BACKGROUND:

A key aim of asthma care is to empower each person to take control of his or her own condition. A personalised asthma action plan (PAAP), also known as a written action plan, an individualised action plan, or a self-management action plan, contributes to this endeavour. A PAAP includes individualised self-management instructions devised collaboratively with the patient to help maintain asthma control and regain control in the event of an exacerbation. A PAAP includes baseline characteristics (such as lung function), maintenance medication and instructions on how to respond to increasing symptoms and when to seek medical help.

OBJECTIVES:

To evaluate the effectiveness of PAAPs used alone or in combination with education, for patient-reported outcomes, resource use and safety among adults with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS:

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials, clinical trial registers, reference lists of included studies and review articles, and relevant manufacturers' websites up to 14 September 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs), both blinded and unblinded, that evaluated written PAAPs in adults with asthma. Included studies compared PAAP alone versus no PAAP, and/or PAAP plus education versus education alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

Two review authors independently extracted study characteristics and outcome data and assessed risk of bias for each included study. Primary outcomes were number of participants reporting at least one exacerbation requiring an emergency department (ED) visit or hospitalisation, asthma symptom scores on a validated scale and adverse events (all causes). Secondary outcomes were quality of life measured on a validated scale, number of participants reporting at least one exacerbation requiring systemic corticosteroids, respiratory function and days lost from work or study. We used a random-effects model for all analyses and standard Cochrane methods throughout.

MAIN RESULTS:

We identified 15 studies described in 27 articles that met our inclusion criteria. These 15 included studies randomised a total of 3062 participants (PAAP vs no

PAAP:

2602 participants; PAAP plus education vs education alone: 460 participants). Ten studies (eight PAAP vs no PAAP; two PAAP plus education vs education alone) provided outcome data that contributed to quantitative analyses. The overall quality of evidence was rated as low or very low.Fourteen studies lasted six months or longer, and the remaining study lasted for 14 weeks. When reported, mean age ranged from 22 to 49 years and asthma severity ranged from mild to severe/high risk. PAAP alone compared with no PAAPResults showed no clear benefit or harm associated with PAAPs in terms of the number of participants requiring an ED visit or hospitalisation for an exacerbation (odds ratio (OR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 1.24; 1385 participants; five studies; low-quality evidence), change from baseline in asthma symptoms (mean difference (MD) -0.16, 95% CI -0.25 to - 0.07; 141 participants; one study; low-quality evidence) or the number of serious adverse events, including death (OR 3.26, 95% CI 0.33 to 32.21; 125 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). Data revealed a statistically significant improvement in quality of life scores for those receiving PAAP compared with no PAAP (MD 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.30; 441 participants; three studies; low-quality evidence), but this was below the threshold for a minimum clinically important difference (MCID). Results also showed no clear benefit or harm associated with PAAPs on the number of participants reporting at least one exacerbation requiring oral corticosteroids (OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.48; 1136 participants; three studies; very low-quality evidence) nor on respiratory function (change from baseline forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1): MD -0.04 L, 95% CI -0.25L to 0.17 L; 392 participants; three studies; low-quality evidence). In one study, PAAPs were associated with significantly fewer days lost from work or study (MD -6.20, 95% CI -7.32 to - 5.08; 74 participants; low-quality evidence). PAAP plus education compared with education aloneResults showed no clear benefit or harm associated with adding a PAAP to education in terms of the number of participants requiring an ED visit or hospitalisation for an exacerbation (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.32; 70 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), change from baseline in asthma symptoms (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.34; 70 participants; one study; low-quality evidence), change in quality of life scores from baseline (MD 0.13, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.39; 174 participants; one study; low-quality evidence) and number of participants requiring oral corticosteroids for an exacerbation (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.12; 70 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). No studies reported serious adverse events, respiratory function or days lost from work or study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

Analysis of available studies was limited by variable reporting of primary and secondary outcomes; therefore, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions related to the effectiveness of PAAPs in the management of adult asthma. We found no evidence from randomised controlled trials of additional benefit or harm associated with use of PAAP versus no PAAP, or PAAP plus education versus education alone, but we considered the quality of the evidence to be low or very low, meaning that we cannot be confident in the magnitude or direction of reported treatment effects. In the context of this caveat, we found no observable effect on the primary outcomes of hospital attendance with an asthma exacerbation, asthma symptom scores or adverse events. We recommend further research with a particular focus on key patient-relevant outcomes, including exacerbation frequency and quality of life, in a broad spectrum of adults, including those over 60 years of age.

