SOME ADRENERGIC DRUGS AND ATROPINE METHONITRATE GIVEN BY INHALATION FOR ASTHMA: A COMPARATIVE STUDY

The increasing challenge of discovering asthma drugs

The prevalence of asthma continues to rise. Current drugs provide symptomatic relief to some, but not all, patients. Despite the need for new therapeutics, and a huge research effort, only four novel agents from two classes of drugs - the antileukotrienes and an anti-IgE antibody - have been approved in the last 30 years. This review highlights three particular issues that contribute to the challenge of identifying new therapeutics. First is an over-reliance on animal models of allergy to define targets and expectations of efficacy that has met with poor translation to the clinical setting. While sensitivity to particular aeroallergens is one key risk factor for asthma, atopy and asthma are not synonymous, and while about half of adult asthmatics are atopic the incidence of allergic asthma is probably <50%. The second issue is a fundamental disconnect between the directions of basic research and clinical research. Basic research has developed a detailed, reductive, unifying mechanism of antigen-induced, T helper type 2 cell-mediated airway inflammation as the root cause of asthma. In contrast, clinical research has started to identify multiple asthma phenotypes with differing cellular components, mediators and sensitivities to asthma drugs, and probably varying underlying factors including susceptibility genes. Finally, different features of asthma - bronchoconstriction, symptoms, and exacerbations - respond diversely to treatment; effects that are not captured in animal models which do not develop asthma per se, but utilize unvalidated surrogate markers. Basic research needs to better integrate and utilize the clinical research findings to improve its relevance to drug discovery efforts.

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.

Comparison of ipratropium bromide and albuterol in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a three-center study

Seventy-two subjects who had severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and a history of heavy smoking completed a study to compare the effect of single doses of ipratropium bromide (0.036 mg), albuterol (0.18 mg), and placebo on the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), heart rate, and blood pressure during a period of 6 hours. During initial testing for reversibility, 40 subjects did not demonstrate a 15% increase in FEV1 from baseline after metaproterenol. Ipratropium produced a significantly greater response than albuterol in FEV1 at 3, 4, and 5 hours and in FVC at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 hours. For the entire 6-hour period, ipratropium produced a 25% greater response than albuterol in FEV1 and a 50% greater response in FVC. The difference between the two drugs was even greater between 3 and 6 hours. There were no significant differences between the three treatments as regards adverse reactions, heart rate, and blood pressure measurements. In patients who have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, ipratropium bromide has apparent benefits over beta 2 agonist therapy, including a longer duration of action. Ipratropium may also be effective when beta 2 agonists are not effective.

Asthma in children: emergency management

We review the pathophysiological alterations at work in asthma and outline pharmacological agents that are available for emergency therapeutic intervention, offering some general principles for management. A combined overview of predictors of outcome in asthmatic episodes in children also is presented.

Combination bronchodilator therapy

Bronchodilators may be classified into 3 groups: anticholinergics, beta-adrenoceptor agonists and methylxanthines. These drugs act through related biochemical pathways and there are theoretical reasons for expecting beneficial additive or synergistic interactions between them. While there is in vitro evidence of synergistic interactions producing bronchodilatation, in vivo studies indicate that the interactions are additive rather than synergistic but still of therapeutic value. There have been no clinical studies on methylxanthines combined with anticholinergic drugs, but there is an extensive and growing literature on the other combinations. The majority show clear evidence of an additive bronchodilator effect when anticholinergics are combined with beta 2-adrenoceptor agonists, although atropine sulphate is less effective in this regard than atropine methylnitrate or ipratropium bromide. This type of combination has only been tested by inhalation and, because of the slower onset of action of the anticholinergic group, it is preferable that the beta 2-adrenoceptor agonist be inhaled first. There is no evidence for an additive interaction of the side effects of these drugs. In general, bronchitics respond better than asthmatics to anticholinergic drugs. Studies on methylxanthines (usually theophylline) and adrenoceptor agonists may be divided into 2 groups: those using ephedrine and those using more selective beta-adrenoceptor agonists. Ephedrine is a relatively ineffective bronchodilator and often fails to add any useful bronchodilatation to theophylline. Also, there does seem to be a synergistic increase in side effects of the two drugs and this combination is therefore undesirable. Ephedrine has now been superseded by the more selective beta 2-adrenoceptor agonist drugs all of which, whether given orally, intravenously or by inhalation, appear to have an additive effect with the methylxanthines. It is often possible to achieve the same therapeutic effect with half doses of drugs from 2 different groups as with a full dose of 1 drug. This may sometimes, but not always, reduce side effects. There is evidence that giving 2 drugs by different routes is a useful therapeutic procedure; for example, the addition of an inhaled beta 2-adrenoceptor agonist may improve upon the maximal bronchodilatation achieved with intravenous theophylline. When theophylline is administered plasma levels of the drug should be monitored and it is possible that, when used in combination with a beta 2-adrenoceptor agonist, a therapeutic range lower than that normally recommended may apply. There is no longer any place for fixed combination bronchodilators and, in spite of recent suggestions, there is no evidence that bronchodilator combinations are responsible for an increase in asthma mortality. Further studies to clarify some aspects of bronchodilator combinations are needed. The therapeutic use of various combinations is briefly discussed.

