A comparison of the effects of different methods of administration of β-2-sympathomimetics in patients with asthma

Webb, Jonathan R.; Rees, John; Clark, T. J. H.

doi:10.1016/0007-0971(82)90069-9

Cited by 36 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Inhaled salbutamol induces immediate bronchodi latation with a minimum of side effects [1][2][3][4][5]. Cock croft et al [6] demonstrated a protective effect of in haled salbutamol when administered before hista mine challenge.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inhaled and Oral Salbutamol: How Effective in the Prophylaxis of Asthma?

Roux

Kotze²,

Wium³

et al. 1991

Respiration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inhaled and oral salbutamol were compared in 12 asthmatic patients for prophylaxis in antigen-induced asthma. The patients were pretreated with 0.2- and 1.0-mg doses of inhaled salbutamol and with the standard oral 4- and 8-mg slow-release (SR) salbutamol preparations. Bronchodilatation was monitored over the ensuing 3 h and protection against antigen challenge at the end of the period. On each study day the degree of baseline airway hyperreactivity was determined by histamine challenge. Precautions were taken during the antigen challenge to ensure a reproducible response. Blood levels of salbutamol were monitored at hourly intervals for the 3 h after treatment and during the asthmatic reaction subsequent to challenge. Both the 0.2- and 1.0-mg inhalations caused immediate bronchodilatation as compared to a placebo (p < 0.05), but only the 1.0-mg dose protected subjects against antigen challenge (p < 0.05). In comparison to the placebo, no bronchodilatation was achieved with the standard 4-mg oral preparation in spite of measurable blood levels, nor were the patients protected against antigen challenge at 3 h after pretreatment. However, the 8-mg SR salbutamol caused significant bronchodilatation within 2 h and suppressed antigen challenge responses as compared to placebo (p < 0.05). It can be concluded that doses of inhaled salbutamol higher than the conventional 0.2- or the standard 4-mg oral preparations are required to protect asthmatics against inadvertent antigen exposure. In patients who are unable to use inhalers effectively, the SR preparation can be considered as an alternative

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inhaled and Oral Salbutamol: How Effective in the Prophylaxis of Asthma?

Roux

Kotze²,

Wium³

et al. 1991

Respiration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It provides more rapid relief and has the same effect with smaller doses and less undesirable systemic effects compared with the oral therapy. 16 In this study, one-quarter of the ß agonists was prescribed in the oral form. If the inhalation route is chosen, however, it is important to teach patients the proper technique.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Prescribing for Asthma in the Outpatient Clinics in Riyadh: Does it Follow the Guidelines?

et al. 1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to reduce the significant morbidity and mortality associated with asthma, current guidelines recommend the use of anti-inflammatory therapy in a step-wise approach. To obtain information on how physicians are treating asthma, we evaluated prospectively 243 newly seen asthmatics in the outpatient clinics in four hospitals in Riyadh. The patients were assessed by five pulmonologists who confirmed the diagnosis, established the severity, recorded the medications patients were taking, and the specialty of the prescribing physician. The inhaler technique was checked and changes made in the treatment were also recorded. The medications prescribed were 6 agonists (inhaled 69%, oral 25%), steroids (inhaled 33%, systemic 8%), cough mixtures (30%), antibiotics (26%), theophylline (21%), and miscellaneous 16%. Over half of the patients (55%) were taking 6 agonists regularly. The most frequent changes made were as follows: adding steroids (inhaled 56%, systemic 27%, or increasing the inhaled dose 16%), starting inhaled 6 agonists (28%) and discontinuing theophylline (9%). The GPs were the group least inclined to prescribe inhaled steroids (P < 0.0001). The inhaler technique was poor in 53% of the patients. We conclude that in treating asthma, physicians are still relying more on bronchodilator and symptomatic therapy rather than anti-inflammatory therapy. There is also evidence to suggest overuse of antibiotics. Wide dissemination of the guidelines may alter the prescribing habits, and as many asthmatics are managed by GPs, this group in particular should be targeted.

show abstract

“…In the last 5 years, however, investigators from a number of centers have begun to evaluate systematically the relative advantages and disadvantages of the various routes of ad ministration of the beta agonists. Based upon the composite evidence, it is clear that aerosol therapy is both a safe and highly effective form of treatment for re versible airway obstruction [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The above findings also ap ply to less severely ill patients. Most recent works have not found major differences in therapeutic responses to the oral, paren teral, or inhaled administration of the new beta agonists [10][11][12][13][14][15]. When given by in halation, it also does not seem to matter greatly whether one delivers the drug by powered nebulizers, hand-held metered dose inhalers, hand-activated atomizers, rotohalers, or intermittent positive-pres sure devices.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Beta-Adrenergic Bronchodilators

Er¹

1986

Respiration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Long-acting beta₂-selective agonists have become a major form of therapy of reversible airway obstruction. Modern agents are effective by all routes of administration and can both eliminate bronchospasm as well as prevent its occurrence. Many drugs such as albuterol, terbutaline and fenoterol have similar pharmacologic profiles, and there is frequently little to choose between them. The majority of the available data indicate that aerosol therapy produces as much bronchodilatation as the oral and parenteral routes with much fewer side effects

show abstract

A comparison of the effects of different methods of administration of β-2-sympathomimetics in patients with asthma

Cited by 36 publications

References 4 publications

Inhaled and Oral Salbutamol: How Effective in the Prophylaxis of Asthma?

Inhaled and Oral Salbutamol: How Effective in the Prophylaxis of Asthma?

Prescribing for Asthma in the Outpatient Clinics in Riyadh: Does it Follow the Guidelines?

Beta-Adrenergic Bronchodilators

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About