Literature DB >> 24144222

MAGNEsium Trial In Children (MAGNETIC): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial and economic evaluation of nebulised magnesium sulphate in acute severe asthma in children.

C V E Powell1, R Kolamunnage-Dona, J Lowe, A Boland, S Petrou, I Doull, K Hood, P R Williamson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There are few data on the role of nebulised magnesium sulphate (MgSO4) in the management of acute asthma in children. Those studies that have been published are underpowered, and use different methods, interventions and comparisons. Thus, no firm conclusions can be drawn.
OBJECTIVES: Does the use of nebulised MgSO4, when given as an adjunct to standard therapy in acute severe asthma in children, result in a clinical improvement when compared with standard treatment alone?
DESIGN: Patients were randomised to receive three doses of MgSO4 or placebo, each combined with salbutamol and ipratropium bromide, for 1 hour. The Yung Asthma Severity Score (ASS) was measured at baseline, randomisation, and at 20, 40, 60 (T60), 120, 180 and 240 minutes after randomisation.
SETTING: Emergency departments and children's assessment units at 30 hospitals in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged 2-15 years with acute severe asthma.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised to receive nebulised salbutamol 2.5 mg (ages 2-5 years) or 5 mg (ages ≥ 6 years) and ipratropium bromide 0.25 mg mixed with either 2.5 ml of isotonic MgSO4 (250 mmol/l, tonicity 289 mOsm; 151 mg per dose) or 2.5 ml of isotonic saline on three occasions at approximately 20-minute intervals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the ASS after 1 hour of treatment. Secondary measures included 'stepping down' of treatment at 1 hour, number and frequency of additional salbutamol administrations, length of stay in hospital, requirement for intravenous bronchodilator treatment, and intubation and/or admission to a paediatric intensive care unit. Data on paediatric quality of life, time off school/nursery, health-care resource usage and time off work were collected 1 month after randomisation.
RESULTS: A total of 508 children were recruited into the study; 252 received MgSO4 and 256 received placebo along with the standard treatment. There were no differences in baseline characteristics. There was a small, but statistically significant difference in ASS at T60 in those children who received nebulised MgSO4 {0.25 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 0.48]; p = 0.034} and this difference was sustained for up to 240 minutes [0.20 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.40), p = 0.042]. The clinical significance of this gain is uncertain. Assessing treatment-covariate interactions, there is evidence of a larger effect in those children with more severe asthma exacerbations ( p = 0.034) and those with a shorter duration of symptoms ( p = 0.049). There were no significant differences in the secondary outcomes measured. Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 19% of children in the magnesium group and 20% in the placebo group. There were no clinically significant serious AEs in either group. The results of the base-case economic analyses are accompanied by considerable uncertainty, but suggest that, from an NHS and Personal Social Services perspective, the addition of magnesium to standard treatment may be cost-effective compared with standard treatment only. The results of economic evaluation show that the probability of magnesium being cost-effective is over 60% at cost-effectiveness thresholds of £1000 per unit decrement in ASS and £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, respectively; it is noted that for some parameter variations this probability is much lower, reflecting the labile nature of the cost-effectiveness ratio in light of the small differences in benefits and costs shown in the trial and the relation between the main outcome measure (ASS) and preference based measures of quality of life used in cost-utility analysis (European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions; EQ-5D).
CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the use of nebulised isotonic MgSO4 at the dose of 151 mg given three times in the first hour of treatment as an adjuvant to standard treatment when a child presents with an acute episode of severe asthma. No harm is done by adding magnesium to salbutamol and ipratropium bromide, and in some individuals it may be clinically helpful. The response is likely to be more marked in those children with more severe attacks and with a shorter duration of exacerbation. Although the study was not powered to demonstrate this fully, the data certainly support the hypotheses that nebulised magnesium has a greater clinical effect in children who have more severe exacerbation with shorter duration of symptoms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN81456894. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24144222      PMCID: PMC4781380          DOI: 10.3310/hta17450

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Technol Assess        ISSN: 1366-5278            Impact factor:   4.014


  20 in total

Review 1.  Inhaled magnesium sulfate in the treatment of acute asthma.

Authors:  Rachel Knightly; Stephen J Milan; Rodney Hughes; Jennifer A Knopp-Sihota; Brian H Rowe; Rebecca Normansell; Colin Powell
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-11-28

2.  The Saudi Initiative for Asthma - 2019 Update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children.

Authors:  Mohamed S Al-Moamary; Sami A Alhaider; Abdullah A Alangari; Mohammed O Al Ghobain; Mohammed O Zeitouni; Majdy M Idrees; Abdullah F Alanazi; Adel S Al-Harbi; Abdullah A Yousef; Hassan S Alorainy; Mohamed S Al-Hajjaj
Journal:  Ann Thorac Med       Date:  2019 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.219

Review 3.  Integrative Medicine for Respiratory Conditions: Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Authors:  Gloria Y Yeh; Randy Horwitz
Journal:  Med Clin North Am       Date:  2017-06-21       Impact factor: 5.456

4.  Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacological Treatments for Asthma: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Carlos E Rodriguez-Martinez; Monica P Sossa-Briceño; Jose A Castro-Rodriguez
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 5.  Methodological Issues Surrounding the Use of Baseline Health-Related Quality of Life Data to Inform Trial-Based Economic Evaluations of Interventions Within Emergency and Critical Care Settings: A Systematic Literature Review.

Authors:  Melina Dritsaki; Felix Achana; James Mason; Stavros Petrou
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Measuring Health Utilities in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Dominic Thorrington; Ken Eames
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-08-14       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 7.  Joint models for longitudinal and time-to-event data: a review of reporting quality with a view to meta-analysis.

Authors:  Maria Sudell; Ruwanthi Kolamunnage-Dona; Catrin Tudur-Smith
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2016-12-05       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 8.  Health-Related Resource-Use Measurement Instruments for Intersectoral Costs and Benefits in the Education and Criminal Justice Sectors.

Authors:  Susanne Mayer; Aggie T G Paulus; Agata Łaszewska; Judit Simon; Ruben M W A Drost; Dirk Ruwaard; Silvia M A A Evers
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Modelling variable dropout in randomised controlled trials with longitudinal outcomes: application to the MAGNETIC study.

Authors:  Ruwanthi Kolamunnage-Dona; Colin Powell; Paula Ruth Williamson
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2016-04-28       Impact factor: 2.279

10.  The Saudi Initiative for Asthma - 2016 update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children.

Authors:  Mohamed S Al-Moamary; Sami A Alhaider; Majdy M Idrees; Mohammed O Al Ghobain; Mohammed O Zeitouni; Adel S Al-Harbi; Abdullah A Yousef; Hussain Al-Matar; Hassan S Alorainy; Mohamed S Al-Hajjaj
Journal:  Ann Thorac Med       Date:  2016 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.219

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.