From the publishers of The New England Journal of Medicine

Save time and stay informed. Our physician-editors offer you clinical perspectives on key research and news.

  1. Home>
  2. Specialties>
  3. Emergency Medicine>
  4. Summary and Comment

Adding Ipratropium to Albuterol Does Not Improve Asthma

The extent to which the addition of ipratropium bromide (IB) improves the therapeutic effect of albuterol continues to be a subject of debate. These authors conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to further explore this issue. The study was industry supported.

Adult asthmatics presenting to the ED with acute bronchospasm and PEFR less than 70% of predicted were randomized to receive either albuterol (10 mg/hour) alone or with ipratropium bromide (1 mg/hour) by continuous nebulization for up to three hours. Among the 67 patients enrolled, the mean initial PEFR was 45(plusoverminus)12% of predicted, the median length of stay in the ED was 225 minutes, and 31% of patients were admitted. All three outcome measures improved with combination therapy, but none of the differences reached statistical significance. The authors considered the study to have sufficient power to detect significant differences had they existed.

Comment: There are several potential weaknesses in this study, including paucity of severely bronchospastic patients, lack of standardized endpoints for disposition, use of PEFR instead of less effort-dependent spirometric measurements, and wide confidence intervals for some of the key results. Further, individual patients vary in asthma symptomatology and response to therapy. Larger studies are needed to investigate the potential value of ipratropium bromide in the ED management of asthma.

— CV Pollack

Published in Journal Watch Emergency Medicine July 1, 1999

Citation(s):

Weber EJ et al. Effect of continuously nebulized ipratropium bromide plus albuterol on emergency department length of stay and hospital admission rates in patients with acute bronchospasm. Chest 1999 Apr 115 937-944.

Your Remark:

Reader Remarks are intended to encourage lively discussion of clinical topics with your peers in the medical community. Please consider this when composing your remark.

Fields marked with an * are required.

Name as you'd like it to appear:

Submitting a comment indicates you have read and agreed to the remark guidelines and declare:*

PRIVACY: We will not use your email address, submitted for a comment, for any other purpose nor sell, rent, or share your e-mail address with any third parties. Please see our Privacy Policy.

 

CLEAR erases anything you've added in any part of the form. CONTINUE allows you to check your entire post (and edit it if necessary) before submitting.

To ensure that your Reader Remark is not formatted as one long paragraph, precede new paragraphs with either a blank line or an indentation.

Search

Advanced

Article Tools

Reader Remarks

Sign-In

Forgot your password?

New to Journal Watch?

E-mail Alerts

Delivered to your inbox.
Tailored to your interests. Free.

Sign Up Now!

Journal Watch Newsletters

Available in 13 specialties with convenient delivery and 10 free online CME exams.

Subscribe Now!

Copyright © 1999. Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.