The aim of this systematic review was to summarize and assess the quality of asthma intervention health economic studies from 2002 to 2007, compare the study findings with clinical management guidelines, and suggest avenues for future improvement of asthma health economic studies. Forty of the 177 studies met our inclusion criteria. We assessed the quality of studies using The Quality of Health Economic Studies validated instrument (total score range: 0-100). Six studies (15%) had quality category 2, 26 studies (65%) achieved quality category 3, and the remaining eight (20%) studies were scored as the highest quality level, category 4. Overall, the findings from this review are in line with the Global Initiative for Asthma clinical guidelines. Many asthma health economic studies lacked appropriate long term time horizons to match the chronic nature of the disease and suffered from using effectiveness measures that did not capture all disease related risks and benefits. We recommend that new asthma simulation models: be flexible to allow for long term time horizons, focus on using levels of asthma control in their structure, and estimate both long term asthma specific outcomes like well-controlled time as well as generic outcomes such as quality adjusted survival.

BACKGROUND:

Currently, the cornerstone of asthma management is the achievement and maintenance of optimal asthma control, but the diagnostic performances of the Asthma Control Test (ACT) and Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) have not been evaluated systematically.

OBJECTIVE:

We explored the diagnostic performances of and statistically compared the ACT and ACQ.

METHODS:

Studies that examined the accuracy of the ACT, ACQ, or both in the assessment of asthma control were found by searching PubMed, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Ovid, and Embase. Summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratios for the different levels of asthma control were determined by using bivariate random-effects models and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic models.

RESULTS:

Twenty-one studies with 11,141 subjects assessed with the ACT and 12,483 assessed with the ACQ were identified. The ACT had good diagnostic accuracy for assessment of controlled and not well-controlled asthma, and the ACQ (ACQ-7 and ACQ-6) had good diagnostic accuracy for assessment of not well-controlled asthma at prespecified cutoff points. The ACT and ACQ had significant differences in the assessment of controlled and not well-controlled asthma after adjusting for potential factors (P = .001 and P = .015). For assessment of uncontrolled asthma, the ACT had poor accuracy, with a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic area under the curve of 0.69, and the cutoff point for the ACQ has not been established.

CONCLUSION:

The ACT is preferable to the ACQ in clinical practice, and the ACQ requires further cross-validation. Moreover, neither the ACT nor the ACQ is useful for the assessment of uncontrolled asthma.

BACKGROUND:

Asthma is the most common chronic disease in children and a major public health problem in adults. A relation between asthma and toxocariasis has been hypothesized.

OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate the strength of association between asthma and Toxocara species seropositivity by conducting a systematic review and a meta-analysis of available data.

METHODS:

PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the reference lists of all relevant articles and books were screened until October 2013. Two authors independently assessed eligibility and study quality and extracted data. A common odds ratio was estimated using a random-effects meta-analysis model of aggregated published data.

RESULTS:

Ten studies met the inclusion criteria, for a total of 1,530 participants (723 cases and 807 controls). This meta-analysis found a significantly higher prevalence of Toxocara canis infection in patients with asthma than in controls (odds ratio 3.36, 95% confidence interval 1.76-6.42, P < .001). Similar results were found when meta-analysis was restricted to the studies considering only children or adults.

CONCLUSION:

The results support the existence of a positive association between asthma and Toxocara species seropositivity.

