Mg so4 in asthma

DOI 10.1378/chest.128.1.337
2005;128;337-344Chest
Beasley, Jennifer Knopp and Brian H. Rowe
Maurice Blitz, Sandra Blitz, Rodney Hughes, Barry Diner, Richard
: A Systematic Review*Asthma
Aerosolized Magnesium Sulfate for Acute
http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/128/1/337.full.html
services can be found online on the World Wide Web at:
The online version of this article, along with updated information and
ISSN:0012-3692
)http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/site/misc/reprints.xhtml(
written permission of the copyright holder.
this article or PDF may be reproduced or distributed without the prior
Dundee Road, Northbrook, IL 60062. All rights reserved. No part of
Copyright2005by the American College of Chest Physicians, 3300
Physicians. It has been published monthly since 1935.
is the official journal of the American College of ChestChest
© 2005 American College of Chest Physicians
by guest on March 12, 2012chestjournal.chestpubs.orgDownloaded from

Aerosolized Magnesium Sulfate for
Acute Asthma*
A Systematic Review
Maurice Blitz, MD; Sandra Blitz, MSc; Rodney Hughes, MBChB;
Barry Diner, MD; Richard Beasley, MD; Jennifer Knopp, BScN, MN; and
Brian H. Rowe, MD, MSc, FCCP
Background: The use of MgSO4 is one of numerous treatment options available during exacer-
bations of asthma. While the efficacy of therapy with IV MgSO4 has been demonstrated, little is
known about inhaled MgSO4.
Objectives: A systematic review of the literature was performed to examine the effect of inhaled
MgSO4 in the treatment of patients with asthma exacerbations in the emergency department.
Methods: Randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion and were identified from the
Cochrane Airways Group “Asthma and Wheez*” register, which consists of a combined search of
the EMBASE, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and CINAHL databases and the manual searching of 20
key respiratory journals. Reference lists of published studies were searched, and a review of the
gray literature was also performed. Studies were included if patients had been treated with
nebulized MgSO4 alone or in combination with ␤2-agonists and were compared to the use of
␤2-agonists alone or with an inactive control substance. Trial selection, data extraction, and
methodological quality were assessed by two independent reviewers. The results from fixed-
effects models are presented as standardized mean differences (SMDs) for pulmonary functions
and the relative risks (RRs) for hospital admission. Both are displayed with their 95% confidence
intervals (CIs).
Results: Six trials involving 296 patients were included. There was a significant difference in
pulmonary function between patients whose treatments included nebulized MgSO4 and those
whose did not (SMD, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.55; five studies). There was a trend toward a reduced
number of hospitalizations in patients whose treatments included nebulized MgSO4 (RR, 0.67;
95% CI, 0.41 to 1.09; four studies). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that lung function
improvement was similar in adult patients and in those patients who received nebulized MgSO4
in addition to a ␤2-agonist.
Conclusions: The use of nebulized MgSO4, particularly in addition to a ␤2-agonist, in the
treatment of an acute asthma exacerbation appears to produce benefits with respect to improved
pulmonary function and may reduce the number of hospital admissions.
(CHEST 2005; 128:337–344)
Key words: asthma; magnesium sulfate; systematic review
Abbreviations: CI ϭ confidence interval; ED ϭ emergency department; PEF ϭ peak expiratory flow; RCT ϭ randomized
controlled trial; RR ϭ relative risk; SMD ϭ standardized mean difference
Asthma is a chronic respiratory disease that is
characterized by periods of relative control and
episodes of deterioration, which are referred to as
exacerbations. Exacerbations range in severity from
mild to severe (status asthmaticus), and can result in
visits to health-care providers and emergency de-
partments (EDs), and may at times require hospital-
ization. While rare, intubations, admissions to the
ICU, and deaths from severe acute asthma still
occur. In most people, even though the serious
consequences are avoided, the prevention and treat-
ment of asthma exacerbations are an important
consideration of their disease. Due to this impact on
lifestyle, the costs to the patient and the health-care
reviews
www.chestjournal.org CHEST / 128 / 1 / JULY, 2005 337

system, and the potential for adverse outcomes,
asthma is responsible for a significant personal and
social burden.
