A comparison of ipratropium and albuterol vs albuterol alone for the treatment of acute asthma

Jill P. Karpel, E. Neil Schacter, Christopher Fanta, David Levey, Peter Spiro, Thomas Aldrich, Shailendra S. Menjoge, Theodore J. Witek

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

65 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

To evaluate the role of inhaled ipratropium bromide in acute asthma, a double-blind study of 384 emergency department patients compared the effect of the combination of ipratropium and albuterol with that of albuterol alone. Patients were randomized to receive nebulizer treatments with either 2.5 mg of albuterol or 2.5 mg of albuterol mixed with 0.5 mg of ipratropium bromide at entry and at 45 min. Spirometry, vital signs, and oxygen saturation were measured before and at 45 and 90 min following the nebulizer treatments. Serum potassium levels were obtained at entry and 90 min. The two groups did not differ significantly in age (mean±SD=33.4±9.3 and 32.5±9.7 years for the albuterol and ipratropium group and the albuterol group, respectively), baseline FEV1 (mean ± SD = 1.22 ± 0.42 and 1.25 ± 0.44 L respectively), or prior use of asthma medications. At 45 min, there were significantly more responders (15% increase in FEV1 over baseline) in the group receiving albuterol and ipratropium compared with albuterol and saline solution (85% and 78%, respectively; p=0.045), but the median change in FEV1 from baseline did not differ (0.530 L for the albuterol and ipratropium group and 0.420 L for the albuterol and saline solution group; p=0.347). By 90 min, the percentage of responders did not differ (88% and 80%, respectively), and the median change in FEV1 was 0.680 L for the group receiving albuterol and ipratropium and 0.650 L for the group receiving albuterol and saline solution (p=0.093). There were no significant adverse events experienced by patients in either group. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in the number of patients requiring additional therapy in the emergency department or hospitalization. We conclude that in this population of inner city asthmatics, we were unable to demonstrate significant additive benefit of nebulized ipratropium bromide to nebulized albuterol.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)611-616
Number of pages6
JournalChest
Volume110
Issue number3
StatePublished - 1996

Fingerprint

Albuterol
Asthma
Ipratropium
Sodium Chloride
Nebulizers and Vaporizers
Therapeutics
Hospital Emergency Service
Ipratropium Drug Combination Albuterol
Vital Signs
Spirometry
Double-Blind Method
Potassium
Hospitalization
Oxygen
Serum

Keywords

  • β-agonist
  • albuterol
  • asthma
  • ipratopium bromide

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

Cite this

Karpel, J. P., Schacter, E. N., Fanta, C., Levey, D., Spiro, P., Aldrich, T., ... Witek, T. J. (1996). A comparison of ipratropium and albuterol vs albuterol alone for the treatment of acute asthma. Chest, 110(3), 611-616.

A comparison of ipratropium and albuterol vs albuterol alone for the treatment of acute asthma. / Karpel, Jill P.; Schacter, E. Neil; Fanta, Christopher; Levey, David; Spiro, Peter; Aldrich, Thomas; Menjoge, Shailendra S.; Witek, Theodore J.

In: Chest, Vol. 110, No. 3, 1996, p. 611-616.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Karpel, JP, Schacter, EN, Fanta, C, Levey, D, Spiro, P, Aldrich, T, Menjoge, SS & Witek, TJ 1996, 'A comparison of ipratropium and albuterol vs albuterol alone for the treatment of acute asthma', Chest, vol. 110, no. 3, pp. 611-616.
Karpel JP, Schacter EN, Fanta C, Levey D, Spiro P, Aldrich T et al. A comparison of ipratropium and albuterol vs albuterol alone for the treatment of acute asthma. Chest. 1996;110(3):611-616.
Karpel, Jill P. ; Schacter, E. Neil ; Fanta, Christopher ; Levey, David ; Spiro, Peter ; Aldrich, Thomas ; Menjoge, Shailendra S. ; Witek, Theodore J. / A comparison of ipratropium and albuterol vs albuterol alone for the treatment of acute asthma. In: Chest. 1996 ; Vol. 110, No. 3. pp. 611-616.
@article{a4794dfa75224503abb33045c12ed87e,
title = "A comparison of ipratropium and albuterol vs albuterol alone for the treatment of acute asthma",
abstract = "To evaluate the role of inhaled ipratropium bromide in acute asthma, a double-blind study of 384 emergency department patients compared the effect of the combination of ipratropium and albuterol with that of albuterol alone. Patients were randomized to receive nebulizer treatments with either 2.5 mg of albuterol or 2.5 mg of albuterol mixed with 0.5 mg of ipratropium bromide at entry and at 45 min. Spirometry, vital signs, and oxygen saturation were measured before and at 45 and 90 min following the nebulizer treatments. Serum potassium levels were obtained at entry and 90 min. The two groups did not differ significantly in age (mean±SD=33.4±9.3 and 32.5±9.7 years for the albuterol and ipratropium group and the albuterol group, respectively), baseline FEV1 (mean ± SD = 1.22 ± 0.42 and 1.25 ± 0.44 L respectively), or prior use of asthma medications. At 45 min, there were significantly more responders (15{\%} increase in FEV1 over baseline) in the group receiving albuterol and ipratropium compared with albuterol and saline solution (85{\%} and 78{\%}, respectively; p=0.045), but the median change in FEV1 from baseline did not differ (0.530 L for the albuterol and ipratropium group and 0.420 L for the albuterol and saline solution group; p=0.347). By 90 min, the percentage of responders did not differ (88{\%} and 80{\%}, respectively), and the median change in FEV1 was 0.680 L for the group receiving albuterol and ipratropium and 0.650 L for the group receiving albuterol and saline solution (p=0.093). There were no significant adverse events experienced by patients in either group. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in the number of patients requiring additional therapy in the emergency department or hospitalization. We conclude that in this population of inner city asthmatics, we were unable to demonstrate significant additive benefit of nebulized ipratropium bromide to nebulized albuterol.",
keywords = "β-agonist, albuterol, asthma, ipratopium bromide",
author = "Karpel, {Jill P.} and Schacter, {E. Neil} and Christopher Fanta and David Levey and Peter Spiro and Thomas Aldrich and Menjoge, {Shailendra S.} and Witek, {Theodore J.}",
year = "1996",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "110",
pages = "611--616",
journal = "Chest",
issn = "0012-3692",
publisher = "American College of Chest Physicians",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of ipratropium and albuterol vs albuterol alone for the treatment of acute asthma