BACKGROUND:

Healthcare systems internationally need to consider new models of care to cater for the increasing numbers of people with asthma. Telehealthcare interventions are increasingly being seen by policymakers as a potential means of delivering asthma care. We defined telehealthcare as being healthcare delivered from a distance, facilitated electronically and involving the exchange of information through the personalised interaction between a healthcare professional using their skills and judgement and the patient providing information.

OBJECTIVES:

To assess the effectiveness of telehealthcare interventions in people with asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY:

We searched in the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, and PsycINFO; this was supplemented by handsearching of respiratory journals. We also searched registers of ongoing and unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

We selected completed randomised controlled trials of telehealthcare initiatives aiming to improve asthma care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

Two review authors independently appraised studies for inclusion and extracted data and performed meta-analyses. We analysed dichotomous variables to produce an odds ratio (OR) and continuous variables to produce a mean difference.

MAIN RESULTS:

We included 21 trials in this review. The 21 included studies investigated a range of technologies aiming to support the provision of care from a distance. These included: telephone (n = 9); video-conferencing (n = 2); Internet (n = 2); other networked communications (n = 6); text Short Messaging Service (n = 1); or a combination of text and Internet (n = 1). Meta-analysis showed that these interventions did not result in clinically important improvements in asthma quality of life (minimum clinically important difference = 0.5): mean difference in Juniper's Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) 0.08 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.16). Telehealthcare for asthma resulted in a non-significant increase in the odds of emergency department visits over a 12-month period: OR 1.16 (95% CI 0.52 to 2.58). There was, however, a significant reduction in hospitalisations over a 12-month period: OR 0.21 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.61), the effect being most marked in people with more severe asthma managed predominantly in secondary care settings.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

Telehealthcare interventions are unlikely to result in clinically relevant improvements in health outcomes in those with relatively mild asthma, but they may have a role in those with more severe disease who are at high risk of hospital admission. Further trials evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a range of telehealthcare interventions are needed.

INTRODUCTION:

About 10% of adults have suffered an attack of asthma, and up to 5% of these have severe disease that responds poorly to treatment. Patients with severe disease have an increased risk of death, but patients with mild-to-moderate disease are also at risk of exacerbations. Most guidelines about the management of asthma follow stepwise protocols. This review does not endorse or follow any particular protocol, but presents the evidence about specific interventions.

METHODS AND OUTCOMES:

We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments for chronic asthma? What are the effects of treatments for acute asthma? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2008 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

RESULTS:

We found 99 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.

CONCLUSIONS:

In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions. For acute asthma: beta(2) agonists (plus ipratropium bromide, pressured metered-dose inhalers, short-acting continuous nebulised, short-acting intermittent nebulised, and short-acting intravenous); corticosteroids (inhaled); corticosteroids (single oral, combined inhaled, and short courses); education about acute asthma; generalist care; helium-oxygen mixture (heliox); magnesium sulphate (intravenous and adding isotonic nebulised magnesium to inhaled beta(2) agonists); mechanical ventilation; oxygen supplementation (controlled 28% oxygen and controlled 100% oxygen); and specialist care. For chronic asthma: beta(2) agonists (adding long-acting inhaled beta(2) agonists when asthma is poorly controlled by inhaled corticosteroids, or short-acting inhaled beta(2) agonists as needed for symptom relief); inhaled corticosteroids (low dose and increasing dose); leukotriene antagonists (with or without inhaled corticosteroids); and theophylline (when poorly controlled by inhaled corticosteroids).

BACKGROUND:

Asthma is a common chronic inflammatory disorder affecting about 300 million people worldwide. As a holistic therapy, yoga has the potential to relieve both the physical and psychological suffering of people with asthma, and its popularity has expanded globally. A number of clinical trials have been carried out to evaluate the effects of yoga practice, with inconsistent results.

