A comparison of ipratropium bromide, deptropine citrate and placebo in asthma and chronic bronchitis

Anticholinergic agents for chronic asthma in adults

BACKGROUND

Anticholinergic agents such as ipratropium bromide are sometimes used in the treatment of chronic asthma. They effect bronchodilation and have also been used in combination with beta2-agonists in the management of chronic asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness of anticholinergic agents versus placebo and in comparison with beta2-agonists or as adjunctive therapy to beta2-agonists.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Airways Group asthma and wheeze database was searched with a pre-defined search strategy. Searches were current as of August 2003. Reference lists of articles were also examined.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials or quasi-randomised trials were considered for inclusion. Studies assessing an anticholinergic agent versus placebo or in combination/comparison with beta2-agonists were included. In practice, all beta2-agonists were short acting. Short-term (less than 24 hours duration) and longer-term studies were separated; the latter are reported in this review and the former in the review, "Anticholinergic agents for chronic asthma in adults short term".

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed abstracts for retrieval of full text articles. Papers were then assessed for suitability for inclusion in the review. Data from included studies were extracted by two reviewers and entered into the software package (RevMan 4.2). We contacted authors for missing data and some responded. Adverse effect data were analysed if reported in the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

The studies analysed were in two groups: those comparing anticholinergics with placebo and those comparing the combination of anticholinergics with short acting beta2-agonists versus short acting beta2-agonists alone. The former group had 13 studies involving 205 participants included in this review, and the latter 9 studies involving 440 patients. Generally methodological quality was poorly reported, and there were some reservations with respect to the quality of the studies. Despite the limited number of studies that could be combined, anticholinergic agents in comparison with placebo resulted in more favourable symptom scores particularly in respect of daytime dyspnoea (WMD -0.09 (95%CI -0.14, -0.04, 3 studies, 59 patients). Daily peak flow measurements also showed a statistically significant improvement for the anticholinergic (e.g. morning PEF: WMD =14.38 litres/min (95%CI 7.69, 21.08; 3 studies, 59 patients). However the clinical significance is small and in terms of peak flow measurements equates to approximately a 7% increase over placebo. The more clinically relevant comparison of a combination of anticholinergic plus short acting beta2-agonist versus short acting beta2-agonist alone gave no evidence in respect of symptom scores or peak flow rates of any significant differences between the two regimes. Again there are reservations with respect to the quality of the information from which these conclusions are drawn.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall this review provides no justification for routinely introducing anticholinergics as part of add-on treatment for patients whose asthma is not well controlled on standard therapies. This does not exclude the possibility that there may be a sub-group of patients who derive some benefit and a trial of treatment in individual patients may still be justified. The role of long term anticholinergics such as tiotropium bromide has yet to be established in patients with asthma and any future trials might draw on the messages derived from this review.

Bronchodilator responses to anticholinergic and beta-adrenergic agents in acute and stable COPD

Patients with COPD may respond differently to anticholinergic and beta-agonist bronchodilators. Previously, in acutely ill COPD patients, we showed similar improvements in pulmonary function after each drug (study 1). The responses of the same patients when stable are now reported (study 2). Patients received ipratropium bromide (54 micrograms) (n = 16) or metaproterenol sulfate (1.95 mg) (n = 14) via an MDI attached to a delivery device as in study 1. Ninety minutes after the first medication, patients received the second. Spirometry was measured at entry and at 30-min intervals following the first drug and at the same times after the second drug. Results were as follow: The groups did not differ in clinical characteristics. However, for both groups, there was significantly less airway obstruction at entry into study 2. In study 1, ipratropium resulted in significant improvement in FEV1 (0.62 +/- .08 to 0.88 +/- .11 L; mean increase 24 percent; p less than 0.05) with no further change after crossover. In study 2, ipratropium produced similar improvements in FEV1 by 90 minutes (0.94 +/- .09 to 1.3 +/- .09 L; mean increase 25 percent; p less than 0.05), with no further improvement after crossover. For metaproterenol, in study 1, the improvement in FEV1 was not significantly different than that for ipratropium (FEV1; 0.71 +/- .07 to 0.92 +/- 0.06 L; mean increase 18 percent; p less than 0.05), with no further improvement after crossover. In study 2, improvement with metaproterenol was significant and similar to study 1 (FEV1: 0.96 +/- .06 to 1.21 +/- .09 L; mean increase 18 percent; p less than 0.05). Thus, ipratropium and metaproterenol similarly improved pulmonary function in COPD patients when stable and during acute exacerbations.

