Nebulized ipratropium bromide in acute pediatric asthma: does it reduce hospital admissions among children presenting to the emergency department?

Intramuscular versus oral corticosteroids to reduce relapses following discharge from the emergency department for acute asthma

BACKGROUND

Acute asthma is a common cause of presentations to acute care centres, such as the emergency department (ED), and while the majority of patients can be discharged, relapse requiring additional medical care is common. Systemic corticosteroids are a major part in the treatment of moderate to severe acute asthma; however, there is no clear evidence regarding the most effective route of administration for improving outcomes in patients discharged from acute care.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness and safety of a single dose of intramuscular (IM) corticosteroids provided prior to discharge compared to a short course of oral corticosteroids in the treatment of acute asthma patients discharged from an ED or equivalent acute care setting.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Airways Group conducted searches of the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials, most recently on 14 March 2018. In addition in April 2017 we completed an extensive search of nine electronic databases including Medline, Embase, EBM ALL, Global Health, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Proquest Dissertations and Theses Global, and LILACS. Furthermore, we searched the grey literature to identify any additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials or controlled clinical trials if they compared the effectiveness of intramuscular (IM) versus oral corticosteroids to treat paediatric or adult patients presenting with acute asthma to an ED or equivalent acute care setting. Two independent reviewers assessed study eligibility and study quality. We resolved disagreements via a third party and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated individual and pooled statistics as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model. We reported continuous outcomes using mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs using a random-effects model. We reported heterogeneity using I² and Cochran Q statistics. We used standard procedures recommended by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine studies involving 804 participants (IM = 402 participants; oral = 402 participants) met our review inclusion criteria. Four studies enrolled children (n = 245 participants), while five studies enrolled adults (n = 559 participants). All of the studies recruited participants presenting to an ED, except one study which recruited participants attending a primary care clinic. All of the paediatric studies compared intramuscular (IM) dexamethasone to oral prednisone/prednisolone. In the adult studies, the IM corticosteroid provided ranged from methylprednisolone, betamethasone, dexamethasone, or triamcinolone, while the regimen of oral corticosteroids provided consisted of prednisone, methylprednisolone, or dexamethasone. Only five studies were placebo controlled. For the purposes of this review, we did not take corticosteroid dose equivalency into account in the analysis. The most common co-intervention provided to participants during the acute care visit included short-acting beta₂-agonists (SABA), methylxanthines, and ipratropium bromide. In some instances, some studies reported providing some participants with supplemental oral or IV corticosteroids during their stay in the ED. Co-interventions provided to participants at discharge consisted primarily of SABA, methylxanthine, long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABA), and ipratropium bromide. The risk of bias of the included studies ranged from unclear to high across various domains. The primary outcome of interest was relapse to additional care defined as an unscheduled visit to a health practitioner for worsening asthma symptoms, or requiring subsequent treatment with corticosteroids which may have occurred at any time point after discharge from the ED.We found intramuscular and oral corticosteroids to be similarly effective in reducing the risk for relapse (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.24; 9 studies, 804 participants; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). We found no subgroup differences in relapse rates between paediatric and adult participants (P = 0.71), relapse occurring within or after 10 days post-discharge (P = 0.22), or participants with mild/moderate or severe exacerbations (P = 0.35). While we found no statistical difference between participants receiving IM versus oral corticosteroids regarding the risk for adverse events (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.07; 5 studies, 404 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), an estimated 50 fewer patients per 1000 receiving IM corticosteroids reported experiencing adverse events (95% from 106 fewer to 21 more). We found inconsistent reporting of specific adverse events across the studies. There were no differences in the frequency of specific adverse events including nausea and vomiting, pain, swelling, redness, insomnia, or personality changes. We did not seek additional adverse events data.Participants receiving IM corticosteroids or oral corticosteroids both reported decreases in peak expiratory flow (MD -7.78 L/min, 95% CI -38.83 L/min to 23.28 L/min; 4 studies, 272 participants; I² = 33%; moderate-quality evidence), similar symptom persistence (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.20; 3 studies, 80 participants; I² = 44%; low-quality evidence), and 24-hour beta-agonist use (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.37; 2 studies, 48 participants; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to identify whether IM corticosteroids are more effective in reducing relapse compared to oral corticosteroids among children or adults discharged from an ED or equivalent acute care setting for acute asthma. While we found no statistical differences, patients receiving IM corticosteroids reported fewer adverse events. Additional studies comparing the effectiveness of IM versus oral corticosteroids could provide further evidence clarity. Furthermore, there is a need for studies comparing different IM corticosteroids (e.g. IM dexamethasone versus IM methylprednisone) and different oral corticosteroids (e.g. oral dexamethasone versus oral prednisone), with consideration for dosing and pharmacokinetic properties, to better identify the optimal IM or oral corticosteroid regimens to improve patient outcomes. Other factors, such as patient preference and potential issues with adherence, may dictate practitioner prescribing.