Acute episodes of bronchoconstriction caused by
airway inflammation are a hallmark of the exacerba-
tion. These episodes generally result in increased
requirements for inhaled ␤2-agonist therapy. Unfor-
tunately, in acute asthmatic episodes, this is often not
enough to relieve the bronchospasm and reduce
inflammation. The shortcomings of ␤2-agonist ther-
apy have resulted in the use of a variety of other
treatments in the management of acute asthma. For
example, evidence has suggested that systemic cor-
ticosteroids,1 anticholinergic agents,2 delivery of ␤2-
agonist via metered-dose inhalers with holding
chambers,3 and inhaled corticosteroids4 are effective
in the short-term treatment of the disease. Other
therapies, such as IV methylxanthine agents, are less
effective and possibly harmful, so they are no longer
recommended.5,6 In adults, evidence supporting the
use of IV ␤2-agonists is limited, so these agents are
reserved for selected patients (eg, intubated patients
and those with severe disease).7 Finally, there are
insufficient data to assess the effectiveness of antibi-
otic treatment in patients with acute asthma.8
MgSO4 is an agent that has been proposed9 as a
possible additive treatment in patients with acute
asthma and has been shown to be effective in
patients with severe acute asthma when delivered
parenterally. Magnesium may be effective in acute
asthma through one or more of a variety of mecha-
nisms. Magnesium has been shown to relax the
smooth muscle and may be involved with the inhi-
bition of smooth muscle contraction. This theory has
been proposed as an explanation for the effects of
MgSO4 in patients with acute asthma; however, this
explanation may be too simplistic. Magnesium is also
involved with cellular homeostasis through its role as
an enzymatic cofactor, as well as being involved in
acetylcholine and histamine release, from cholin-
ergic nerve terminals and mast cells, respectively.
Investigators have proposed10 that the effect of
MgSO4 is related to its ability to block the calcium
ion influx to the smooth muscles of the respiratory
system. Finally, the role of MgSO4 as an antiinflam-
matory has been identified in adults with asthma.11
The potential clinical benefits of inhaled MgSO4
have been studied and research publications have
produced conflicting results. Consequently, this
agent is not currently recommended as part of the
current guidelines and has not been used widely in
most acute settings. Until now, there has been no
attempt made to examine this effect in a systematic
fashion. The few times that inhaled magnesium has
been mentioned, it has been as a minor part of larger
reviews.12 This systematic review is designed to
examine this question and to provide summary esti-
mates of the effect of aerosolized MgSO4 in the
treatment of acute asthma.
Materials and Methods
Criteria for Inclusion
Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs), or quasi-RCTs,
were considered for inclusion. Studies had to have restricted
enrollment to patients with acute asthma treated in the ED (ie,
studies of patients with chronic or “stable” asthma were excluded)
with asthma defined using several accepted clinical and guideline
based criteria (eg, those of the British Thoracic Society,13 the
National Asthma Education and Prevention Program,14 and the
Canadian Thoracic Society15). There was no age restriction for
patients included in the studies, and where possible the data were
categorized into groups of patients 2 to 16 years old (the pediatric
group) and Ͼ 16 years old (the adult group). Randomized
interventions had to compare aerosolized MgSO4 to a control
treatment. That is, studies comparing the efficacy of therapy with
aerosolized MgSO4 and a ␤2-agonist vs a ␤2-agonist alone, or
therapy with aerosolized MgSO4 vs a ␤2-agonist were included.
Cointerventions were permitted, and information pertaining to
cointerventions received was recorded. The primary outcome
was defined as a change in pulmonary function testing results
from baseline. Secondary outcomes considered the proportion of
patients requiring hospital admission, clinical severity scores,
duration of symptoms, vital signs, and side effects.
Search Strategies
The “Asthma and Wheez* RCT” register of the Cochrane
Airways Review Group was searched for the following terms:
magnesium OR MgSO4 OR Mg OR MS OR magnesium sulfate
or magnesium sulfate. This registry is compiled through a
comprehensive search of the EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CI-
NAHL databases, which was supplemented by the manual
searching of 20 key respiratory journals. The results of this search
were screened to omit studies that clearly involved only IV or
*From the Division of General Surgery (Dr. M. Blitz) and
Departments of Emergency Medicine (Ms. S. Blitz and Dr.
Rowe) and Family Medicine (Ms. Knopp), Faculty of Medicine
and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada; the
Medical Research Institute of New Zealand (Drs. Hughes and
Beasely), Wellington, NZ; and the Department of Emergency
Medicine (Dr. Diner), Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
Presented in part at the Canadian Association of Emergency
Physicians (CAEP) Annual Meeting, Winnipeg, MN, Canada,
June 14–17, 2003.
