Search

Background Gastroesophageal reflux disease occurs frequently among patients with asthma. Therapy with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) to improve asthma control remains controversial. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of PPIs in treatment of asthma using objective and subjective outcome measures. Methods A literature search was undertaken using MEDLINE (1950-January 2010), PubMed (1950-January 2010), EMBASE (1980-January 2010), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through January 31, 2010). Randomized, placebo-controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of PPIs for treatment of asthma in adults were selected. The primary outcome of interest was morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) rate. Secondary outcomes included objective (evening PEF rate and forced expiratory volume in 1 second) and subjective (asthma symptoms score and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire score) measures. Influence of study characteristics on outcomes was examined by subgroup analyses and meta-regression. Results Eleven trials (2524 patients) met inclusion criteria. Overall, patients had a higher mean morning PEF rate after treatment with PPIs compared with placebo (mean difference, 8.68 L/min [95% confidence interval, 2.35-15.02]). No significant single large-study effect, temporal effect, or publication bias was seen. Subgroup analysis revealed a trend toward a larger improvement in morning PEF rate in studies enrolling only patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (mean difference, 16.90 L/min [95% confidence interval, 0.85-32.95]). Analyses of secondary outcomes (asthma symptoms score, Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire score, evening PEF rate, and forced expiratory volume in 1 second) showed no significant difference between PPIs and placebo. Conclusions Proton pump inhibitor therapy in adults with asthma results in a small, statistically significant improvement in morning PEF rate. The magnitude of this improvement, however, is unlikely to be of meaningful clinical significance. There is insufficient evidence to recommend empirical use of PPIs for routine treatment of asthma.

Background We compared perceptions regarding risk of cardiovascular events and benefits of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor reduction between patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD), patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), and patients without atherosclerosis (no disease). Methods Participants with no disease (n = 142) had a normal ankle-brachial index and no clinically evident atherosclerosis (group 1). The PAD participants (n = 136) had an ankle-brachial index less than 0.90 and no other clinically evident atherosclerosis (group 2). Participants with CAD (n = 70) had a normal ankle-brachial index and a history of heart disease (group 3). Participants were interviewed regarding risk of mortality, CVD, and the importance of CVD risk factor reduction for hypothetical patients with PAD and CAD. Results All groups reported that risks of myocardial infarction, stroke, and death were higher for a patient with CAD than for a patient with PAD. Group 2 was less likely than group 3 to believe that PAD is associated with an extremely high risk of stroke (13.3% vs 28.7%; P = .005) or mortality (10.9% vs 26.6%; P = .003). Group 2 was less likely than group 1 to believe that a patient with PAD has a very high risk of myocardial infarction (13.1% vs 23.8%; P = .02), stroke (13.3% vs 27.5%; P = .003), or mortality (10.9% vs 24.3%; P = .004). Compared with group 3, a smaller percentage of patients in group 2 reported that cholesterol lowering was very important in PAD (57.5% vs 75.8%; P = .005). Conclusions Compared with other patients, those with PAD underestimated the high risk of cardiovascular events associated with PAD and the benefits of cholesterol-lowering therapy. These findings may help explain the low rates of CVD risk factor control previously reported in patients with PAD.