Pharmacokinetic properties and tolerability of single-dose terbutaline in patients with severe asthma treated in the pediatric intensive care unit

Clinical pharmacokinetics of terbutaline in humans: a systematic review

Terbutaline is used for the management of bronchospasm associated with asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A systematic review would be beneficial to assess the impact of routes of administration, stereoisomerism, disease states, smoking, age, exercise, and chronobiology on pharmacokinetics (PK) of terbutaline in humans. PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched to screen all the relevant articles consisting of at least one of the PK parameters after administration of oral, inhaled, and intravenous (IV) terbutaline in humans. Oral studies of terbutaline depicted a linear relationship between plasma concentration (C_p) and the administered dose. The IV studies demonstrated multi-exponential behavior for disposition and renal clearance. Higher systemic availability was observed with inhaled as compared to oral route, and chrono-pharmacokinetic behavior was notable. Time to reach maximum plasma concentration (T_max) was prolonged, and maximum plasma concentration (C_max) was lowered after exercise. The primary route of excretion in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients is reported to be nonrenal. In pregnant women, the C_p of terbutaline is lowered and clearance is increased. The addition of theophylline to terbutaline did not affect the PK of terbutaline; hence, both can be used without dose adjustment. This review summarizes all the available PK parameters of terbutaline, and it may be helpful for researchers in the development and evaluation of PK models as well as in designing optimal dosage regimens in different clinical conditions.

The Impact of Terbutaline as Adjuvant Therapy in the Treatment of Severe Asthma in the Pediatric Emergency Department

METHODS

Patients were identified using a retrospective cohort analysis from a single, tertiary care, urban children's hospital. Patients presenting directly to our emergency department aged 2 to 18 years were included if they had a diagnosis of severe asthma exacerbation, defined by an initial Respiratory Clinical Score (RCS) of 9 or higher. A total of 787 patients were identified during the study timeframe (December 16, 2017, to December 31, 2018), and of those, 651 patients met study criteria and were included in the analysis. The χ2 test was used to establish P values for categorical variables. For normally distributed variables, a t test was used. For nonnormally distributed variables, the Kruskal-Wallis test was used. A P value of 0.05 or less was interpreted as statistically significant.

RESULTS

Patients who received terbutaline had an increased risk of admission to the PICU (P < 0.001). This association was lost after controlling for age, sex, continuous albuterol use, and intramuscular epinephrine use (P = 0.362). Patients receiving terbutaline in the emergency department also had a higher risk of admission to the hospital (odds ratio, 1.55; confidence interval, 1.08-2.22; P = 0.020) as compared with their nonterbutaline counterparts. Overall, patients in the terbutaline group had a higher initial RCS at presentation. Upon further analysis, patients with the same RCS at presentation were more likely to be admitted if they received terbutaline than those who did not. There was no statistically significant difference in length of stay (P = 0.298) and BiPAP/CPAP use (P = 0.107). The patients on terbutaline were relatively more likely to require oxygen (P = 0.003) and intramuscular epinephrine (P = 0.010) than the patients not on terbutaline.

CONCLUSIONS

Terbutaline administration given to pediatric patients experiencing a severe asthma exacerbation was not associated with decreased PICU or general hospital floor admission. The study is limited given that it was a retrospective analysis. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to assess the role of terbutaline in severe acute asthma exacerbations in pediatric patients.

Transient intrapulmonary shunting in a patient treated with β₂-adrenergic agonists for status asthmaticus

Intrapulmonary arteriovenous anastomoses (IPAVs) are large-diameter pathways that directly connect the arterial and venous networks, bypassing the pulmonary capillaries. Ubiquitously present in healthy humans, these pathways are recruited in experimental conditions by exercise, hypoxia, and catecholamines and have been previously shown to be closed by hyperoxia. Whether they play a role in pulmonary pathophysiology is unknown. Here, we describe IPAV recruitment associated with hypoxemia and right-to-left shunt in a patient with status asthmaticus, treated with agonists of the B2-adrenergic pathway. Our observation of IPAVs in a pediatric patient, mechanically ventilated with 100% O₂, suggests that these pathways are recruited in clinically important circumstances and challenges the notion that IPAVs are always closed by alveolar hyperoxia.