Dr. Blitz was funded by the Alberta Cancer Board (Edmonton,
AB, Canada). Dr. Rowe is funded by the Canadian Institute of
Health Research Chairs program (Ottawa, ON, Canada). Drs.
Hughes and Beasley were involved as Primary and Co-investiga-
tor on one of the trials19 included in this review. None of the
other reviewers has any known conflict of interest.
Manuscript received July 13, 2004; revision accepted December
1, 2004.
Reproduction of this article is prohibited without written permission
from the American College of Chest Physicians (www.chestjournal.
org/misc/reprints.shtml).
Correspondence to: Brian H, Rowe, MD, MSc, FCCP, Depart-
ment of Emergency Medicine, 1G1.43 WMC, 8440–112 Street,
Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 2B7; e-mail: brian.rowe@
ualberta.ca
338 Reviews

parenteral administration of magnesium. In addition, the refer-
ence lists of trials identified through the registry were examined,
and supplemental searches of the Cochrane Clinical Trials
Registry, Web of Science, Dissertation Abstracts, and the World
Wide Web using the Google search engine were performed.
Primary authors were contacted for information on additional
trials (both published and unpublished). Clinicians, colleagues,
collaborators, and trialists were contacted to identify potentially
relevant studies. Since this agent is not currently commercially
delivered, no industry sponsor was contacted.
Study Selection
The selection of studies involved two steps. First, to retrieve
studies, the initial search of all databases and reference lists was
screened by title, abstract, MeSH headings, and keywords by two
independent investigators (M.B. and B.D.) to identify all citations
that were RCTs or possible RCTs with potential relevance. The
full text of the manuscripts of those selected articles was obtained
for formal inclusion review. Second, another reviewer (B.R.)
independently decided on trial inclusion using predetermined
eligibility criteria (see above).
Quality Assessment
Assessments of quality were completed independently by two
reviewers. First, using the Cochrane Database approach to the
assessment of allocation concealment,16 all trials were scored
using the following scale: grade A, adequate concealment; grade
B, uncertain; and grade C, clearly inadequate concealment.
Second, each study was also evaluated using the previously
validated Jadad 5-point scale to assess randomization, double
blinding, and study withdrawals and dropouts.17 Finally, whether
the study used intention-to-treat analysis was recorded along with
any sources of funding.
Data Extraction
Data were extracted independently by two reviewers (M.B.
and B.D.) using a standardized collection form. When available,
characteristics of the study (ie, design, methods of randomiza-
tions, and withdrawals/dropouts), of participants (ie, age and
gender), of interventions (ie, type, dose, route of administration,
timing and duration of therapy, and cointerventions), of control
substances (ie, agent and dose), of outcomes (ie, types of outcome
measures, timing of outcomes, and adverse events), and of results
were recorded. Unpublished data were requested from the
primary authors when necessary.
Statistical Analysis
All data were entered into a database (RevMan, version 4.2.2;
Cochrane Collaboration; Oxford UK) by a single reviewer (S.B.).
For dichotomous variables, both individual and pooled statistics
were expressed as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence
intervals (CIs). For continuous data, individual data were re-
ported as the standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95%
CIs. Results were calculated using both fixed-effects and ran-
dom-effects models. The Breslow-Day test was used to test for
heterogeneity with significance set at Ͻ 0.10. Possible sources of
heterogeneity were assessed by subgroup and sensitivity analyses.
Subgroup and Sensitivity Analyses
Two subgroup analyses were planned a priori to examine the
effect of age (ie, pediatric or adult) and severity of asthma, as
measured by pre-drug administration spirometric deviation from
percent predicted values (baseline FEV1 or peak expiratory flow
[PEF] Ͻ 50% predicted). Sensitivity analyses were planned to
assess the effect of the methodological quality of included trials
and intention-to-treat status.
Results
Search Results
The initial search, which was completed in January
2004, yielded 145 references that were at least
potentially relevant controlled trials. Two additional
RCTs were identified from a bibliographic search of
relevant studies. The author for one study that was
originally identified as an abstract was contacted, and
the conditionally accepted article was provided to
the reviewers for data extraction. Six trials, which
included 296 patients, were incorporated into the
review (Table 1).
Description of Studies
All of the studies included in this review had been
published since 1995. The research in the included
studies was based in the United States, India, New
Zealand, Turkey, and Argentina. Three of the six
included studies18–20 involved adults exclusively, and
one study21 included adults and pediatric patients.
