4.5 Article

Efficacy of a new intravenous β2-adrenergic agonist (bedoradrine, MN-221) for patients with an acute exacerbation of asthma

期刊

RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
卷 109, 期 10, 页码 1268-1273

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2015.08.003

关键词

Asthma; Beta agonists; Emergency medicine; Pharmacotherapy

资金

  1. MediciNova, Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Many patients with acute exacerbation of asthma are non-responders to inhaled beta-adrenergic agonists. The goal of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of intravenous bedoradrine (MN-221), a highly selective beta(2)-adrenergic agonist, as adjunct to standard therapy in the management of patients with acute exacerbation of asthma who did not respond to standard therapy. Methods: Patients (N = 167) received standard therapy and were randomized to either bedoradrine (1200 mu g) or placebo. Safety and efficacy parameters were monitored hourly for 3 h, followed by a 24-h follow-up visit and an 8-day follow-up phone call. Change in %FEV1 from baseline to Hour 3 was the primary outcome. Secondary outcome measures included change in %FEV1 at 1 and 2 h, change in dyspnea score at 1, 2, and 3 h, treatment failure rate, defined as a combination of hospitalization on the index visit or return to the emergency department within 1 week, and safety monitoring. Results: There was no significant difference in %FEV1 at 3 h between the 2 groups. The dyspnea scores were significantly improved for patients treated with bedoradrine compared to placebo (AUC(0-2) h P < 0.005, AUC(0-3) (h) P < 0.05). The safety profile for those treated with bedoradrine was consistent with the known mechanism of action of beta-adrenergic agonists, and included both cardiovascular and metabolic effects. Conclusions: Intravenous bedoradrine, in addition to standard therapy, did not significantly increase %FEV1 at 3 h, but it was associated with significantly improved dyspnea scores. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据