Atropine and terbutaline aerosols in chronic bronchitis: efficacy and sites of action

To examine the additive properties and the sites of action of inhaled atropine sulfate (0.05 mg/kg of body weight) and terbutaline sulfate (0.005 mg/kg) in patients with chronic airflow obstruction, we tested these aerosols separately and together in a double-blind random sequence. Twelve patients with chronic bronchitis and perennial obstruction of airflow were studied by measuring three indices of efficacy (specific airway conductance [Gaw/VL], the forced expiratory volume in one second [FEV1] and the forced vital capacity [FVC]) and three indices of the site of action within the airway (delta [(Gaw/VL)/FEV1], the difference between the change in forced expiratory flow at 75 percent of vital capacity and the change in forced expiratory flow at 25 percent of vital capacity, and the change in density dependence of maximal airflow at 50 percent of vital capacity). Both atropine and the combination of atropine and terbutaline improved all indices of efficacy significantly more than did terbutaline. With individual exceptions, the addition of terbutaline to atropine improved Gaw/VL but not forced airflow. All measures of site of action suggested an advantage for atropine in relatively proximal airways. These results indicate that combined therapy with beta-adrenergic and anticholinergic bronchodilator drugs is marginally more effective than therapy with atropine alone in these patients and suggest that anticholinergic aerosols dilate larger airways more effectively than the beta-agonists.

The effect of atropine inhalation in "irreversible" chronic bronchitis

Fifteen patients with chronic bronchitis and airflow obstruction which was not improved by inhalation of isoproterenol (increase in forced expiratory volume in one second [FEV1] less than 15 percent) received an aerosol of atropine sulfate (0.05 mg/kg of body weight), in order to determine their response to an anticholinergic bronchodilator drug. The improvement over initial values for FEV1 at 15 minutes following inhalation of isoproterenol and at 90 minutres following inhalation of atropine averaged 5.9 percent and 19.2 percent, respectively (P less than 0.01). Eleven of 15 patients demonstrated a 15 percent or greater increase in FEV1 following inhalation of atropine, and six subjects demonstrated more than 25 percent improvement. The maximum effect of atropine was observed at or later than 90 minutes following inhalation in nine of 11 patients who were responsive to atropine. Minimal systemic toxic effects resulted from inhalation of atropine, although dryness of the mouth was frequent. In patients with chronic bronchitis, airflow obstruction resistant to isoproterenol may respond to inhalation of an aerosol of atropine sulfate.

A comparative study of atropine methonitrate, salbutamol, and their combination in airways obstruction

Dose-response relationships of the cholinergic antagonist, atropine methonitrate, and the beta-adrenergic agonist, salbutamol, were examined by cumulative dose techniques. A wet aerosol, 1.5 mg atropine methonitrate produced a maximum response. The response to 200 microgram of salbutamol from a pressurised aerosol was close to maximum. Secondly, the bronchodilator response of salbutamol microgram was compared with atropine methonitrate 2 mg and placebo in 18 asthmatic patients in a randomised crossover study. In 11 of them the bronchodilator response of the combination of salbutamol and atropine methonitrate was evaluated. Atropine methonitrate produced a similar peak bronchodilator effect to salbutamol, but its effect was more prolonged, the response being significantly greater at four and six hours than with salbutamol. The combination of drugs produced a significantly greater and more lasting bronchodilatation than either of the drugs alone. Despite mild side effects, atropine methonitrate, either alone or in combination with an adrenergic drug, appears to have a place in the treatment of sever reversible airway obstruction not adequately controlled by conventional treatment.