The remaining two studies22,23 had enrolled pediatric
patients. The severity of disease varied among the
studies. Two studies19,21 had specific lung function
criteria, while the other four studies18,20,22,23 had
enrolled patients who had previously received a
Table 1—Characteristics of Studies
Study/Year Country Intervention
Pulmonary Function
Outcome
Time, min
From
baseline
Subgroup Definition
Sensitivity
Analysis,
JADAD ScoreAge
Asthma
Severity
Bessmertny et al18/2002 United States MgSO4 ϩ ␤2-agonist FEV1 % predicted 60 Adult Moderate 3
Hughes et al19/2003 New Zealand MgSO4 ϩ ␤2-agonist FEV1 60 Adult Severe 5
Mahajan et al22/2004 United States MgSO4 ϩ ␤2-agonist FEV1 % predicted 20 Pediatric Moderate 3
Mangat et al21/1998 India MgSO4 PEF % predicted 60 Both Severe 3
Meral et al23/1996 Turkey MgSO4 Ratio increase in PEF 60 Pediatric Moderate 1
Nannini et al20/2000 Argentina MgSO4 ϩ ␤2-agonist PEF 20 Adult Severe 3

diagnosis of asthma using accepted clinical stan-
dards. Based on the baseline demographic data
and/or enrollment criteria, three studies19–21 had
enrolled patients with severe asthma (ie, FEV1 or
PEF Ͻ 50% predicted at baseline).
Five studies enrolled patients presenting to the
ED. Meral et al23 described only patients who had
been randomized during “asthma attacks.” We as-
sumed that these patients were seen in an acute care
setting. Two studies21,23 excluded patients who had
received asthma medication within the previous
12 h. A third study20 excluded patients who had
received oral or parenteral corticosteroids in the
previous 7 days. Another study22 excluded patients
who had received steroids, theophylline, or ipratro-
pium bromide within 3 days of presenting to the ED.
In three studies,19,21,22 parenteral steroids were ad-
ministered to all patients, although the timing (ie,
before or after nebulized treatment) varied. In one
study,18 parenteral steroids were administered if
there had been no improvement after the patient
received three doses of the study treatment. Two
studies20,23
did not report information on the use of
parenteral steroids. All studies used a nebulized
␤2-agonist (with or without normal saline solution) as
the control treatment, but the total dose varied
depending on the number of nebulizations (Table 2).
When the information was available, most included
studies used MgSO4 of a similar concentration, but
the dose per nebulization and the number of nebu-
lizations varied. All but two studies21,23 described the
MgSO4 solution as either isotonic or isosmolar with
pleural fluid.
The magnesium was uniformly delivered via a
nebulizer rather than a metered-dose inhaler. All
studies used a control substance that was similar in
appearance to the treatment drug and was most
often described as saline solution. One study19 col-
lected data on patients’ ability to distinguish between
the treatment and control substances, and noted no
ability to discern this difference. Even when not
expressly stated, it can reasonably be assumed that
the control substance (ie, placebo) would be similar
in appearance to the treatment drug (especially if
administered in a ␤2-agonist vehicle).
Comparisons
Four studies18–20,22 compared therapy with a ␤2-
agonist with MgSO4 to therapy with a ␤2-agonist
with a placebo (normal saline solution), while two
studies21,23 compared therapy with MgSO4 to that
with a ␤2-agonist. Due to the heterogeneity of
interventions, a post hoc subgroup analysis based on
intervention (therapy with a ␤2-agonist with MgSO4
or therapy with MgSO4 alone) was conducted.
Table2—CharacteristicsofInterventions*
Study/YearInitiation†DoseofMgSO4
Deliveryof
MgSO4
Duration,min
ofTreatment
Cointerventions‡
SCS(IV/po)␤2-AgonistDose
Anticholinergic
DoseOthers
Bessmertny
etal18/2002
Notreported1,152mg(384mgevery
20minϫ3)
Nebulized60min2mg/kgIVevery6hin
patientswhodidnot
showimprovement
7.5mg(2.5mgevery
20minϫ3)
NonereportedNonereported
Hugheset
al19/2003
30min453mg(151mgevery
30minϫ3)
Nebulized60min100mgIV7.5mg(2.5mgevery
30minϫ3)
NonereportedAllpatientsreceived2.5mg
of␤2-agonistatregistration
Mahajanet
al22/2004
Notreported2.5mL3.18%solution
(ϫ1)
NebulizedNotreported2mg/kgIV2.5mgNonereportedNonereported
Mangatet
al21/1998
Notreported380mg(95mgevery20
minϫ4)
Nebulized80min100mgIV10mg(2.5mgevery
20minϫ4)
NonereportedSupplementaltreatmentas
warranted
Meraletal23/
1996
Notreported135mg(ϫ1)Nebulized10–15minNonereported2.5mgNonereportedNonereported
Nanniniet
al20/2000
Notreported225mg(ϫ1)NebulizedNotreportedNonereported2.5mgNonereported2.5mgof␤2-agonistif
conditionworsened
*SCSϭsystemiccorticosteroids.
