• 医学文献
  • 知识库
  • 评价分析
  • 全部
  • 中外期刊
  • 学位
  • 会议
  • 专利
  • 成果
  • 标准
  • 法规
  • 临床诊疗知识库
  • 中医药知识库
  • 机构
  • 作者
热搜词:
换一批
论文 期刊
取消
高级检索

检索历史 清除

医学文献 >>
  • 全部
  • 中外期刊
  • 学位
  • 会议
  • 专利
  • 成果
  • 标准
  • 法规
知识库 >>
  • 临床诊疗知识库
  • 中医药知识库
评价分析 >>
  • 机构
  • 作者
热搜词:
换一批

Efficacy and safety of salmeterol/fluticasone compared with montelukast alone (or add-on therapy to fluticasone) in the treatment of bronchial asthma in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Efficacy and safety of salmeterol/fluticasone compared with montelukast alone (or add-on therapy to fluticasone) in the treatment of bronchial asthma in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis

摘要:

Background::Despite the recommendation of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) plus long-acting beta 2-agonist (LABA) and leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) or ICS/LTRA as stepwise approaches in asthmatic children, there is a lack of published systematic review comparing the efficacy and safety of the two therapies in children and adolescents aged 4 to 18 years. This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of salmeterol/fluticasone (SFC) vs. montelukast (MON), or combination of montelukast and fluticasone (MFC) in children and adolescents aged 4 to 18 years with bronchial asthma. Methods::A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, China BioMedical Literature Database, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodical, and Wanfang for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from inception to May 24, 2021. Interventions are as follows: SFC vs. MON, or combination of MFC, with no limitation of dosage or duration. Primary and secondary outcome measures were as follows: the primary outcome of interest was the risk of asthma exacerbation. Secondary outcomes included risk of hospitalization, pulmonary function, asthma control level, quality of life, and adverse events (AEs). A random-effects ( I2 ≥ 50%) or fixed-effects model ( I2 < 50%) was used to calculate pooled effect estimates, comparing the outcomes between the intervention and control groups where feasible. Results::Of the 1006 articles identified, 21 studies met the inclusion criteria with 2643 individuals; two were at low risk of bias. As no primary outcomes were similar after an identical treatment duration in the included studies, meta-analysis could not be performed. However, more studies favored SFC, instead of MON, owing to a lower risk of asthma exacerbation in the SFC group. As for secondary outcome, SFC showed a significant improvement of peak expiratory flow (PEF) %pred after 4 weeks compared with MFC (mean difference [MD]: 5.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.57-9.34; I2 = 95%; P = 0.006). As for asthma control level, SFC also showed a higher full-controlled level (risk ratio [RR]: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.24-1.85; I2 = 0; P < 0.001) and higher childhood asthma control test score after 4 weeks of treatment (MD: 2.30; 95% CI: 1.39-3.21; I2 = 72%; P < 0.001) compared with MFC. Conclusions::SFC may be more effective than MFC for the treatment of asthma in children and adolescents, especially in improving asthma control level. However, there is insufficient evidence to make firm conclusive statements on the use of SFC or MON in children and adolescents aged 4 to 18 years with asthma. Further research is needed, particularly a combination of good-quality long-term prospective studies and well-designed RCTs.PROSPERO registration number::CRD42019133156.

更多
abstracts:

Background::Despite the recommendation of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) plus long-acting beta 2-agonist (LABA) and leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) or ICS/LTRA as stepwise approaches in asthmatic children, there is a lack of published systematic review comparing the efficacy and safety of the two therapies in children and adolescents aged 4 to 18 years. This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of salmeterol/fluticasone (SFC) vs. montelukast (MON), or combination of montelukast and fluticasone (MFC) in children and adolescents aged 4 to 18 years with bronchial asthma. Methods::A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, China BioMedical Literature Database, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodical, and Wanfang for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from inception to May 24, 2021. Interventions are as follows: SFC vs. MON, or combination of MFC, with no limitation of dosage or duration. Primary and secondary outcome measures were as follows: the primary outcome of interest was the risk of asthma exacerbation. Secondary outcomes included risk of hospitalization, pulmonary function, asthma control level, quality of life, and adverse events (AEs). A random-effects ( I2 ≥ 50%) or fixed-effects model ( I2 < 50%) was used to calculate pooled effect estimates, comparing the outcomes between the intervention and control groups where feasible. Results::Of the 1006 articles identified, 21 studies met the inclusion criteria with 2643 individuals; two were at low risk of bias. As no primary outcomes were similar after an identical treatment duration in the included studies, meta-analysis could not be performed. However, more studies favored SFC, instead of MON, owing to a lower risk of asthma exacerbation in the SFC group. As for secondary outcome, SFC showed a significant improvement of peak expiratory flow (PEF) %pred after 4 weeks compared with MFC (mean difference [MD]: 5.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.57-9.34; I2 = 95%; P = 0.006). As for asthma control level, SFC also showed a higher full-controlled level (risk ratio [RR]: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.24-1.85; I2 = 0; P < 0.001) and higher childhood asthma control test score after 4 weeks of treatment (MD: 2.30; 95% CI: 1.39-3.21; I2 = 72%; P < 0.001) compared with MFC. Conclusions::SFC may be more effective than MFC for the treatment of asthma in children and adolescents, especially in improving asthma control level. However, there is insufficient evidence to make firm conclusive statements on the use of SFC or MON in children and adolescents aged 4 to 18 years with asthma. Further research is needed, particularly a combination of good-quality long-term prospective studies and well-designed RCTs.PROSPERO registration number::CRD42019133156.

More
作者: Xiao-Jian Zhou [1] Zhen Qin [1] Jiao Lu [1] Jian-Guo Hong [1]
作者单位: Department of Paediatrics, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai 200080, China [1]
期刊: 《中华医学杂志英文版》2021年134卷24期 2954-2961页 SCIMEDLINEISTICCSCDBP
栏目名称: Meta Analysis
DOI: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000001853
发布时间: 2025-01-14
  • 浏览:0
  • 下载:0

加载中!

相似文献

  • 中文期刊
  • 外文期刊
  • 学位论文
  • 会议论文

加载中!

加载中!

加载中!

加载中!

扩展文献

特别提示:本网站仅提供医学学术资源服务,不销售任何药品和器械,有关药品和器械的销售信息,请查阅其他网站。

  • 客服热线:4000-115-888 转3 (周一至周五:8:00至17:00)

  • |
  • 客服邮箱:yiyao@wanfangdata.com.cn

  • 违法和不良信息举报电话:4000-115-888,举报邮箱:problem@wanfangdata.com.cn,举报专区

官方微信
万方医学小程序
new翻译 充值 订阅 收藏 移动端

官方微信

万方医学小程序

使用
帮助
Alternate Text
调查问卷