Addition of intravenous beta(2)-agonists to inhaled beta(2)-agonists for acute asthma

BACKGROUND

Inhaled beta-agonist therapy is central to the management of acute asthma. This review evaluates the benefit of an additional use of intravenous beta(2)-agonist agents.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefit of adding intravenous (IV) beta(2)-agonists to inhaled beta(2)-agonist therapy for acute asthma treated in the emergency department.

SEARCH METHODS

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Register which is a compilation of systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL as well as handsearching of 20 respiratory journals. Bibliographies from included studies and known reviews were also searched. Primary authors and content experts were contacted to identify eligible studies. The search was performed in September 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only RCTs were considered for inclusion. Studies were included if patients presented to the emergency department with acute asthma and were treated with IV beta(2)-agonists with inhaled beta(2)-agonist therapy and existing standard treatments versus inhaled beta(2)-agonists and existing standard treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and confirmed their findings with corresponding authors of trials. We obtained missing data from authors or calculated from data present in the papers. We used fixed-effect model for odds ratios (OR) and for mean differences (MD) we used both fixed-effect and random-effects models and reported 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

From 109 potentially relevant studies only three (104 patients) met our inclusion criteria: Bogie 2007 (46 children), Browne 1997 (29 children) and Nowak 2010 (29 adults). Bogie 2007 investigated the addition of intravenous terbutaline to high dose nebulised albuterol in children with acute severe asthma, requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Browne 1997 investigated the benefit of adding intravenous salbutamol to inhaled salbutamol in children with acute severe asthma in the emergency department. Nowak 2010 investigated addition of IV bedoradrine to standard care (nebulised albuterol, ipratropium and oral corticosteroids) among adults, and was reported as a conference abstract only.There was no significant advantage (OR 0.29; 95%CI 0.06 to 1.38, one trial, 29 adults) for adding IV bedoradrine to standard care (nebulised albuterol, ipratropium and oral corticosteroids) with regard to hospitalisation rates.Various outcome indicators for the length of stay were reported among the trials. Browne 1997 reported a significantly shorter recovery time (in terms of cessation of 30 minute salbutamol) for children in the IV salbutamol with inhaled salbutamol group (four hours) versus the 11.1 hours for the inhaled salbutamol group (P = 0.03). Time to cessation of hourly nebuliser was also significantly shorter (P = 0.02) for the IV plus inhaled salbutamol group (11.5 hours versus 21.2 hours), and they were ready for emergency patient discharge on average 9.7 hours earlier than the inhaled salbutamol group (P < 0.05). In a paediatric ICU study Bogie 2007 reported no significant advantage in length of paediatric ICU admission (hours) for adding IV terbutaline to nebulised albuterol (MD -12.95, 95% CI: -38.74, 12.84).Browne 1997 reported there were only six out of 14 children with a pulmonary index score above six in the IV plus inhaled salbutamol group at two hours compared with 14 of the 15 in the inhaled salbutamol group (P = 0.02)In Browne 1997 there was a higher proportion of tremor in the IV plus inhaled salbutamol group than in the inhaled salbutamol group (P < 0.02). Nowak 2010 did not report any statistically significant adverse effects associated with adding IV bedoradrine to standard care (nebulised albuterol, ipratropium and oral corticosteroids). Troponin levels were elevated in three children in the IV terbutaline + nebulised albuterol group at 12 and 24 hours in Bogie 2007

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very limited evidence from one study (Browne 1997) to support the use of IV beta(2)-agonists in children with severe acute asthma with respect to shorter recovery time, and similarly there is limited evidence (again from one study Browne 1997) suggesting benefit with regard to pulmonary index scores; however this advantage needs to be considered carefully in relation to the increased side effects associated with IV beta(2)-agonists. We identified no significant benefits for adults with severe acute asthma. Until more, adequately powered, high quality clinical trials in this area are conducted it is not possible to form a robust evaluation of the addition of IV beta(2)-agonists in children or adults with severe acute asthma.

