Rational use of inhaled corticosteroids for the treatment of COPD.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q1 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
Jennifer K Quint, Amnon Ariel, Peter J Barnes
{"title":"Rational use of inhaled corticosteroids for the treatment of COPD.","authors":"Jennifer K Quint,&nbsp;Amnon Ariel,&nbsp;Peter J Barnes","doi":"10.1038/s41533-023-00347-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the mainstay of treatment for asthma, but their role in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is debated. Recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in patients with COPD and frequent or severe exacerbations demonstrated a significant reduction (~25%) in exacerbations with ICS in combination with dual bronchodilator therapy (triple therapy). However, the suggestion of a mortality benefit associated with ICS in these trials has since been rejected by the European Medicines Agency and US Food and Drug Administration. Observational evidence from routine clinical practice demonstrates that dual bronchodilation is associated with better clinical outcomes than triple therapy in a broad population of patients with COPD and infrequent exacerbations. This reinforces guideline recommendations that ICS-containing maintenance therapy should be reserved for patients with frequent or severe exacerbations and high blood eosinophils (~10% of the COPD population), or those with concomitant asthma. However, data from routine clinical practice indicate ICS overuse, with up to 50-80% of patients prescribed ICS. Prescription of ICS in patients not fulfilling guideline criteria puts patients at unnecessary risk of pneumonia and other long-term adverse events and also has cost implications, without any clear benefit in disease control. In this article, we review the benefits and risks of ICS use in COPD, drawing on evidence from RCTs and observational studies conducted in primary care. We also provide a practical guide to prescribing ICS, based on the latest global treatment guidelines, to help primary care providers identify patients for whom the benefits of ICS outweigh the risks.</p>","PeriodicalId":19470,"journal":{"name":"NPJ Primary Care Respiratory Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10366209/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NPJ Primary Care Respiratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41533-023-00347-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the mainstay of treatment for asthma, but their role in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is debated. Recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in patients with COPD and frequent or severe exacerbations demonstrated a significant reduction (~25%) in exacerbations with ICS in combination with dual bronchodilator therapy (triple therapy). However, the suggestion of a mortality benefit associated with ICS in these trials has since been rejected by the European Medicines Agency and US Food and Drug Administration. Observational evidence from routine clinical practice demonstrates that dual bronchodilation is associated with better clinical outcomes than triple therapy in a broad population of patients with COPD and infrequent exacerbations. This reinforces guideline recommendations that ICS-containing maintenance therapy should be reserved for patients with frequent or severe exacerbations and high blood eosinophils (~10% of the COPD population), or those with concomitant asthma. However, data from routine clinical practice indicate ICS overuse, with up to 50-80% of patients prescribed ICS. Prescription of ICS in patients not fulfilling guideline criteria puts patients at unnecessary risk of pneumonia and other long-term adverse events and also has cost implications, without any clear benefit in disease control. In this article, we review the benefits and risks of ICS use in COPD, drawing on evidence from RCTs and observational studies conducted in primary care. We also provide a practical guide to prescribing ICS, based on the latest global treatment guidelines, to help primary care providers identify patients for whom the benefits of ICS outweigh the risks.

Abstract Image

合理使用吸入性皮质类固醇治疗慢性阻塞性肺病。
吸入皮质类固醇(ICS)是治疗哮喘的主要方法,但其在慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)中的作用仍存在争议。最近在COPD患者中进行的随机对照试验(RCTs)和频繁或严重的急性加重表明,ICS联合双重支气管扩张剂治疗(三联治疗)可显著减少急性加重(~25%)。然而,在这些试验中与ICS相关的死亡率益处的建议已被欧洲药品管理局和美国食品和药物管理局拒绝。常规临床实践的观察性证据表明,在广泛的COPD患者人群中,双重支气管扩张比三联治疗具有更好的临床结果。这加强了指南的建议,即含有ics的维持治疗应保留给频繁或严重恶化和高血嗜酸性粒细胞(约占COPD人群的10%)或合并哮喘的患者。然而,来自常规临床实践的数据表明ICS过度使用,高达50-80%的患者使用ICS。在不符合指南标准的患者中使用ICS会使患者面临不必要的肺炎和其他长期不良事件风险,并且还会产生成本影响,在疾病控制方面没有任何明显的益处。在这篇文章中,我们回顾了在COPD中使用ICS的益处和风险,借鉴了在初级保健中进行的随机对照试验和观察性研究的证据。我们还根据最新的全球治疗指南提供了开具ICS处方的实用指南,以帮助初级保健提供者识别ICS的益处大于风险的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
NPJ Primary Care Respiratory Medicine
NPJ Primary Care Respiratory Medicine PRIMARY HEALTH CARE-RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
6.50%
发文量
49
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: npj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine is an open access, online-only, multidisciplinary journal dedicated to publishing high-quality research in all areas of the primary care management of respiratory and respiratory-related allergic diseases. Papers published by the journal represent important advances of significance to specialists within the fields of primary care and respiratory medicine. We are particularly interested in receiving papers in relation to the following aspects of respiratory medicine, respiratory-related allergic diseases and tobacco control: epidemiology prevention clinical care service delivery and organisation of healthcare (including implementation science) global health.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信