†TimefromarrivalinED.
‡Inthefirst2h.
340 Reviews

Outcomes
All studies report results from pulmonary function
tests as an outcome. However, one study23 reported
lung function outcome data as a relative change from
baseline. As it was not appropriate to combine these
data with the other studies (which are not reporting
lung function results as a change from baseline), data
from this study are not currently included in the
pooled analysis. Attempts to secure the end-of study
data have failed so far.
Most studies did not report a change in pulmonary
function, and the pooled results from all studies
failed to identify a difference in baseline pulmonary
function between the treatment and control groups.
There was variation in the specific pulmonary func-
tion measure reported (ie, the percentage predicted
PEF or FEV1 and the raw PEF or FEV1) as well as
the time after treatment when pulmonary functions
were recorded. Two studies20,22
reported pulmonary
function measures only up to 20 min after treatment.
For these reasons, the results are reported using
fixed effects, with the SMD in pulmonary function
measured at or before 60 min after treatment. Based
on the studies18,19,21,23
that measured pulmonary
function for longer durations, we noted that the
largest change in pulmonary function appeared to be
early after treatment. Consequently, we were satis-
fied with grouping the 20-min and 60-min pulmo-
nary function test results as the outcome of interest.
Four studies19–22 also reported admission to the
hospital as an outcome. All studies mentioned seri-
ous adverse events; however, details on mild-to-
moderate adverse events were sparse. None of the
studies reported a specific clinical severity score or
duration of symptoms. Most studies reported vital
signs at baseline but not at follow-up. These out-
comes were not investigated in the systematic re-
view.
Quality
Overall, the methodological quality of the in-
cluded studies was uniformly high. All studies were
randomized and placebo-controlled. Only one inves-
tigator did not explicitly state that the study was
double-blinded. All included studies used intention-
to-treat analyses; therefore, the planned sensitivity
analysis to determine the effect of intention-to-treat
status was not required. One study19
scored 5 on the
Jadad scale, and rated an A on concealment of
allocation. The other investigators did not specify
their methods for randomization or double-blinding.
Due to the lack of information provided, all but one
study rated a B in the concealment of allocation.
Pulmonary Function Effects
Therapy with MgSO4, with or without a ␤2-
agonist, was superior to therapy with a ␤2-agonist
alone (SMD, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.55; p ϭ 0.02)
with no between-study heterogeneity identified (Fig
1). Notably, the effect was similar in a comparison of
therapy with a ␤2-agonist and MgSO4 compared to
that with a ␤2-agonist and normal saline solution
(SMD, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.63; p ϭ 0.006).
However, there was no evidence of an advantage for
therapy with MgSO4 alone compared to therapy with
a ␤2-agonist alone (SMD, Ϫ 0.17; 95% CI, Ϫ 0.85 to
0.52; p ϭ 0.63 [one study]).
In subgroup analyses, the advantage of any use of
MgSO4 with or without a ␤2-agonist over the use of
a ␤2-agonist alone was demonstrated in adults
(SMD, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.69; p ϭ 0.02) but not
in children (SMD, 0.36; 95% CI, Ϫ 0.14 to 0.86;
p ϭ 0.16 [one study]). The treatment effect was
similar in patients with severe asthma at presentation
where the SMD in this group was 0.31 (95% CI,
Ϫ 0.05 to 0.68; p ϭ 0.09; heterogeneity, p ϭ 0.26;
heterogeneity statistic, 25.9%), and in patients with
mild-to-moderate asthma at presentation it was 0.29
(95% CI, Ϫ 0.05 to 0.63, p ϭ 0.10, heterogeneity,
p ϭ 0.71; heterogeneity statistic, 0%). The results
were similar when random-effects methods were
employed.