Intravenous beta(2)-agonists versus intravenous aminophylline for acute asthma

BACKGROUND

Inhaled beta(2)-agonist therapy is central to the management of acute asthma. For rapid bronchodilation in severe cases, penetration of inhaled drug to the affected small conducting airway may be impeded, and the intravenous (IV) rather than inhaled administration of bronchodilators may provide an earlier response. IV beta(2)-agonist agents and IV aminophylline may also be considered as additional interventions in this setting and this review compares IV beta-agonist agents and IV aminophylline in the treatment of people with acute asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefit of IV beta(2)-agonists versus IV aminophylline for acute asthma treated in the emergency department and in patients admitted to hospital with acute severe asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Register, which is compiled from systematic searches of bibliographic databases as well as handsearching of respiratory journals and conference abstracts. The latest search was run in September 2012. We searched bibliographies from included studies and known reviews were also searched. Primary authors and content experts were contacted to identify eligible studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs of patients who presented to the emergency department with acute asthma, and patients admitted to hospital with acute severe asthma, and were treated with IV beta(2)-agonists versus IV aminophylline. Two review authors independently selected potentially relevant articles and selected articles for inclusion. Methodological quality was independently assessed using two scoring systems and two review authors.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted independently by two review authors. Missing data were obtained from authors or calculated from data present in the papers. Trials were combined using a random-effects model for odds ratios (OR) or mean differences (MD) and reported with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies met our inclusion criteria and in total they included 350 patients. However, opportunities to combine these studies in meta-analyses were limited by the variations in the range of outcomes reported in the trials.Length of stayTwo studies reported length of stay. They were both paediatric trials (with one in paediatric intensive care unit), and there was no significant difference between the two groups (MD 23.19 hours; 95% CI -2.40 to 48.77 hours; 2 studies; N = 73). Individual separate MD analyses for the two studies also indicated no significant difference between the aminophylline and beta(2)-agonist on this outcome. However, this finding should be interpreted with caution owing to the small number of trials and participants the analysis.Pulmonary functionThere were no significant differences in the sequential or summative pulmonary function demonstrated across the studies.Heart rateData for serial heart rates were reported in three studies at various points from 15 to 60 minutes and in each case there were no significant differences between people in the IV aminophylline or beta(2)-agonist groups. The difference between the two groups with respect to final heart rate was statistically significant (MD 10.00; 95% CI 0.99 to 19.01), although these data are from a single, small study and should be interpreted with caution.Adverse effectsThe analyses for giddiness (OR 59.22; 95% CI 2.80 to 1253.05; 1 study; N = 30), nausea/vomiting (where reported as a combined outcome) (OR 14.18; 95% CI 1.62 to 124.52; 2 studies; N = 96) and nausea (OR 6.53; 95% CI 1.60 to 26.72; 2 studies; N = 49) all significantly favoured beta(2)-agonists. In view of the very small number of studies and number of patients contributing to these analyses these results should be interpreted with caution. A closely related review considering the possible benefits of adding IV aminophylline to beta-agonists in adults with acute asthma also indicates a higher incidence of adverse effects associated with IV aminophylline.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In the included RCTs there was no consistent evidence favouring either IV beta(2)-agonists or IV aminophylline for patients with acute asthma. The opportunity to draw clear conclusions is limited by the heterogeneity of outcomes evaluated and the small sample sizes in the included studies. It is recommended that these data should be viewed carefully alongside the conclusions from separate Cochrane reviews comparing IV beta(2)-agonists plus inhaled beta(2)-agonists versus inhaled beta(2)-agonists alone and IV aminophylline plus inhaled beta(2)-agonists versus inhaled beta(2)-agonists alone.