Ipratropium

BackgroundDebate continues as to whether acute bronchodilator responsiveness (BDR) predicts long-term outcomes in COPD. Furthermore, there is no consensus on a threshold for BDR.MethodsAt baseline and during the 4-year Understanding Potential Long-term Improvements in Function with Tiotropium (UPLIFT®) trial, patients had spirometry performed before and after administration of ipratropium bromide 80 mcg and albuterol 400 mcg. Patients were split according to three BDR thresholds: ≥ 12% + ≥ 200 mL above baseline (criterion A), ≥ 15% above baseline (criterion B); and ≥ 10% absolute increase in percent predicted FEV1 values (criterion C). Several outcomes (pre-dose spirometry, exacerbations, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ] total score) were assessed according to presence or absence of BDR in the treatment groups.Results5783 of 5993 randomized patients had evaluable pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry at baseline. Mean age (SD) was 64 (8) years, with 75% men, mean post-bronchodilator FEV1 1.33 ± 0.44 L (47.6 ± 12.7% predicted) and 30% current smokers. At baseline, 52%, 66%, and 39% of patients had acute BDR using criterion A, B, and C, respectively. The presence of BDR was variable at follow-up visits. Statistically significant improvements in spirometry and health outcomes occurred with tiotropium regardless of the baseline BDR or criterion used.ConclusionsA large proportion of COPD patients demonstrate significant acute BDR. BDR in these patients is variable over time and differs according to the criterion used. BDR status at baseline does not predict long-term response to tiotropium. Assessment of acute BDR should not be used as a decision-making tool when prescribing tiotropium to patients with COPD.

BackgroundA combination of ipratropium bromide (IB) and salbutamol is commonly used to treat asthma in children and adolescents; however, there has been a lack of consistency in its usage in clinical practice.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of IB + salbutamol in the treatment of asthma in children and adolescents.MethodsThe MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library as well as other Chinese biomedical databases (including China Biological Medicine Database, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chongqing VIP, and Wanfang Chinese language bibliographic database) were systematically searched from the earliest record date to September 2020 for randomized controlled trials in children and adolescents (≤18 years) with asthma who received IB + salbutamol or salbutamol alone. The primary outcomes included hospital admission and adverse events. A random effects model with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used. Subgroup analysis was performed according to age, severity of asthma, and co-interventions with other asthma controllers. This study was registered with PROSPERO.ResultsOf the 1061 studies that were identified, 55 met the inclusion criteria and involved 6396 participants. IB + salbutamol significantly reduced the risk of hospital admission compared with salbutamol alone (risk ratio [RR] 0.79; 95% CI 0.66-0.95; p = 0.01; I2 = 40%). Subgroup analysis only showed significant difference in the risk of hospital admission in participants with severe asthma exacerbation (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.60-0.88; p = 0.0009; I2 = 4%) and moderate-to-severe exacerbation (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.50-0.96; p = 0.03; I2 = 3%). There were no significant differences in the risk of adverse events between IB + salbutamol group and salbutamol alone group (RR 1.77; 95% CI 0.63-4.98).ConclusionIB + salbutamol may be more effective than salbutamol alone for the treatment of asthma in children and adolescents, especially in those with severe and moderate to severe asthma exacerbation. The very low to high quality of evidence indicated that future well-designed double-blind RCTs with large sample are needed for research on evaluating the effectiveness of IB + salbutamol treatment for asthma in children and adolescents.

BackgroundAsthmatics treated with long-acting beta-agonists have a reduced bronchodilator response to moderate doses of inhaled short acting beta-agonists during acute bronchoconstriction. It is not known if the response to higher doses of nebulised beta-agonists or other bronchodilators is impaired. We assessed the effect of long-acting beta-agonist treatment on the response to 5 mg nebulised salbutamol and to ipratropium bromide.MethodsTwo double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover studies of inhaled formoterol 12 mug twice daily in patients with asthma.High-dose salbutamol: 36 hours after the last dose of 1 week of formoterol or placebo treatment, 11 subjects inhaled methacholine to produce a 20% fall in FEV1. Salbutamol 5 mg was then administered via nebuliser and the FEV1 was monitored for 20 minutes. Ipratropium: 36 hours after the last dose of 1 week of formoterol or placebo treatment, 11 subjects inhaled 4.5% saline to produce a 20% fall in FEV1. Salbutamol 200 mug or ipratropium bromide 40 mug was then inhaled and the FEV1 was monitored for 30 minutes. Four study arms compared the response to each bronchodilator after formoterol and placebo. Analyses compared the area under the bronchodilator response curves, adjusting for changes in pre-challenge FEV1, dose of provocational agent and FEV1 fall during the challenge procedure.ResultsThe response to nebulised salbutamol was 15% lower after formoterol therapy compared to placebo (95% confidence 5 to 25%, p = 0.008). The response to ipratropium was unchanged.ConclusionLong-acting beta-agonist treatment induces tolerance to the bronchodilator effect of beta-agonists, which is not overcome by higher dose nebulised salbutamol. However, the bronchodilator response to ipratropium bromide is unaffected.

Ipratropium bromide (IB), identified through an artificial intelligence (AI)-aided drug screening platform, was evaluated for its safety and efficacy in treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using a hamster model in this study. The mortality rates in the vehicle, remdesivir-treated, IB-treated, and IB-remdesivir combination treatment groups were 70%, 15%, 5%, and 50%, respectively. The IB-treated group showed significantly lower blood D-dimer levels and fibrin degradation product when compared to that in the vehicle group, indicating prevention of thrombosis-related complications. Histological examination also revealed reduced lung inflammation in the IB and combination groups, compared to that in the vehicle and remdesivir groups, with fewer neutrophils in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. Moreover, IB may prevent thrombosis-related complications caused by severe COVID-19.