连续与间歇性短效β2激动剂雾化作为住院儿童严重哮喘加重的一线治疗:倾向评分匹配分析

Asthma research and practice Pub Date : 2020-07-02 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01 DOI:10.1186/s40733-020-00059-5
Prapasri Kulalert, Phichayut Phinyo, Jayanton Patumanond, Chutima Smathakanee, Wantida Chuenjit, Sira Nanthapisal
{"title":"连续与间歇性短效β2激动剂雾化作为住院儿童严重哮喘加重的一线治疗:倾向评分匹配分析","authors":"Prapasri Kulalert,&nbsp;Phichayut Phinyo,&nbsp;Jayanton Patumanond,&nbsp;Chutima Smathakanee,&nbsp;Wantida Chuenjit,&nbsp;Sira Nanthapisal","doi":"10.1186/s40733-020-00059-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) nebulization is commonly prescribed for children hospitalized with severe asthma exacerbation. Either intermittent or continuous delivery has been considered safe and efficient. The comparative efficacy of these two modalities is inconclusive. We aimed to compare these two modalities as the first-line treatments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An efficacy research with a retrospective cohort study design was conducted. Hospital records of children with severe asthma exacerbation admitted to Hat Yai Hospital between 2015 and 2017 were retrospectively collected. Children initially treated with continuous salbutamol 10 mg per hour or intermittent salbutamol 2.5 mg per dose over 1-4 h nebulization were matched one-to-one using the propensity score. Competing risk and risk difference regression was applied to evaluate the proportion of children who succeeded and failed the initial treatment. Restricted mean survival time regression was used to compare the length of stay (LOS) between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One-hundred and eighty-nine children were included. Of these children, 112 were matched for analysis (56 with continuous and 56 with intermittent nebulization). Children with continuous nebulization experienced a higher proportion of success in nebulization treatment (adjusted difference: 39.5, 95% CI 22.7, 56.3, <i>p</i> < 0.001), with a faster rate of success (adjusted SHR: 2.70, 95% CI 1.73, 4.22, <i>p</i> < 0.001). There was a tendency that LOS was also shorter (adjusted mean difference - 9.9 h, 95% CI -24.2, 4.4, <i>p</i> = 0.176).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Continuous SABA nebulization was more efficient than intermittent nebulization in the treatment of children with severe asthma exacerbation.</p>","PeriodicalId":8572,"journal":{"name":"Asthma research and practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s40733-020-00059-5","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Continuous versus intermittent short-acting β2-agonists nebulization as first-line therapy in hospitalized children with severe asthma exacerbation: a propensity score matching analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Prapasri Kulalert,&nbsp;Phichayut Phinyo,&nbsp;Jayanton Patumanond,&nbsp;Chutima Smathakanee,&nbsp;Wantida Chuenjit,&nbsp;Sira Nanthapisal\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40733-020-00059-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) nebulization is commonly prescribed for children hospitalized with severe asthma exacerbation. Either intermittent or continuous delivery has been considered safe and efficient. The comparative efficacy of these two modalities is inconclusive. We aimed to compare these two modalities as the first-line treatments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An efficacy research with a retrospective cohort study design was conducted. Hospital records of children with severe asthma exacerbation admitted to Hat Yai Hospital between 2015 and 2017 were retrospectively collected. Children initially treated with continuous salbutamol 10 mg per hour or intermittent salbutamol 2.5 mg per dose over 1-4 h nebulization were matched one-to-one using the propensity score. Competing risk and risk difference regression was applied to evaluate the proportion of children who succeeded and failed the initial treatment. Restricted mean survival time regression was used to compare the length of stay (LOS) between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One-hundred and eighty-nine children were included. Of these children, 112 were matched for analysis (56 with continuous and 56 with intermittent nebulization). Children with continuous nebulization experienced a higher proportion of success in nebulization treatment (adjusted difference: 39.5, 95% CI 22.7, 56.3, <i>p</i> < 0.001), with a faster rate of success (adjusted SHR: 2.70, 95% CI 1.73, 4.22, <i>p</i> < 0.001). There was a tendency that LOS was also shorter (adjusted mean difference - 9.9 h, 95% CI -24.2, 4.4, <i>p</i> = 0.176).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Continuous SABA nebulization was more efficient than intermittent nebulization in the treatment of children with severe asthma exacerbation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8572,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asthma research and practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s40733-020-00059-5\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asthma research and practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40733-020-00059-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asthma research and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40733-020-00059-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

