4.7 Article

Triple inhaled drug protocol for the treatment of acute severe asthma

期刊

CHEST
卷 123, 期 6, 页码 1908-1915

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1378/chest.123.6.1908

关键词

acute severe asthma; albuterol; emergency department treatment; flunisolide; ipratropium bromide

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study objective: This study tests the hypothesis that the administration of multiple doses of inhaled albuterol (A), ipratropium. bromide (IB), and flunisolide (F) provides an additional benefit to adults with acute severe asthma compared with the administration of A plus IB (A/IB) or A plus F (A/F). Design. Randomized, double-blind, prospective trial. Patients and interventions: One hundred seventy-two patients who presented to an emergency department were assigned to receive A, IB, and F (ie, triple drug treatment [TDG]; 56 patients), A/IB (60 patients), or A/F (56 patients). All drugs were administered through metered-dose inhaler and spacer at 10-min intervals for 3 h. Results: Patients who received TDG had an overall 64% greater improvement (95% confidence interval [CI], 24 to 103%; p = 0.002) in FEV1 (mean [+/-SD], 2.1 +/- 0.6 L) than those who received AN (mean, 1.7 +/- 0.6 L), and a 41% greater improvement (95% CI, 1 to 80%; p = 0.04) than those who received A/IB (mean, 1.8 +/- 0.6 L). Differences between groups increased with time (p = 0.001). At 3 h, there was a trend toward a reduction in hospital admission rates (A/IB group, 25%; A/F group, 20%; and TDG group, 11%). The patients who were the most likely to benefit (ie, those with a greater improvement in pulmonary function and a significant reduction in the hospitalization rate) from TDG were those with more severe obstruction (ie, FEV1, < 30% of predicted). The benefit of TDG was equally evident independent of the patient's previous use of corticosteroids. Conclusions: The data suggest that there was a therapeutic benefit from the addition of IB and F to A administered in high doses, particularly in those patients in whom the FEV1 was < 30% of the predicted value.

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

4.7
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