A comparison of the effects of ipratropium bromide and metaproterenol sulfate in acute exacerbations of COPD

Thirty-two patients presenting with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were entered into the following double-blind, crossover study. First (time 0), patients inhaled either ipratropium bromide (54 micrograms) or metaproterenol sulfate (1.95 mg) via a metered dose inhaler (MDI) attached to a device (Inspirease) (phase 1). After 90 minutes, they inhaled whichever of the two medications they had not received in phase 1. This is referred to as phase 2. Pulmonary function (FEV1 and FVC) was measured at time 0, and at 30, 60, and 90 minutes following phase 1 treatment, and at 30, 60, and 90 minutes following phase 2 treatment (120, 150, and 180 minutes from the start of the study). Arterial blood gas samples (n = 20) were obtained at entry into the study and 30 and 90 minutes after phase 1 medication. The groups did not differ in age, degree of airway obstruction, hypoxemia, or theophylline usage at the start of the study. In phase 1, at 90 minutes, pulmonary function in both groups significantly and similarly improved. For ipratropium, FEV1 improved from 0.62 +/- 0.08 L to 0.88 +/- 0.11 L (p less than 0.01) and for metaproterenol FEV1 improved from 0.69 +/- 0.06 to 0.92 +/- 0.09 L (p less than 0.01). There was no further improvement with phase 2 treatment for either group. Thirty minutes after inhaling ipratropium, there was a small but significant rise in PO2 (5.8 +/- 3.0 mm Hg; p less than 0.05) while metaproterenol inhalation resulted in a 6.2 +/- 1.2 mm Hg decline in PO2 (p less than 0.05). These changes were not sustained at 90 minutes. We concluded that for acute exacerbations of COPD, both ipratropium and metaproterenol are effective medications when administered via an MDI attached to a device (Inspirease). However, ipratropium may be a safer choice as it initially did not cause a decline in blood oxygenation.

The bronchial response to cold air challenge: evidence for different mechanisms in normal and asthmatic subjects

We have investigated possible mechanisms of response to airway cooling by studying the effects of sodium cromoglycate and ipratropium bromide on the changes in airways resistance that followed eucapnic hyperventilation with subfreezing air in a group of 12 patients with mild asthma and 10 normal subjects. We have also studied the period of refractoriness to repeated challenge. Maximum bronchoconstriction was not reduced after the second challenge, but in the asthmatics the one-second forced expiratory volume recovered more rapidly after the second challenge. The response in normal subjects was completely abolished by ipratropium bromide (p less than 0.0005) whereas sodium cromoglycate was without effect. In the asthmatics both ipratropium and cromoglycate were effective in attenuating the response (p less than 0.005). These results suggest that in normal subjects the response to airway cooling is produced predominantly via neural mechanisms, whereas in asthmatics there is an additional mechanism which can be abolished by sodium cromoglycate.

Comparison of nebulized salbutamol with nebulized ipratropium bromide in acute asthma

Twelve patients admitted to hospital with an acute attack of bronchial asthma were studied. Six were treated initially with nebulized salbutamol solution by inhalation and 1 hour later by ipratropium bromide given in the same way; the other six were treated first with ipratropium bromide and 1 hour later by salbutamol. Ipratropium bromide was shown to be as effective as salbutamol when used as the initial bronchodilator but salbutamol produced significant further improvement when given 1 hour after ipratropium.

