Abstract
Background International asthma guidelines recommend against adrenaline administration in acute asthma unless associated with anaphylaxis or angioedema. However, administration of intra-muscular adrenaline in addition to nebulised selective β2-agonist is recommended for acute severe or life-threatening asthma in many pre-hospital guidelines. We conducted a systematic review to determine the efficacy of adrenaline in comparison to selective β2-agonist in acute asthma.
Methods We included peer-reviewed publications of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled children or adults in any healthcare setting and compared adrenaline by any route to selective β2-agonist by any route for an acute asthma exacerbation. The primary outcome was treatment failure, as indicated by hospitalisation, stay >24hrs in emergency department, need for intubation, or death.
Results Thirty-eight of 1,140 studies were included, involving 2,275 participants. Overall quality of evidence was low. There was significant statistical heterogeneity, I2=56%. The pooled odds ratio for treatment failure with adrenaline versus selective β2-agonist was 0.99 (0.74 to 1.34), p=0.96. There was strong evidence that recruitment age-group was associated with different estimates of the risk of treatment failure; with studies recruiting adults-only having a lower risk of treatment failure with adrenaline. It was not possible to determine whether adrenaline in addition to selective β2-agonist improved outcomes.
Conclusion The limited evidence available suggests that adrenaline and selective β2-agonists have similar efficacy in acute asthma and does not support the use of adrenaline in addition to selective β2-agonists in acute asthma. There is a need for high-quality double-blind RCTs to address this issue.
PROSPERO registration number CRD42017079472
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017079472
Funding Statement
The Medical Research Institute of New Zealand is supported by Independent Research Organisation funding from the Health Research Council of New Zealand.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical review was not required by Health and Disability Ethics Committees (HDECs) of New Zealand regulations.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request