Admissions
Of the four studies19–22
that reported hospital
admission status, therapy with nebulized MgSO4
(alone or in combination with a ␤2-agonist) failed to
demonstrate a clear reduction in the probability of
hospital admission compared to therapy with a ␤2-
agonist alone (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.41 to 1.09;
p ϭ 0.11) using a fixed-effects model (Fig 2). In
subgroup analyses, the results were similar for the
comparison of therapy with MgSO4 in combination
with a ␤2-agonist to therapy with a ␤2-agonist with
normal saline solution (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.42 to
1.12; p ϭ 0.13), but were not similar for therapy with
nebulized MgSO4 alone compared to therapy with a
␤2-agonist alone (RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.05 to 5.31;
p ϭ 0.59 [one study]). In addition, this result was
statistically significant in the adult severe-asthma
population (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.37 to 1.00;
p ϭ 0.05), but not in the pediatric moderate-asthma
population (RR, 2.0; 95% CI 0.19 to 20.93; p ϭ 0.56
[one study]).
Adverse Effects
No studies reported serious adverse events in
either arm, and reporting varied for other adverse

Figure1.EffectofaerosolizedMgSO4onposttreatmentlungfunction.dfϭdegreesoffreedom.
Figure2.EffectofaerosolizedMgSO4onhospitaladmissions.SeethelegendofFigure1forabbreviationnotusedinthetext.
342 Reviews

effects that may have been related to treatment. Due
to this heterogeneity, a treatment effect was not
estimated. When it was reported, the rate of adverse
effects was low.
Discussion
This systematic review attempted to synthesize the
best available evidence for the use of inhaled MgSO4
in the treatment of patients with acute asthma. From
six RCTs involving nearly 300 patients, the results of
this review provide somewhat weak and conflicting
conclusions. First, based on the available data, it
appears that therapy with nebulized isotonic MgSO4
with or without a ␤2-agonist can be safely adminis-
tered at a variety of doses to patients with acute
moderate-to-severe asthma. Since it is readily avail-
able and inexpensive, its role in acute asthma de-
serves more scrutiny. Used alone, it appears to be of
little advantage compared to therapy with more
familiar ␤2-agonists in improving pulmonary func-
tion and reducing hospital admissions. The evidence
for therapy with MgSO4 administered in combina-
tion with ␤2-agonists is more convincing than that for
MgSO4 therapy alone. In this review, therapy with
MgSO4, when combined with ␤2-agonists (usually
salbutamol), improved pulmonary function but did
not reduce the number of hospital admissions. Evi-
dence2 has suggested that adding ipratropium bro-
mide to ␤2-agonist therapy is effective in improving
pulmonary function and in reducing the number of
hospital admissions in the acute setting, especially in
severe cases of acute asthma. Most of the included
studies in our review did not routinely employ this
strategy, and the additive benefit of MgSO4 in the
face of combination therapy with ipratropium bro-
mide and ␤2-agonists remains unclear.
These results are similar to those from the IV
magnesium review.9 From four trials involving 133
patients, therapy with IV MgSO4 improved pulmo-
nary function in patients with severe disease and
reduced the number of hospital admissions. Given
these findings, it is perhaps surprising that the
present review did not demonstrate a benefit in
patients with severe asthma; however, the number of
trials and the total number of patients was lower for
this subset of patients in this review, and this con-
clusion may be the result of a type II error. The data
suggest that if a type II error had occurred, the
benefit among patients with severe asthma at pre-
sentation would be similar to that of patients with
less severe disease.
The results from a recent survey24 of 103 North
American EDs indicated that while 92% had access
to IV MgSO4 for the treatment of acute asthma, only
4% had access to inhaled or nebulized MgSO4.
Moreover, the authors reported that only 2.5% of
patients received IV MgSO4 in a sample of nearly
3,000 patients seen across a network of North Amer-
ican EDs. The survey was conducted prior to the
publication of the results of one half of the studies
included in this review. We can only speculate that
there may currently be more access to and use of
inhaled MgSO4 in patients with acute asthma; how-
ever, it is highly unlikely that it has reached the same
level of use as the IV compound, which may be
appropriate given the state of the evidence.
There are several possible limitations to the study.
First, there is a possibility of study selection bias.
However, we employed two independent reviewers
and feel confident that the reasons for the exclusion
of studies were consistent and appropriate. Our
search was comprehensive and has been updated, so
it is unlikely that there are any published trials that
were missed.