The addition of an aerosol anticholinergic to an oral beta agonist plus theophylline in asthma and bronchitis. A double-blind single dose study

In two groups of patients, 15 with asthma and 15 with chronic bronchitis, the bronchodilator effects of ipratropium bromide, of fenoterol plus theophylline, and of the combination of the three drugs, were compared using a double-blind, single-dose, placebo-controlled format. Ipratropium bromide caused rapid bronchodilatation which was not significantly different in asthmatic patients and patients with bronchitis (delta FEV1 = .29 L in one hour in asthmatic patients, .18 L in patients with bronchitis). In contrast, fenoterol plus theophylline induced a considerably greater effect in asthmatic patients (delta FEV1 = .41 L in one hour) than in those with bronchitis (delta FEV1 = .07 in one hour). The use of the three drugs in combination compared with ipratropium bromide alone, or fenoterol plus theophylline alone, resulted in a significant additional bronchodilatation in asthmatic patients. In the patients with bronchitis, the triple combination was clearly superior to fenoterol plus theophylline. A similar trend was present in comparing the triple combination to ipratropium bromide, but the difference did not reach statistical significance. There was no evidence of synergism when ipratropium bromide was combined with fenoterol plus theophylline in that the total bronchodilator effect was approximately additive. Asthmatic patients and the physician were able to distinguish the triple combination from placebo. No such ability was demonstrated with respect to those with bronchitis. All three drugs were well tolerated. Side effects were mostly mild, and none was related to the use of ipratropium.

A therapeutic comparison of ipratropium bromide and salbutamol in asthmatic patients

A single-blind, crossover study was carried out in 43 asthmatic patients to compare the efficacy and tolerance of inhaled ipratropium bromide with inhaled salbutamol. One or other drug was given 3-times daily (0.04 mg ipratropium bromide or 0.2 mg salbutamol per dose) over a period of 4 weeks. Patients were then crossed over to the alternative medication for a further 4 weeks. The results of lung function tests performed at routine clinic visits and by the patients at home showed similar increases in peak flow and spirometry recordings, although more patients expressed a preference for salbutamol. Unwanted effects were minor with both drugs. It is suggested, therefore, that ipratropium bromide may be a useful alternative to beta-stimulants in some asthmatics.

Ipratropium bromide: a review of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic efficacy in asthma and chronic bronchitis

Ipratropium bromide is an anticholinergc bronchodilator administered by inhalation. Although producing bronchodilation in most patients with obstructive airways disease, it is somewhat less effective than beta 2-adrenoceptor agonist drugs such as salbutamol or fenoterol in patients with asthma, but is at least as effective as these agents in bronchitis. As with the beta 2-adrenoceptor agonists, the onset of maximum effect with ipratropium (about 1.5 to 2 hours) is slower than with isoprenaline (although significant bronchodilation usually occurs within seconds or minutes of ipratropium inhalation), and the duration of effect (about 4 to 6 hours) is longer. Studies of concomitant use of ipratropium and other agents such as beta 2-adrenoceptor agonists, theophylline, or sodium cromoglycate, have usually shown a greater response in many patients than with single drug therapy, as might be expected from the different mechanisms of action of these groups of drugs. Usual inhaled doses of ipratropium were well tolerated in all studies. Ipratropium thus appears to be a suitable alternative to beta 2-adrenoceptor agonist drugs in patients not fully responding to these agents, and combined therapy with ipratropium and other bronchodilating drugs may prove to be an important area of use in patients failing to respond adequately to a single drug regimen. (nevertheless, in asthma patients in whom a 'non-responsive' state is developing, initiation of corticosteroid therapy should not be delayed). Ipratropium may also be useful in the occasional patient in whom side effects such as palpitations or tremor are troublesome with usual inhaled doses of beta 2-adrenoceptor agonists.