The role of anticholinergics in acute asthma treatment: an evidence-based evaluation

The role for anticholinergic medications in acute asthma is not well-defined. Thus, the use of therapy with anticholinergics and beta(2)-agonists, either simultaneously or in sequence, has produced positive as well as negative results in trials. Therefore, the current recommendations for the use of these drugs in the emergency department (ED) and hospital management of asthma exacerbations are not precise. This review answers the following question: what level of evidence is available in the literature to support the use of anticholinergic medications in combination with beta(2)-agonists in acute asthma patients? We limited the search on our therapy question to systematic reviews of randomized trials and/or randomized controlled trials not included in the reviews. After an extensive review of the most relevant evidence, the following conclusions may be emphasized. (1) The use of multiple doses of ipratropium bromide are indicated in the ED treatment of children and adults with severe acute asthma. The studies reported a substantial reduction in hospital admissions (30 to 60%; number needed to treat, 5 to 11) and significant differences in lung function favoring the combined treatment. No apparent increase in the occurrence of side effects was observed. (2) The use of single-dose protocols of ipratropium bromide with beta(2)-agonist treatment produced, particularly in children with more severe acute asthma, a modest improvement in pulmonary function without reduction in hospital admissions; in adults, the data showed a similar increase in pulmonary function with an approximately 35% reduction in the hospital admission rate. In patients with mild-to-moderate acute asthma, there is no apparent benefit from adding a single dose of an anticholinergic medication.

Contemporary approach to the emergency department management of pediatric asthma

Asthma continues to be an enormous health problem and economic burden in US society. EDs probably will continue to provide a substantial amount of care for those affected by the disease. Pediatric asthma patients frequently are encountered in EDs. Emergency physicians must remain current in their approach to providing expert care while the management of acute asthma exacerbations continues to evolve, older therapies are challenged and new therapies are developed, tested, and implemented.

Acute asthma

OBJECTIVE: Asthma is the most common medical emergency in children. It is associated with significant morbidity and mortality rates and poses a tremendous societal burden worldwide. Management of the acute attack involves a stepwise approach that includes beta-agonist and steroid therapy, the mainstay of emergency treatment. Most patients will respond to this regime and can be discharged from the emergency department. Failure to respond to treatment necessitates hospital admission and sometimes admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). Management in the ICU involves intensification of pharmacologic therapy, including nonstandard therapies, in an attempt to avoid intubation and ventilation. When needed, mechanical ventilatory support can be rendered fairly safe with little morbidity if the likely cardiorespiratory physiologic derangements are appreciated and if appropriate ventilatory strategies are used. In the past two decades, the availability of newer potent medications and changes in approach to monitoring and ventilatory strategies have resulted in a decrease in ICU morbidity and mortality rates. Research endeavors are presently underway to further characterize the underlying mechanisms of the disease and are likely to lead to novel therapies. This article reviews the approach to management of acute severe asthma.

Intravenous magnesium sulfate treatment for acute asthma in the emergency department: a systematic review of the literature

STUDY OBJECTIVES

There is some evidence that magnesium, when infused into asthmatic patients, can produce bronchodilation in addition to that obtained from standard treatments. This systematic review examined the effect of intravenous magnesium sulfate used for patients with acute asthma managed in the emergency department.

METHODS

Only randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion. Studies were included if patients presented with acute asthma and were treated with intravenous magnesium sulfate versus placebo. Trials were identified from the Cochrane Airways Review Group register, which consists of a combined search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CINAHL databases and hand-searching of 20 key respiratory journals. Bibliographies from included studies and known reviews were searched. Primary authors and content experts were contacted. Data were extracted and methodologic quality was assessed independently by 2 reviewers. Missing data were obtained from authors.

RESULTS

Seven trials (5 adult, 2 pediatric) involving a total of 668 patients were included. Overall, admission to hospital was not statistically reduced using magnesium sulfate (odds ratio [OR] 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09 to 1.02). In the severe subgroup, admissions were reduced in those receiving magnesium sulfate (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.27). Overall, patients receiving magnesium sulfate demonstrated nonsignificant improvements in peak expiratory flow rates (PEFR) when all studies were pooled (weighted mean difference [WMD] 29 L/min, 95% CI -3 to 62). In studies of patients with severe acute asthma, PEFR WMD improved by 52 L/min (95% CI 27 to 78) favoring magnesium sulfate treatment. The absolute FEV(1) also improved by 10% predicted (95% CI 4 to 16) in patients with severe acute asthma. No clinically important changes in vital signs or side effects were reported.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence does not clearly support routine use of intravenous magnesium sulfate in all patients with acute asthma presenting to the ED. However, magnesium sulfate appears to be safe and beneficial for patients who present with severe acute asthma. Practice guidelines need to be changed to reflect these results.