pcrj201292.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Risk-to-benefit ratio of inhaled corticosteroids in patients with COPD.\",\"authors\":\"David Price, Barbara Yawn, Guy Brusselle, Andrea Rossi\",\"doi\":\"10.4104/pcrj.2012.00092\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>While the pharmacological management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has evolved from the drugs used to treat asthma, the treatment models are different and the two diseases require clear differential diagnosis in order to determine the correct therapeutic strategy. In contrast to the almost universal requirement for anti-inflammatory treatment of persistent asthma, the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) is less well established in COPD and their role in treatment is limited. There is some evidence of a preventive effect of ICS on exacerbations in patients with COPD, but there is little evidence for an effect on mortality or lung function decline. As a result, treatment guidelines recommend the use of ICS in patients with severe or very severe disease (forced expiratory volume in 1 second <50% predicted) and repeated exacerbations. Patients with frequent exacerbations - a phenotype that is stable over time - are likely to be less common among those with moderate COPD (many of whom are managed in primary care) than in those with more severe disease. The indiscriminate use of ICS in COPD may expose patients to an unnecessary increase in the risk of side-effects such as pneumonia, osteoporosis, diabetes and cataracts, while wasting healthcare spending and potentially diverting attention from other more appropriate forms of management such as pulmonary rehabilitation and maximal bronchodilator use. Physicians should carefully weigh the likely benefits of ICS use against the potential risk of side-effects and costs in individual patients with COPD.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48998,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Primary Care Respiratory Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6548052/pdf/pcrj201292.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Primary Care Respiratory Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4104/pcrj.2012.00092\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Primary Care Respiratory Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4104/pcrj.2012.00092","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然慢性阻塞性肺病(COPD)的药物治疗是在哮喘治疗药物的基础上发展而来的,但治疗模式不同,两种疾病需要明确的鉴别诊断才能确定正确的治疗策略。与几乎普遍要求对持续性哮喘进行抗炎治疗相比,吸入性皮质类固醇(ICS)在慢性阻塞性肺病中的疗效并不十分理想,而且在治疗中的作用也很有限。有证据表明,ICS 对慢性阻塞性肺病患者的病情加重有预防作用,但对死亡率或肺功能下降的影响却证据不足。因此,治疗指南建议在病情严重或非常严重的患者(1 秒用力呼气量为 0.5 毫升)中使用 ICS。
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
Risk-to-benefit ratio of inhaled corticosteroids in patients with COPD.

While the pharmacological management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has evolved from the drugs used to treat asthma, the treatment models are different and the two diseases require clear differential diagnosis in order to determine the correct therapeutic strategy. In contrast to the almost universal requirement for anti-inflammatory treatment of persistent asthma, the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) is less well established in COPD and their role in treatment is limited. There is some evidence of a preventive effect of ICS on exacerbations in patients with COPD, but there is little evidence for an effect on mortality or lung function decline. As a result, treatment guidelines recommend the use of ICS in patients with severe or very severe disease (forced expiratory volume in 1 second <50% predicted) and repeated exacerbations. Patients with frequent exacerbations - a phenotype that is stable over time - are likely to be less common among those with moderate COPD (many of whom are managed in primary care) than in those with more severe disease. The indiscriminate use of ICS in COPD may expose patients to an unnecessary increase in the risk of side-effects such as pneumonia, osteoporosis, diabetes and cataracts, while wasting healthcare spending and potentially diverting attention from other more appropriate forms of management such as pulmonary rehabilitation and maximal bronchodilator use. Physicians should carefully weigh the likely benefits of ICS use against the potential risk of side-effects and costs in individual patients with COPD.

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
Primary Care Respiratory Journal
Primary Care Respiratory Journal PRIMARY HEALTH CARE-RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Management, morbidity and mortality of COPD during an 11-year period: an observational retrospective epidemiological register study in Sweden (PATHOS). Chronic disease co-morbidity of asthma and unscheduled asthma care among adults: results of the national telephone health interview survey German Health Update (GEDA) 2009 and 2010. Transgenerational occurrence of allergic disease and autoimmunity: general practice-based epidemiological research. Are GOLD ABCD groups better associated with health status and costs than GOLD 1234 grades? A cross-sectional study. Indolent pneumonia in a pregnant recent immigrant from Ethiopia: think TB.
×
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