OBJECTIVES:

To assess the effects of yoga in people with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS:

We systematically searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials, which is derived from systematic searches of bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, and PsycINFO, and handsearching of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. We also searched PEDro. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP search portal. We searched all databases from their inception to 22 July 2015, and used no restriction on language of publication. We checked the reference lists of eligible studies and relevant review articles for additional studies. We attempted to contact investigators of eligible studies and experts in the field to learn of other published and unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared yoga with usual care (or no intervention) or sham intervention in people with asthma and reported at least one of the following outcomes: quality of life, asthma symptom score, asthma control, lung function measures, asthma medication usage, and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

We extracted bibliographic information, characteristics of participants, characteristics of interventions and controls, characteristics of methodology, and results for the outcomes of our interest from eligible studies. For continuous outcomes, we used mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) to denote the treatment effects, if the outcomes were measured by the same scale across studies. Alternatively, if the outcomes were measured by different scales across studies, we used standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI. For dichotomous outcomes, we used risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI to measure the treatment effects. We performed meta-analysis with Review Manager 5.3. We used the fixed-effect model to pool the data, unless there was substantial heterogeneity among studies, in which case we used the random-effects model instead. For outcomes inappropriate or impossible to pool quantitatively, we conducted a descriptive analysis and summarised the findings narratively.

MAIN RESULTS:

We included 15 RCTs with a total of 1048 participants. Most of the trials were conducted in India, followed by Europe and the United States. The majority of participants were adults of both sexes with mild to moderate asthma for six months to more than 23 years. Five studies included yoga breathing alone, while the other studies assessed yoga interventions that included breathing, posture, and meditation. Interventions lasted from two weeks to 54 months, for no more than six months in the majority of studies. The risk of bias was low across all domains in one study and unclear or high in at least one domain for the remainder.There was some evidence that yoga may improve quality of life (MD in Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) score per item 0.57 units on a 7-point scale, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.77; 5 studies; 375 participants), improve symptoms (SMD 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.65; 3 studies; 243 participants), and reduce medication usage (RR 5.35, 95% CI 1.29 to 22.11; 2 studies) in people with asthma. The MD for AQLQ score exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 0.5, but whether the mean changes exceeded the MCID for asthma symptoms is uncertain due to the lack of an established MCID in the severity scores used in the included studies. The effects of yoga on change from baseline forced expiratory volume in one second (MD 0.04 litres, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.19; 7 studies; 340 participants; I2 = 68%) were not statistically significant. Two studies indicated improved asthma control, but due to very significant heterogeneity (I2 = 98%) we did not pool data. No serious adverse events associated with yoga were reported, but the data on this outcome was limited.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

We found moderate-quality evidence that yoga probably leads to small improvements in quality of life and symptoms in people with asthma. There is more uncertainty about potential adverse effects of yoga and its impact on lung function and medication usage. RCTs with a large sample size and high methodological and reporting quality are needed to confirm the effects of yoga for asthma.

ANTECEDENTES:

La cafeína tiene una variedad de efectos farmacológicos. Está relacionada químicamente con el fármaco teofilina, que se utiliza en el tratamiento del asma. En consecuencia, se ha planteado un interés en su potencial función como tratamiento para el asma. Varios estudios han explorado los efectos de la cafeína en el asma, y ésta es la primera revisión que examina y resume sistemáticamente las pruebas.

OBJETIVOS:

La cafeína es un broncodilatador débil y también reduce la fatiga de los músculos respiratorios. Se ha sugerido que la cafeína puede reducir los síntomas del asma. El objetivo de esta revisión fue evaluar los efectos de la cafeína en la función pulmonar e identificar si es necesario controlar el consumo de cafeína antes de realizar una prueba de función pulmonar.

ESTRATEGIA DE BÚSQUEDA:

Se hicieron búsquedas en el registro de ensayos del Grupo Cochrane de Vías Respiratorias (Cochrane Airways Group trials register) y listas de referencias de artículos. También se estableció contacto con los autores de los estudios.

CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN:

Ensayos aleatorios sobre el uso de cafeína oral en comparación con placebo en adultos con asma.

OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS:

La evaluación de la calidad de los ensayos y la extracción de datos fue realizada en forma independiente por dos revisores.

RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES:

Se incluyeron seis ensayos con un total de 55 personas. Todos los estudios tuvieron un diseño cruzado (cross-over) y fueron de alta calidad. En comparación con el placebo, la cafeína parece mejorar la función pulmonar hasta dos horas después de su consumo. El volumen espiratorio forzado en un minuto mostró una pequeña mejoría hasta dos horas después del consumo de cafeína [diferencia de medias estandarizada -0,73; intervalo de confianza del 95%: -1,20 a -0,25]. Las tasas del flujo espiratorio medio también mostraron una pequeña mejoría con la cafeína, que se mantuvo hasta cuatro horas.

CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES:

La cafeína parece mejorar moderadamente la función de las vías respiratorias en las personas con asma, por un período de tiempo de hasta cuatro horas. Puede ser necesario que las personas eviten la cafeína al menos cuatro horas antes de las pruebas de función pulmonar.

BACKGROUND:

: Asthma is a common chronic inflammatory disorder affecting about 300 million people worldwide. As a holistic therapy, yoga has the potential to relieve both the physical and psychological suffering of people with asthma, and its popularity has expanded globally. A number of clinical trials have been carried out to evaluate the effects of yoga practice, with inconsistent results.

OBJECTIVES:

: To assess the effects of yoga in people with asthma.

METHODS:

: Search methods: We systematically searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials, which is derived from systematic searches of bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, and PsycINFO, and handsearching of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. We also searched PEDro. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP search portal. We searched all databases from their inception to 22 July 2015, and used no restriction on language of publication. We checked the reference lists of eligible studies and relevant review articles for additional studies. We attempted to contact investigators of eligible studies and experts in the field to learn of other published and unpublished studies.Selection criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared yoga with usual care (or no intervention) or sham intervention in people with asthma and reported at least one of the following outcomes: quality of life, asthma symptom score, asthma control, lung function measures, asthma medication usage, and adverse events.Data collection and analysis: We extracted bibliographic information, characteristics of participants, characteristics of interventions and controls, characteristics of methodology, and results for the outcomes of our interest from eligible studies. For continuous outcomes, we used mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) to denote the treatment effects, if the outcomes were measured by the same scale across studies. Alternatively, if the outcomes were measured by different scales across studies, we used standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI. For dichotomous outcomes, we used risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI to measure the treatment effects. We performed meta-analysis with Review Manager 5.3. We used the fixed-effect model to pool the data, unless there was substantial heterogeneity among studies, in which case we used the random-effects model instead. For outcomes inappropriate or impossible to pool quantitatively, we conducted a descriptive analysis and summarized the findings narratively.

MAIN RESULTS:

: We included 15 RCTs with a total of 1048 participants. Most of the trials were conducted in India, followed by Europe and the United States. The majority of participants were adults of both sexes with mild to moderate asthma for six months to more than 23 years. Five studies included yoga breathing alone, while the other studies assessed yoga interventions that included breathing, posture, and meditation. Interventions lasted from two weeks to 54 months, for no more than six months in the majority of studies. The risk of bias was low across all domains in one study and unclear or high in at least one domain for the remainder.There was some evidence that yoga may improve quality of life (MD in Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) score per item 0.57 units on a 7-point scale, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.77; 5 studies; 375 participants), improve symptoms (SMD 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.65; 3 studies; 243 participants), and reduce medication usage (RR 5.35, 95% CI 1.29 to 22.11; 2 studies) in people with asthma. The MD for AQLQ score exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 0.5, but whether the mean changes exceeded the MCID for asthma symptoms is uncertain due to the lack of an established MCID in the severity scores used in the included studies. The effects of yoga on change from baseline forced expiratory volume in one second (MD 0.04 liters, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.19; 7 studies; 340 participants; I2 = 68%) were not statistically significant. Two studies indicated improved asthma control, but due to very significant heterogeneity (I2 = 98%) we did not pool data. No serious adverse events associated with yoga were reported, but the data on this outcome was limited.

AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS:

: We found moderate-quality evidence that yoga probably leads to small improvements in quality of life and symptoms in people with asthma. There is more uncertainty about potential adverse effects of yoga and its impact on lung function and medication usage. RCTs with a large sample size and high methodological and reporting quality are needed to confirm the effects of yoga for asthma.

ANTECEDENTES:

La rinitis alérgica y el asma están mediadas por mecanismos alérgicos similares. Pueden representar dos manifestaciones de la misma enfermedad de las vías respiratorias unidas y, por lo tanto, los corticosteroides intranasales (CEIN) pueden mejorar el asma. Sin embargo, ninguna de las guías sobre asma ha recomendado corticosteroides intranasales para el asma.

OBJETIVOS:

Evaluar la eficacia de los corticosteroides intranasales en los resultados del asma en pacientes con rinitis y asma.

ESTRATEGIA DE BÚSQUEDA:

Se hicieron búsquedas en el registro de ensayos del Grupo Cochrane de Vías Respiratorias (Cochrane Airways Group trials register), en el registro Cochrane Central de Ensayos Controlados (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials)(Número 1, 2003), MEDLINE y listas de referencias de artículos. Además, se estableció contacto con investigadores del ámbito. La última búsqueda se actualizó en marzo de 2003.

CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN:

Se incluyeron los ensayos controlados aleatorios que compararon corticosteroides intranasales con placebo intranasal o con otros tratamientos tradicionales para el asma. No se permitió el uso de corticosteroides intrabronquiales, pero un dispositivo que combinó corticosteroides intranasales e intrabronquiales se consideró parte de una técnica primaria de CEIN y, por lo tanto, también se comparó con placebo.

OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS:

Dos revisores de forma independiente evaluaron la calidad de los ensayos y obtuvieron los datos. Se contactó a los autores de los estudios para obtener información adicional. Se realizó la evaluación de la calidad de los 14 estudios elegibles mediante la calificación de Jadad y la clasificación del ocultamiento de la asignación. Para los resultados continuos, se realizó un análisis estadístico a través de la diferencia de promedios ponderados o la diferencia de promedios estandarizados.

RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES:

Se incluyeron catorce ensayos que implicaban a 477 personas. Los resultados del metanálisis para el asma no mostraron un beneficio estadísticamente significativo de los CEIN para el asma. Sin embargo, para las puntuaciones de los síntomas y el volumen expiratorio forzado en un segundo, la tendencia apoyó un efecto beneficioso de los CEIN. Para las puntuaciones de síntomas de asma (dos estudios paralelos), la diferencia de promedios estandarizados fue de 0,61 (intervalo de confianza (IC) del 95%: -0,04 a 1,26). El metanálisis para el volumen expiratorio forzado en un segundo (cinco estudios paralelos) arrojó una diferencia de promedios estandarizados de 0,31 (IC del 95%: -0,04 a 0,65). En los estudios paralelos, el metanálisis del flujo expiratorio máximo arrojó una diferencia de promedios estandarizados de -0,10 Litros/min (IC del 95%: -0,55 a 0,35) para el flujo máximo promedio (tres estudios). El metanálisis de la sensibilidad de las vías respiratorias a la metacolina (tres estudios paralelos) mostró una diferencia de promedios estandarizados de -0,20 (IC del 95%: 0,64 a 0,24).

CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES:

Los corticosteroides intranasales fueron bien tolerados. Mientras que los CEIN tendieron a mejorar los síntomas del asma y del volumen expiratorio forzado en un segundo, los resultados no alcanzaron significación. La combinación de corticosteroides intranasales e intrabronquiales continuará siendo la práctica clínica actual hasta que se realicen más investigaciones.