AU - Karpel, Jill P.

AU - Schacter, E. Neil

AU - Fanta, Christopher

AU - Levey, David

AU - Spiro, Peter

AU - Aldrich, Thomas

AU - Menjoge, Shailendra S.

AU - Witek, Theodore J.

PY - 1996

Y1 - 1996

N2 - To evaluate the role of inhaled ipratropium bromide in acute asthma, a double-blind study of 384 emergency department patients compared the effect of the combination of ipratropium and albuterol with that of albuterol alone. Patients were randomized to receive nebulizer treatments with either 2.5 mg of albuterol or 2.5 mg of albuterol mixed with 0.5 mg of ipratropium bromide at entry and at 45 min. Spirometry, vital signs, and oxygen saturation were measured before and at 45 and 90 min following the nebulizer treatments. Serum potassium levels were obtained at entry and 90 min. The two groups did not differ significantly in age (mean±SD=33.4±9.3 and 32.5±9.7 years for the albuterol and ipratropium group and the albuterol group, respectively), baseline FEV1 (mean ± SD = 1.22 ± 0.42 and 1.25 ± 0.44 L respectively), or prior use of asthma medications. At 45 min, there were significantly more responders (15% increase in FEV1 over baseline) in the group receiving albuterol and ipratropium compared with albuterol and saline solution (85% and 78%, respectively; p=0.045), but the median change in FEV1 from baseline did not differ (0.530 L for the albuterol and ipratropium group and 0.420 L for the albuterol and saline solution group; p=0.347). By 90 min, the percentage of responders did not differ (88% and 80%, respectively), and the median change in FEV1 was 0.680 L for the group receiving albuterol and ipratropium and 0.650 L for the group receiving albuterol and saline solution (p=0.093). There were no significant adverse events experienced by patients in either group. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in the number of patients requiring additional therapy in the emergency department or hospitalization. We conclude that in this population of inner city asthmatics, we were unable to demonstrate significant additive benefit of nebulized ipratropium bromide to nebulized albuterol.

AB - To evaluate the role of inhaled ipratropium bromide in acute asthma, a double-blind study of 384 emergency department patients compared the effect of the combination of ipratropium and albuterol with that of albuterol alone. Patients were randomized to receive nebulizer treatments with either 2.5 mg of albuterol or 2.5 mg of albuterol mixed with 0.5 mg of ipratropium bromide at entry and at 45 min. Spirometry, vital signs, and oxygen saturation were measured before and at 45 and 90 min following the nebulizer treatments. Serum potassium levels were obtained at entry and 90 min. The two groups did not differ significantly in age (mean±SD=33.4±9.3 and 32.5±9.7 years for the albuterol and ipratropium group and the albuterol group, respectively), baseline FEV1 (mean ± SD = 1.22 ± 0.42 and 1.25 ± 0.44 L respectively), or prior use of asthma medications. At 45 min, there were significantly more responders (15% increase in FEV1 over baseline) in the group receiving albuterol and ipratropium compared with albuterol and saline solution (85% and 78%, respectively; p=0.045), but the median change in FEV1 from baseline did not differ (0.530 L for the albuterol and ipratropium group and 0.420 L for the albuterol and saline solution group; p=0.347). By 90 min, the percentage of responders did not differ (88% and 80%, respectively), and the median change in FEV1 was 0.680 L for the group receiving albuterol and ipratropium and 0.650 L for the group receiving albuterol and saline solution (p=0.093). There were no significant adverse events experienced by patients in either group. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in the number of patients requiring additional therapy in the emergency department or hospitalization. We conclude that in this population of inner city asthmatics, we were unable to demonstrate significant additive benefit of nebulized ipratropium bromide to nebulized albuterol.

KW - β-agonist

KW - albuterol

KW - asthma

KW - ipratopium bromide

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030473412&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030473412&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 110

SP - 611

EP - 616

JO - Chest

JF - Chest

SN - 0012-3692

IS - 3

ER -