Holding chambers (spacers) versus nebulisers for beta-agonist treatment of acute asthma

Bushey Health Centre, Manor View Practice, London Road, Bushey, Watford, Hertfordshire, UK, WD23 2NN.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 02/2006; 2(2):CD000052. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000052.pub2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In acute asthma inhaled beta2-agonists are often administered to relieve bronchospasm by wet nebulisation, but some have argued that metered-dose inhalers with a holding chamber (spacer) can be equally effective. Nebulisers require a power source and need regular maintenance, and are more expensive in the community setting.
To assess the effects of holding chambers (spacers) compared to nebulisers for the delivery of beta2-agonists for acute asthma.
We last searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register in January 2006 and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2005).
Randomised trials in adults and children (from two years of age) with asthma, where spacer beta2-agonist delivery was compared with wet nebulisation.
Two reviewers independently applied study inclusion criteria (one reviewer for the first version of the review), extracted the data and assessed trial quality. Missing data were obtained from the authors or estimated. Results are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
This review has been updated in January 2006 and four new trials have been added. 2066 children and 614 adults are now included in 25 trials from emergency room and community settings. In addition, six trials on in-patients with acute asthma (213 children and 28 adults) have been reviewed. Method of delivery of beta2-agonist did not appear to affect hospital admission rates. In adults, the relative risk of admission for spacer versus nebuliser was 0.97 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.49). The relative risk for children was 0.65 (95% CI: 0.4 to 1.06). In children, length of stay in the emergency department was significantly shorter when the spacer was used, with a mean difference of -0.47 hours (95% CI: -0.58 to -0.37). Length of stay in the emergency department for adults was similar for the two delivery methods. Peak flow and forced expiratory volume were also similar for the two delivery methods. Pulse rate was lower for spacer in children, mean difference -7.6% baseline (95% CI: -9.9 to -5.3% baseline).
Metered-dose inhalers with spacer produced outcomes that were at least equivalent to nebuliser delivery. Spacers may have some advantages compared to nebulisers for children with acute asthma.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A wide range of outcome measures or endpoints has been used in clinical trials to assess the effects of treatments in paediatric respiratory diseases. This can make it difficult to compare treatment outcomes from different trials and also to understand whether new treatments offer a real clinical benefit for patients. Clinical trials in respiratory diseases evaluate three types of endpoints: subjective, objective and health-related outcomes. The ideal endpoint in a clinical trial needs to be accurate, precise and reliable. Ideally, the endpoint would also be measured with minimal risk and across all ages, easy to perform, and be inexpensive. As for any other disease, endpoints for respiratory diseases must be viewed in the context of the important distinction between clinical endpoints and surrogate endpoints. The association between surrogate endpoints and clinical endpoints must be clearly defined for any disease in order for them to be meaningful as outcome measures. The most common endpoints which are used in paediatric trials in respiratory diseases are discussed. For practical purposes, diseases have been separated into acute (bronchiolitis, acute viral-wheeze, acute asthma and croup) and chronic (asthma and cystic fibrosis). Further development of endpoints will enable clinical trials in children with respiratory diseases with the main objective of improving prognosis and safety. KeywordsEndpoints–Outcome measures–Respiratory
    European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 05/2010; 67:49-59. DOI:10.1007/s00228-010-0922-2 · 2.70 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To review the most relevant articles regarding the technical aspects of inhalation therapy, inhalers currently available, and especially major advances in inhalation therapy in pediatrics. Articles of MEDLINE database from 1983 were reviewed, in addition to book chapters, and the most important studies were selected according to the criteria established for this article. Conventional nebulizers have a number of inconveniences, and breath-enhanced and breath-actuated inhalers are more attractive options. Among dry powder inhalers, we highlight those using passive and active powder dispersion mechanisms, which provide higher rates of drug deposition in the lung. Among pressurized metered-dose inhalers, we highlight breath-actuated, breath-coordinated, and velocity-modifying inhalers. These inhalers should be used preferably together with spacers, since the use of spacers produces a twofold increase in pulmonary drug deposition. For children younger than 8 years, pressurized metered-dose inhalers with spacers are the most appropriate devices, since they provide a practical approach associated with greater lung deposition. In children older than 8 years who can generate high inspiratory flow rates, dry powder devices are best suited.
    Jornal de pediatria 86(5):367-76. DOI:10.2223/JPED.2024 · 0.94 Impact Factor
Show more