The European respiratory journal · 2023
Saline at lower tonicity in cystic fibrosis (SALTI-CF) trial comparing 0.9% versus 3% versus 6% nebulised saline.
Рандомизированное исследованиеМногоцентровое исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dwyer Tiffany J, Elkins Mark R, Dentice Ruth, Forbes Samantha, Cooper Peter, Jaffe Adam, Bishop Jennifer, Middleton Peter G, Wark Peter, Bye Peter T P, SALTI-CF Study Group
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In people with cystic fibrosis (CF), regular nebulisation of 6% or 7% saline improves lung function; however, these concentrations are not always tolerable. Clinically, some CF patients report using lower concentrations of saline to improve tolerability, yet the effects of lower concentrations are unknown. This study therefore aimed to evaluate the relative effectiveness and tolerability of 0.9% versus 3% versus 6% saline nebulised twice daily with an eFlow rapid nebuliser.
METHODS: This was a randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre study where subjects inhaled 4 mL of 0.9%, 3% or 6% saline twice daily for 16 weeks. The primary outcome was forced expiratory volume in 1 s. The secondary outcomes were: forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory flow at 25-75% of FVC; quality of life; exercise capacity; acquisition or loss of bacterial organisms in expectorated sputum; tolerability of nebulised saline; pulmonary exacerbations; and adverse events.
RESULTS: 140 participants were randomised to 0.9% (n=47), 3% (n=48) or 6% (n=45) saline. 134 participants (96%) contributed to the intention-to-treat analysis. 3% saline significantly improved lung function and increased the time to first pulmonary exacerbation compared with 0.9% saline but did not improve quality of life. 6% saline had similar benefits to 3% saline but also significantly improved quality of life compared with 3% saline. Only 6% saline delayed the time to intravenous antibiotics for pulmonary exacerbation. Tolerability and adherence were similar.
CONCLUSIONS: Dilution of 6% saline to 3% maintains the benefits for lung function and exacerbation prevention; however, the positive impacts of 6% saline on quality of life and time to i.v. antibiotics for pulmonary exacerbations are lost.
METHODS: This was a randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre study where subjects inhaled 4 mL of 0.9%, 3% or 6% saline twice daily for 16 weeks. The primary outcome was forced expiratory volume in 1 s. The secondary outcomes were: forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory flow at 25-75% of FVC; quality of life; exercise capacity; acquisition or loss of bacterial organisms in expectorated sputum; tolerability of nebulised saline; pulmonary exacerbations; and adverse events.
RESULTS: 140 participants were randomised to 0.9% (n=47), 3% (n=48) or 6% (n=45) saline. 134 participants (96%) contributed to the intention-to-treat analysis. 3% saline significantly improved lung function and increased the time to first pulmonary exacerbation compared with 0.9% saline but did not improve quality of life. 6% saline had similar benefits to 3% saline but also significantly improved quality of life compared with 3% saline. Only 6% saline delayed the time to intravenous antibiotics for pulmonary exacerbation. Tolerability and adherence were similar.
CONCLUSIONS: Dilution of 6% saline to 3% maintains the benefits for lung function and exacerbation prevention; however, the positive impacts of 6% saline on quality of life and time to i.v. antibiotics for pulmonary exacerbations are lost.