Caffeine for asthma
Welsh EJ, Bara A, Barley E, Cates CJ
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 53 citas
Etiquetas de revisión
Financiación no declaradaDatos neutrales que nuestra revisión registró sobre cómo se hizo este estudio. Describen el método, nunca si nos gusta el resultado.
Cómo se estudió
- Diseño
- Metaanálisis (indexado por PubMed)
- Estudiado en
- Personas
- Resultado principal
- Marcadores de salud y funcionamiento
Quién lo pagó
- Financiación
- Financiación no declarada
Publicación
- Publicado
- 2010-01-18 · Cochrane Database Syst Rev · vol. 2012 · número 8 · pág. CD001112
- Editorial
- Elsevier BV
- Citado
- 113 citas · más que el 90% de estudios similares · 3.0× el promedio de su campo
- Impacto
- Entre el 10 % más citado de su campo
- Referencias
- 47 trabajos
- Acceso
- Lectura gratuita
- Áreas de investigación
- Asthma and respiratory diseases · Coffee research and impacts · Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
- Palabras clave
- caffeine, asthma, bronchodilation, lung function, exhaled nitric oxide, coffee, decaffeinated coffee, mid-expiratory flow rate
- MeSH
- bronchi, humans, asthma, caffeine, bronchodilator agents, respiratory function tests, adult, randomized controlled trials as topic
4 autores
- Emma J Welsh🇬🇧St George's, University of London
- Anna Bara
- Elizabeth Alexandra Barley🇬🇧King's College London
- Christopher J Cates🇬🇧St George's, University of London
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
Background
Caffeine has a variety of pharmacological effects; it is a weak bronchodilator and it also reduces respiratory muscle fatigue. It is chemically related to the drug theophylline which is used to treat asthma. It has been suggested that caffeine may reduce asthma symptoms and interest has been expressed in its potential role as an asthma treatment. A number of studies have explored the effects of caffeine in asthma, this is the first review to systematically examine and summarise the evidence.
Objectives
To assess the effects of caffeine on lung function and identify whether there is a need to control for caffeine consumption prior to either lung function or exhaled nitric oxide testing.
Search strategy
We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register and the reference lists of articles (August 2009). We also contacted study authors.
Selection criteria
Randomised clinical trials of oral caffeine compared to placebo or coffee compared to decaffeinated coffee in adults with asthma.
Data collection and analysis
Trial selection, quality assessment and data extraction were done independently by two reviewers.
Main results
Seven trials involving a total of 75 people with mild to moderate asthma were included. The studies were all of cross-over design .Six trials involving 55 people showed that in comparison with placebo, caffeine, even at a 'low dose' (< 5mg/kg body weight), appears to improve lung function for up to two hours after consumption. Forced expiratory volume in one minute showed a small improvement up to two hours after caffeine ingestion (SMD 0.72; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.20), which translates into a 5% mean difference in FEV1. However in two studies the mean differences in FEV1 were 12% and 18% after caffeine. Mid-expiratory flow rates also showed a small improvement with caffeine and this was sustained up to four hours.One trial involving 20 people examined the effect of drinking coffee versus a decaffeinated variety on the exhaled nitric oxide levels in patients with asthma and concluded that there was no significant effect on this outcome.
Authors' conclusions
Caffeine appears to improve airways function modestly, for up to four hours, in people with asthma . People may need to avoid caffeine for at least four hours prior to lung function testing, as caffeine ingestion could cause misinterpretation of the results. Drinking caffeinated coffee before taking exhaled nitric oxide measurements does not appear to affect the results of the test, but more studies are needed to confirm this.
Resumen vía Europe PMC. Los derechos de autor siguen siendo de los autores o la editorial.
Confianza de la comunidad
Cargando…
¿Cuánto confías en los hallazgos de este estudio?
Comentarios
¿Algo está mal aquí?
Señala este estudio si su información, etiquetas o financiación parecen incorrectas. Un editor revisa cada señalamiento.
Información educativa sobre investigación publicada. No es consejo médico ni una recomendación para empezar o dejar nada.