Literature DB >> 24731521

The 3Mg trial: a randomised controlled trial of intravenous or nebulised magnesium sulphate versus placebo in adults with acute severe asthma.

Steve Goodacre1, Judith Cohen1, Mike Bradburn1, John Stevens1, Alasdair Gray2, Jonathan Benger3, Tim Coats4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Magnesium sulphate, administered by the intravenous (i.v.) or inhaled (nebulised) route, has been proposed as a treatment for adults with acute severe asthma. Existing trials show mixed results and uncertain evidence of benefit.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine whether i.v. or nebulised magnesium sulphate improves symptoms of breathlessness and reduces the need for hospital admission in adults with acute severe asthma.
DESIGN: Multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, three-arm, randomised trial.
SETTING: The emergency departments of 34 acute hospitals in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: We recruited 1109 adults (age >16 years) with acute severe asthma [peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) <50% of best/predicted, respiratory rate >25 breaths per minute, heart rate >110 beats per minute or inability to complete sentences in one breath]. Patients with life-threatening features or a contraindication to either nebulised or intravenous magnesium sulphate were excluded.
INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly allocated to i.v. magnesium sulphate (2 g over 20 minutes) or nebulised magnesium sulphate (3 × 500 mg over 1 hour) or standard therapy alone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients admitted to hospital (either after emergency department treatment or at any time over the subsequent 7 days) and breathlessness measured on a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) over 2 hours after initiation of treatment.
RESULTS: We randomised 406 patients to i.v. magnesium sulphate, 339 to nebulised magnesium sulphate and 364 to placebo. Hospital admission was recorded for 394, 332 and 358 patients, respectively, and VAS breathlessness for 357, 296 and 323 patients respectively. Mean age was 36.1 years and 763 out of 1084 (70%) patients were female. Intravenous magnesium sulphate was associated with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.73 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 1.04; p=0.083] for hospital admission, an improvement in VAS breathlessness that was 2.6 mm (95% CI -1.6 to 6.8 mm; p=0.231) greater than that associated with placebo and an improvement in PEFR that was 2.4 l/minute (95% CI -8.8 to 13.6 l/minute; p=0.680) greater than that associated with placebo. Nebulised magnesium sulphate was associated with an OR of 0.96 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.40; p=0.819) for hospital admission, an improvement in VAS breathlessness that was 2.6 mm (95% CI -1.8 mm to 7.0 mm; p=0.253) less than that associated with placebo and an improvement in PEFR that was 2.6 l/minute (95% CI -9.2 to 14.5 l/minute; p=0.644) less than that associated with placebo. There were no significant differences between i.v. or nebulised magnesium sulphate and placebo for any other outcomes. The number (%) of patients reporting any side effect was 61 (15.5%) in the i.v. group, 52 (15.7%) in the nebuliser group and 36 (10.1%) in the placebo group. The ORs for suffering any side effect were 1.68 (95% CI 1.07 to 2.63; p=0.025) for i.v. compared with placebo and 1.67 (95% CI 1.05 to 2.66; p=0.031) for nebuliser compared with placebo.
CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to demonstrate a clinically worthwhile benefit from magnesium sulphate in acute severe asthma. There was some weak evidence of an effect of i.v. magnesium sulphate on hospital admission, but no evidence of an effect on VAS breathlessness or PEFR compared with placebo. We found no evidence that nebulised magnesium sulphate was more effective than placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN04417063.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24731521      PMCID: PMC4781576          DOI: 10.3310/hta18220

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


  11 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.  Enhancing the management of acute asthma in children: do we have the evidence?

Authors:  Joseph L Mathew
Journal:  Indian J Pediatr       Date:  2015-01-20       Impact factor: 1.967

3.  Efficacy of Magnesium Sulfate Treatment in Children with Acute Asthma.

Authors:  Ali Özdemir; Dilek Doğruel
Journal:  Med Princ Pract       Date:  2020-02-19       Impact factor: 1.927

4.  Comparison of Two High-Dose Magnesium Infusion Regimens in the Treatment of Status Asthmaticus.

Authors:  Danish Vaiyani; Jose E Irazuzta
Journal:  J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2016 May-Jun

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

Review 6.  The Importance of Magnesium in Clinical Healthcare.

Authors:  Gerry K Schwalfenberg; Stephen J Genuis
Journal:  Scientifica (Cairo)       Date:  2017-09-28

Review 7.  Acute Severe Asthma in Adolescent and Adult Patients: Current Perspectives on Assessment and Management.

Authors:  Eirini Kostakou; Evangelos Kaniaris; Effrosyni Filiou; Ioannis Vasileiadis; Paraskevi Katsaounou; Eleni Tzortzaki; Nikolaos Koulouris; Antonia Koutsoukou; Nikoletta Rovina
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2019-08-22       Impact factor: 4.241

8.  A structured telephone-delivered intervention to reduce problem alcohol use (Ready2Change): study protocol for a parallel group randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Dan I Lubman; Jasmin Grigg; Victoria Manning; Kate Hall; Isabelle Volpe; Stephanie Dias; Amanda Baker; Petra K Staiger; John Reynolds; Anthony Harris; Jonathan Tyler; David Best
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2019-08-19       Impact factor: 2.279

9.  Sample size estimation for randomised controlled trials with repeated assessment of patient-reported outcomes: what correlation between baseline and follow-up outcomes should we assume?

Authors:  Stephen J Walters; Richard M Jacques; Inês Bonacho Dos Anjos Henriques-Cadby; Jane Candlish; Nikki Totton; Mica Teo Shu Xian
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2019-09-13       Impact factor: 2.279

10.  Development and validation of a score to identify in the Emergency Department patients who may benefit from a time-critical intervention: a cohort study.

Authors:  Kirsty Challen; Mike Bradburn; Steve W Goodacre
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2015-09-17       Impact factor: 2.953

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.