Comparative bronchodilator responses to atropine and terbutaline in asthma and chronic bronchitis

We have compared bronchodilator responses to atropine and terbutaline in 39 chronic bronchitics and 16 stable asthmatics. Fasting subjects were given either 1.05 mg atropine of 5.0 mg terbutaline orally. Pulmonary function was assessed using the peak responses, namely: three 60-minute intervals for terbutaline and three 30-minute intervals for atropine. A subgroup of five reactive bronchitis patients was given a placebo with no response. Areas under the percent response-time interval curve were compared. Both patient groups responded to the same degree to atropine and terbutaline with respect to reduction of airway resistance. However, the FEV1 and V50 responses to terbutaline were markedly enhanced compared to atropine in the asthmatics while equal to the atropine response in the bronchitis patients. Thus, atropine appears to exert its effect upon both large and small airways in bronchitis, but predominantly on large airways in asthma. The results are consistent with a state of enhanced vagal tone in small airways in bronchitis compared to asthma, but other explanations are conceivable.

A comparison of the actions of different bronchodilators in asthma

The actions of the following pressurized bronchodilators were compared by administration to 24 asthmatics: (1) Medihaler Iso Forte, (2) Alupent, (3) Medihaler-duo, (4) Bronchilator, and (5) Prenomiser Plus. These contained one or more of the following: isoprenaline, orciprenaline, isoetharine, phenylephrine, atropine methonitrate, and thenyldiamine. The dose was a single discharge from the container. The response was assessed by calculating the mean percentage change in F.E.V. at intervals after inhalation.

The mean peak rises were respectively (1) 49·4%, (2) 43·6%, (3) 36·2%, (4) 33·5%, and (5) 23·5%. The amplitude of peak response to isoprenaline was related to the logarithm of the dose. Weight for weight, orciprenaline had a peak bronchodilator activity 41·5% that of isoprenaline and isoetharine 50%. The preparations did not differ significantly in the time taken to reach maximum response, which varied from 5 to 60 minutes; three-quarters of the maxima occurred within 15 minutes.

The half-life for Alupent was 2 hours; for Medihaler-duo, which contains 240 μg. of phenylephrine per dose, it was 1¼ hours; for the remaining preparations it was about 1 hour. The decay rate, after the first half-hour, was 6% of the basal F.E.V. per hour for Medihaler-duo; for the other preparations it was 10-12%. In the doses given, Alupent yielded 20% and 30% increases lasting 130 and 67 minutes; after Medihaler Iso Forte these lasted 78 and 46 minutes. Similar comparative experiments, designed to eliminate effects of dosage difference, are desirable. Rebound bronchoconstriction occurred in 23% of 92 experiments. There was no response to propellent alone. The mean percentage change in F.E.V. may not be the best way of expressing results.

Time factor in the measurement of response to bronchodilators

The measurement of response to bronchodilators by recording the change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (F.E.V._1·0) can underestimate response unless the correct time for postbronchodilator tests is chosen. In 18 patients given isoprenaline, the time of peak response varied, but a 30-minute testing time gave the closest approximation to peak response. In order to test whether repeated doses would increase the response, inhalations of isoprenaline were given at 30-minute intervals, the F.E.V._1·0 being measured after each dose. There was a further response after successive doses until a plateau was reached, usually after the third dose. The maximum response obtained was often considerably greater than the response after the first administration of isoprenaline, the average increase in F.E.V._1·0 being 600 ml. after the first dose and 840 ml. after repeated doses. A similar response was obtained in four patients using orciprenaline spray administered with a metered aerosol, the dose being repeated at hourly intervals. Four patients were given repeated inhalations of isoprenaline until the response reached a plateau, and then 250 mg. of aminophylline was injected intravenously. None of these patients showed any further improvement with aminophylline. The significance of these findings is discussed.