研究背景:短效β2激动剂(SABA)雾化常用于重度哮喘急性发作住院儿童。间歇或连续分娩都被认为是安全和有效的。这两种方式的比较疗效尚无定论。我们的目的是比较这两种方式作为一线治疗。方法:采用回顾性队列研究设计进行疗效研究。回顾性收集2015 - 2017年河艾医院收治的重症哮喘患儿住院记录。最初使用连续沙丁胺醇每小时10毫克或间歇沙丁胺醇每剂量2.5毫克,持续1-4小时雾化治疗的儿童使用倾向评分进行一对一匹配。应用竞争风险和风险差异回归评估初始治疗成功和失败儿童的比例。采用限制性平均生存时间回归比较两组患者的住院时间(LOS)。结果:共纳入189名儿童。在这些儿童中,112人匹配进行分析(56人连续雾化,56人间歇雾化)。持续雾化治疗的患儿雾化治疗成功率较高(调整后差异:39.5,95% CI 22.7, 56.3, p p p = 0.176)。结论:SABA连续雾化治疗儿童重度哮喘发作的疗效优于间歇雾化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Continuous versus intermittent short-acting β2-agonists nebulization as first-line therapy in hospitalized children with severe asthma exacerbation: a propensity score matching analysis.

Background: Short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) nebulization is commonly prescribed for children hospitalized with severe asthma exacerbation. Either intermittent or continuous delivery has been considered safe and efficient. The comparative efficacy of these two modalities is inconclusive. We aimed to compare these two modalities as the first-line treatments.

Methods: An efficacy research with a retrospective cohort study design was conducted. Hospital records of children with severe asthma exacerbation admitted to Hat Yai Hospital between 2015 and 2017 were retrospectively collected. Children initially treated with continuous salbutamol 10 mg per hour or intermittent salbutamol 2.5 mg per dose over 1-4 h nebulization were matched one-to-one using the propensity score. Competing risk and risk difference regression was applied to evaluate the proportion of children who succeeded and failed the initial treatment. Restricted mean survival time regression was used to compare the length of stay (LOS) between the two groups.

Results: One-hundred and eighty-nine children were included. Of these children, 112 were matched for analysis (56 with continuous and 56 with intermittent nebulization). Children with continuous nebulization experienced a higher proportion of success in nebulization treatment (adjusted difference: 39.5, 95% CI 22.7, 56.3, p < 0.001), with a faster rate of success (adjusted SHR: 2.70, 95% CI 1.73, 4.22, p < 0.001). There was a tendency that LOS was also shorter (adjusted mean difference - 9.9 h, 95% CI -24.2, 4.4, p = 0.176).

Conclusion: Continuous SABA nebulization was more efficient than intermittent nebulization in the treatment of children with severe asthma exacerbation.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Asthma Research and Practice is the official publication of Interasma and publishes cutting edge basic, clinical and translational research in addition to hot topic reviews and debate articles relevant to asthma and related disorders (such as rhinitis, COPD overlapping syndrome, sinusitis). The journal has a specialized section which focusses on pediatric asthma research. Asthma Research and Practice aims to serve as an international platform for the dissemination of research of interest to pulmonologists, allergologists, primary care physicians and family doctors, ENTs and other health care providers interested in asthma, its mechanisms and comorbidities.
期刊最新文献
Psychological distress and associated factors among asthmatic patients in Southern, Ethiopia, 2021. Retrospective assessment of a collaborative digital asthma program for Medicaid-enrolled children in southwest Detroit: reductions in short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) medication use. Nonadherence to antiasthmatic medications and its predictors among asthmatic patients in public hospitals of Bahir Dar City, North West Ethiopia: using ASK-12 tool. The hen and the egg question in atopic dermatitis: allergy or eczema comes first. Medication regimen complexity and its impact on medication adherence and asthma control among patients with asthma in Ethiopian referral hospitals.
×
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