Comparing the Efficacy of Two Valved Holding Chambers in Acute Wheezing

Overview

The incidence of physician confirmed asthma is approximately 4-7% in children. An additional 5% of children suffer from infection-related bronchiolitis and obstructive bronchitis. Of all patient visits at pediatric emergency rooms, 1 out of 10 is due to breathing difficulties with a great proportion leading to hospitalization. Salbutamol is the most commonly used drug in the treatment in acute bronchial obstruction. A vast majority of children require a spacer device (valved holding chamber, VHC) for the delivery of the drug aerosol. There are several different types of VHC on the market, but no recommendations on the device selection have been published. Both in in vivo and in vitro studies significant differences between different spacer devices have been reported. The study compares two different VHCs in the treatment of acute breathing difficulties in children. The end-points in this randomized physician-blinded study are symptom relief, rate of hospitalization, symptom recurrence, treatment compliance, and adverse events. The study will be conducted in pediatric emergency rooms (ER) in three university hospitals in Finland and one private clinic that routinely treat this type of patients. The treatment is given according to national treatment guidelines and no blood samples are drawn for study purposes. Both of the VHCs used in this study have been approved for use in clinical practice.

This study compares two valved holding chamber (VHC) devices in the treatment of acute airway obstruction in children. Eighty children (6 months to 4 years of age) will be recruited with moderate to severe dyspnea according to the Respiratory Distress Assessment Instrument (RDAI score ≥6). After receiving an informed consent from the parents/caregivers, the child is randomized to receive treatment with either Babyhaler® or Optichamber Diamond® VHC. Patients with underlying medical conditions listed in the study protocol, patients requiring immediate hospitalization or not willing to participate will be excluded from the study. Information on the medical history together with treatment response will be recorded using a manual case report form. According to calculations of the statistical power using the RDAI-score as an end-point, a total of 80 patients (40 patients in both study groups) are needed for the study. The study hypothesis is that the two VHCs are not equally efficient in treating acute shortage of breath in children aged 0.5-4 years.