In addition, publication bias may have influenced
the result of this metaanalysis. For example, by
missing unpublished negative trials we may be over-
estimating the effect of magnesium treatment. How-
ever, in order to reduce bias, a comprehensive and
systematic search of the published and unpublished
literature for potentially relevant studies was con-
ducted. This was followed by attempts to contact
corresponding and first authors. One unpublished
trial was identified, and several negative trials were
uncovered; however, we recognize that more of
these types of trials may exist. Finally, due to the
emergence of inhaled MgSO4 treatment, there are
possibly more small trials that have been conducted
that, for one reason or another, remain unknown to
us and unpublished. Without a central trial registry,
we may never find these results, and in a review of
this nature, made up of smaller studies, these small
studies may make an important difference in our
conclusions.
Finally, the investigations in this field are limited
by the heterogeneity of both treatments and out-
come measures. Unfortunately, despite adequate
evidence for the use of standardized approaches to
therapy for acute asthma, such as systemic cortico-
steroids,1 anticholinergic agents,2,25 IV MgSO4,9 and
repeated ␤2-agonist use,3 the control groups in the
included studies were surprisingly heterogeneous. A
trial in which systemic corticosteroids, ␤2-agonists,
and anticholinergic agents are administered to both
groups, and inhaled MgSO4 or placebo is added to
the treatment regimen in a double-blind manner is
needed. Furthermore, there is a lack of consensus
among researchers regarding the most appropriate
pulmonary function outcome measure to report. The
aforementioned trial should insist on both pulmo-

nary function data as well as hospital admission status
at the conclusion of the ED treatment period.
Conclusion
The role of nebulized MgSO4 in the treatment of
asthma exacerbations has not been conclusively re-
solved by this review. Nebulized MgSO4 appears to
be effective and safe to administer to patients expe-
riencing asthma exacerbations. Further, we have
demonstrated that therapy with MgSO4 and ␤2-
agonists improved lung function when compared
with therapy using a ␤2-agonist alone; however, the
difference was small and of limited clinical benefit.
Consequently, this effect did not translate into a
significant reduction in the number of patients ad-
mitted to the hospital. There was no treatment
benefit observed in comparisons of therapy with
MgSO4 alone and that of ␤2-agonists alone. Thus,
treatment with nebulized MgSO4 should be consid-
ered as an addition to that with inhaled ␤2-agonists in
patients experiencing asthma exacerbations. Further
research in this area should be encouraged.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT: The authors would like to acknowl-
edge the assistance of Toby Lasserson, Anna Bara, and Karen
Blackhall of the Cochrane Airways Review Group. We would also
like to acknowledge Dr. P Mahajan for providing the data from of
his study for inclusion into the review prior to publication.
Finally, the assistance of Dr. Chris Cates (Cochrane Airways
Review Group Coordinating Editor) was greatly appreciated.
This review will be published and maintained as part of the
Cochrane Library by the Cochrane Airways Group.
References
1 Rowe BH, Keller JL, Oxman AD. Effectiveness of steroid
therapy in acute exacerbations of asthma: a meta analysis.
Am J Emerg Med 1992; 10:301–310
2 Stoodley RG, Aaron SD, Dales RE. The role of ipratropium
bromide in the emergency management of acute asthma
exacerbation: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
Ann Emerg Med 1999; 34:8–18
3 Cates CCJ, Bara A, Crilly JA, et al. Holding chambers versus
nebulisers for beta-agonist treatment of acute asthma. Co-
chrane Database Syst Rev (database online). Issue 3, 2004
4 Edmonds ML, Camargo CA Jr, Pollack CV Jr, et al. Early use
of inhaled corticosteroids in the emergency department
treatment of acute asthma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev
(database online). Issue 3, 2004
5 Parameswaran K, Belda J, Rowe BH. Addition of intravenous
aminophylline to ␤2-agonists in adults with acute asthma.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev (database online). Issue 3, 2004
6 Littenberg B. Aminophylline treatment in severe acute asth-
ma: a meta-analysis. JAMA 1988; 259:1678–1684
7 Travers A, Jones AP, Kelly K, et al. Intravenous ␤2-agonists
for acute asthma in the emergency department. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev (database online). Issue 3, 2004
8 Graham V, Lasserson TJ, Rowe BH. Antibiotics for acute
asthma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (database online). Issue
1, 2004
9 Rowe BH, Bretzlaff JA, Bourdon C, et al. Magnesium sulfate
for treating exacerbations of acute asthma in the emergency
department. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (database online).
