Terbutaline nebulization and epinephrine injection in treating acute asthmatic children

Epinephrine (adrenaline) compared to selective beta-2-agonist in adults or children with acute asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

International asthma guidelines recommend against epinephrine (adrenaline) administration in acute asthma unless associated with anaphylaxis or angio-oedema. However, administration of intramuscular epinephrine in addition to nebulised selective β₂-agonist is recommended for acute severe or life-threatening asthma in many prehospital guidelines. We conducted a systematic review to determine the efficacy of epinephrine in comparison to selective β₂-agonist in acute asthma.

METHODS

We included peer-reviewed publications of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled children or adults in any healthcare setting and compared epinephrine by any route to selective β₂-agonist by any route for an acute asthma exacerbation. The primary outcome was treatment failure, including hospitalisation, need for intubation or death.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight of 1140 studies were included. Overall quality of evidence was low. Seventeen studies contributed data on 1299 participants to the meta-analysis. There was significant statistical heterogeneity, I²=56%. The pooled Peto's OR for treatment failure with epinephrine versus selective β₂-agonist was 0.99 (0.75 to 1.32), p=0.95. There was strong evidence that recruitment age group was associated with different estimates of the odds of treatment failure; with studies recruiting adults-only having lower odds of treatment failure with epinephrine. It was not possible to determine whether epinephrine in addition to selective β₂-agonist improved outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The low-quality evidence available suggests that epinephrine and selective β₂-agonists have similar efficacy in acute asthma. There is a need for high-quality double-blind RCTs to determine whether addition of intramuscular epinephrine to inhaled or nebulised selective β₂-agonist improves outcome.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017079472.

Safety of epinephrine for anaphylaxis in the emergency setting

BACKGROUND

While epinephrine is the recommended first-line therapy for the reversal of anaphylaxis symptoms, inappropriate use persists because of misunderstandings about proper dosing and administration or misconceptions about its safety. The objective of this review was to evaluate the safety of epinephrine for patients with anaphylaxis, including other emergent conditions, treated in emergency care settings.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search using PubMed was conducted to identify articles that discuss the dosing, administration, and safety of epinephrine in the emergency setting for anaphylaxis and other conditions.

RESULTS

Epinephrine is safe for anaphylaxis when given at the correct dose by intramuscular injection. The majority of dosing errors and cardiovascular adverse reactions occur when epinephrine is given intravenously or incorrectly dosed.

CONCLUSION

Epinephrine by intramuscular injection is a safe therapy for anaphylaxis but training may still be necessary in emergency care settings to minimize drug dosing and administration errors and to allay concerns about its safety.

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.

Asthma

Asthma has been recognized as a disease since the earliest times. In the Corpus Hippocraticum, Hippocrates used the term “ασθμα” to indicate any form of breathing difficulty manifesting itself by panting. Aretaeus of Cappadocia, a well-known Greek physician (second century A.D.), is credited with providing the first detailed description of an asthma attack [13], and to Celsus it was a disease with wheezing and noisy, violent breathing. In the history of Rome, we find many members of the Julio-Claudian family affected with probable atopic respiratory disorders: Caesar Augustus suffered from bronchoconstriction, seasonal rhinitis as well as a highly pruritic skin disease. Claudius suffered from rhinoconjunctivitis and Britannicus was allergic to horse dander [529]. Maimonides (1136–1204) warned that to neglect treatment of asthma could prove fatal, whereas until the 19th century, European scholars defined it as “nervous asthma,” a term that was given to mean a defect of conductivity of the ninth pair of cranial nerves.

Predictors of early hospital readmission for asthma among inner-city children

Factors associated with early asthma readmission have not been fully studied. To identify predictors of early readmission, we performed a matched case-control study of children discharged with primary diagnosis of asthma. Cases were readmitted with asthma within 30 days of discharge. Controls were not readmitted. Conditional logistic regression analysis was used. History of asthma hospitalization within the past 12 months was an independent predictor of early readmission (OR 1.89, p = 0.021). Modifiable factors such as medical treatment and management during and upon discharge from the index admission did not predict early asthma readmission.

Food anaphylaxis in schools: evaluation of the management plan and the efficiency of the emergency kit

BACKGROUND

Children with severe food allergies can benefit from a personalized care project (PCP) in schools. The usefulness of the PCP and the residual risk of allergic emergencies are poorly appreciated. The objective was to evaluate the efficiency of the management plan and the training in the use of the emergency kit.

METHODS

A telephone survey using a detailed questionnaire was performed in 45 families whose children had been previously referred to the department. The distribution of disorders was as follows: asthma, 37.7%; atopic dermatitis and asthma, 28.8%; atopic dermatitis, 15.5%; angioedema and urticaria, 13.3%; and anaphylactic shock, 4.2%. Food allergy had been diagnosed in the 45 children by past history, and double-blind or single-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFCs, or SBPCFCs) with evidence of specific IgE. Exactly 75.5% of the children had peanut allergy. Multiple food allergies characterized 46.8% of the subjects. They had benefited from a strict elimination diet and a protocol for emergency care including a ready-to-use intramuscular epinephrine injection. A PCP had been requested by the School Public Health Service.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine PCPs were implemented (86.5% of the requests). They represented 63% of the PCPs for food allergy in the eastern region of France: one per 5800 school-age children. The retrospective period of evaluation was 25 months on average. The types of meals were very diverse, and medically acceptable in 83% of cases. The place where the emergency kit was stored in the school varied. Forty reactions occurred in 33% of the children (5/6 times in the absence of a PCP), asthma in 28%, shock in 1%, and immediate skin reactions in 11%. Reactions occurred at home in 78% of the subjects, and in school in 22% of the subjects. The cause of the reactions was not specifically known in 63% of cases. Twenty-seven percent of the reactions were linked to the ingestion of food allergens. In 10% of subjects, the reaction was due to a modification of ingredients by the food industry.

CONCLUSIONS

The frequency of respiratory symptoms during oral challenge tests was confirmed by the frequency of asthmatic reactions within the follow-up period. The role of hidden allergens and of misleading labeling validates the need for PCPs in the case of peanut and tree nut allergies, past history of severe reactions, multiple food allergies, reactions to a low dose in DBPCFCs, and asthmatic reactions to foods. This study provides encouraging data on the usefulness of PCPs and confirms the need for thorough instruction and training of the school staff in dealing with allergic emergencies. Addition of a beta-agonist spray to the emergency kit is suggested.