Real-world evaluation of asthma reliever therapy among continuous users of asthma maintenance medication in Japan: A retrospective cohort study using a claims database

Efficacy and safety of macrolide therapy for adult asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The evidence for macrolide therapy in adult asthma is not properly established and remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the efficacy and safety of macrolide therapy for adult asthma.

METHODS

We searched randomized controlled trials from MEDLINE via the PubMed, CENTRAL, and Ichushi Web databases. The primary outcome was asthma exacerbation. The secondary outcomes were serious adverse events (including mortality), asthma-related quality of life (symptom scales, Asthma Control Questionnaire, and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire), rescue medication (puffs/day), respiratory function (morning peak expiratory flow, evening peak flow, and forced expiratory volume in 1 s), bronchial hyperresponsiveness, and minimum oral corticosteroid dose. Of the 805 studies, we selected seven studies for the meta-analysis, which was conducted using a random-effects model.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000050824).

RESULTS

No significant difference between macrolide and placebo for asthma exacerbations was observed (risk ratio 0.71, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.46-1.09; p = 0.12). Macrolide therapy for adult asthma showed a significant improvement in rescue medication with short-acting beta-agonists (mean difference -0.41, 95 % CI -0.78 to -0.04; p = 0.03). Macrolide therapy did not show more serious adverse events (odd ratio 0.61, 95 % CI 0.34-1.10; p = 0.10) than those with placebo. The other secondary outcomes were not significantly different between the macrolide and placebo groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Macrolide therapy for adult asthma may be more effective than placebo and could be a treatment option.