Issue 3, 2004
10 Gourgoulianis KI, Chatziparasidis G, Chatziefthimiou A, et
al. Magnesium as a relaxing factor of airway smooth muscles.
J Aerosol Med 2001; 14:301–307
11 Cairns CB, Kraft M. Magnesium attenuates the neutrophil
respiratory burst in adult asthmatic patients. Acad Emerg
Med 1996; 3:1093–1097
12 Harari M, Barzillai R, Shani J. Magnesium in the manage-
ment of asthma: critical review of acute and chronic treat-
ments, and Deutsches Medizinisches Zentrum’s (DMZ’s)
clinical experience at the Dead Sea. J Asthma 1998; 35:525–
536
13 British Thoracic Society, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines
Network. British guidelines on the management of asthma.
London, UK: British Thoracic Society, 2004
14 National Asthma Education and Prevention Program. Expert
panel report 2: guidelines of the diagnosis and management
of asthma. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, April
1997; Publication No. 97–405
15 Boulet LP, Becker A, Berube D, et al. Canadian asthma
consensus report, 1999: Canadian Asthma Consensus Group.
Can Med Assoc J 1999; 161(suppl):S1–S61
16 Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, et al. Empirical evidence
of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with
estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;
273:408–412
17 Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality
of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?
Control Clin Trials 1996; 17:1–12
18 Bessmertny O, DiGregorio RV, Cohen H, et al. A randomized
clinical trial of nebulized magnesium sulfate in addition to
albuterol in the treatment of acute mild-to-moderate asthma
exacerbations in adults. Ann Emerg Med 2002; 39:585–591
19 Hughes RJ, Goldkorn AL, Masoli M, et al. The use of isotonic
nebulized magnesium as an adjuvant to salbutamol in the
treatment of severe asthma in adults: randomised placebo-
controlled trial. Lancet 2003; 361:2114–2117
20 Nannini LJ Jr, Pendino JC, Corna RA, et al. Magnesium
sulfate as a vehicle for nebulized salbutamol in acute asthma.
Am J Med 2000; 108:193–197
21 Mangat HS, D’Souza GA, Jacob MS. Nebulized magnesium
sulphate versus nebulized salbutamol in acute bronchial
asthma: a clinical trial. Eur Respir J 1998; 12:341–344
22 Mahajan P, Haritos D, Rosenberg N, et al. Comparison of
nebulized magnesium plus albuterol to nebulized albuterol
plus saline in children with mild to moderate asthma. J Emerg
Med 2004; 27:21–25
23 Meral A, Coker M, Tanac R. Inhalation therapy with magne-
sium sulfate and salbutamol in bronchial asthma. Turk J Pe-
diatr 1996; 38:169–175
24 Camargo CA Jr,. Rowe BH, Roberts J. The use of magnesium
sulfate in acute asthma. Ann Emerg Med 2001; 38:S11
25 McDonald NJ, Bara AI, McKean MC. Anticholinergic ther-
apy for chronic asthma in children over two years of age.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev (database online). Issue 3, 2004
344 Reviews

DOI 10.1378/chest.128.1.337
2005;128; 337-344Chest
Jennifer Knopp and Brian H. Rowe
Maurice Blitz, Sandra Blitz, Rodney Hughes, Barry Diner, Richard Beasley,
Review
: A Systematic*Aerosolized Magnesium Sulfate for Acute Asthma
March 12, 2012This information is current as of
http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/128/1/337.full.html
Updated Information and services can be found at:
Updated Information & Services
http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/128/1/337.full.html#ref-list-1
This article cites 16 articles, 3 of which can be accessed free at:
References
http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/128/1/337.full.html#related-urls
This article has been cited by 8 HighWire-hosted articles:
Cited Bys
http://www.chestpubs.org/site/misc/reprints.xhtml
found online at:
Information about reproducing this article in parts (figures, tables) or in its entirety can be
Permissions & Licensing
http://www.chestpubs.org/site/misc/reprints.xhtml
Information about ordering reprints can be found online:
Reprints
"Services" link to the right of the online article.
Receive free e-mail alerts when new articles cite this article. To sign up, select the
Citation Alerts
PowerPoint slide format. See any online figure for directions.
articles can be downloaded for teaching purposes inCHESTFigures that appear in
Images in PowerPoint format

Mg so4 in asthma

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Mg so4 in asthma (20)

More from SoM (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Mg so4 in asthma