ARTICLE IN PRESS
Respiratory Medicine (2003) 97, 1067–1074
Formoterol (OXISs) Turbuhalers as a rescue
therapy compared with salbutamol pMDI plus
spacer in patients with acute severe asthma
W. Boonsawat*, S. Charoenratanakul, C. Pothirat, K. Sawanyawisuth,
T. Seearamroongruang, T. Bengtsson, R. Brander, O. Selroos
Srinagarind Hospital, Khon Kaen, Thailand
Siriraj Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand
Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital, Chiang Mai, Thailand
Khon Kaen Hospital, Khon Kaen, Thailand
AstraZeneca R&D Lund, Lund, Sweden
KEYWORDS
Formoterol Turbuhaler;
Acute severe asthma;
Salbutamol pMDI plus
spacer;
Reliever medication
Summary Formoterol has a similar onset of effect to salbutamol but a prolonged
duration of action. However, the relative efficacy of the two drugs in acute severe
asthma is not known. This double-blind, double-dummy study compared the safety
and efficacy of the maximum recommended daily dose of formoterol and a predicted
equivalent dose of salbutamol in 88 patients presenting to the emergency department
with acute severe asthma. Patients were randomized to formoterol 54 mg via
Turbuhalers or salbutamol 2400 mg via pressurized metered dose inhaler (pMDI) plus
spacer in three equal doses over 1 h. Following the full dose, mean FEV1 at 75 min
increased by 37% for formoterol and 28% for salbutamol (P ¼ 0:18). The maximum
increase in FEV1 over 4 h was significantly greater with formoterol compared with
salbutamol (51% vs. 36%, respectively Po0:05) and formoterol was as effective as
salbutamol at improving symptoms and wellbeing. Both treatments were well
tolerated. Formoterol caused a greater decrease in serum potassium (difference –
0.2 mmol/l). In severe acute asthma, bronchodilator therapy with high-dose (54 mg)
formoterol Turbuhaler provided equally rapid improvements in lung function of
greater magnitude over 4 h than high-dose (2400 mg) salbutamol pMDI plus spacer.
r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
In hospital emergency departments, the primary
therapy for patients presenting with acute severe
asthma is administration of a rapid-acting b2 agonist within the first hour.1 In these emergencies,
normal doses of short-acting b2 -agonists may be
inadequate2 and repeated administration with
higher doses are normally required. Poor or
incomplete responses in the first 1–2 h may result
*Corresponding author. Fax: þ 66-043-241-735.
E-mail address: watcha b@kku.ac.th (W. Boonsawat).
in hospital admission. In the USA, up to 20% of
patients with a forced expiratory volume in 1 s
(FEV1)o50% predicted normal are admitted following emergency room treatment for further observation and supervision of administration of additional
doses of short-acting b2 -agonists.3 In this situation,
a rapid-acting b2 -agonist with a long duration of
action could reduce the need for more frequent
administration of bronchodilator therapy.
Formoterol is a selective b2 -agonist with a rapid
onset of effect (p3 min) and a long duration of
action (X12 h).4 Formoterol (Oxiss) Turbuhalers is
at least as rapid acting as the short-acting
0954-6111/03/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0954-6111(03)00139-2
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1068
b2 -agonist, salbutamol, both in stable asthma5 and
following methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction, a model of acute severe asthma.6 Importantly,
the systemic effects of formoterol are similar in
duration to those of salbutamol.7,8 A comparative
dose–response study, in which patients with stable
asthma received three doses of formoterol via
Turbuhaler or two doses of salbutamol via pressurized metered dose inhaler (pMDI), suggested that
the therapeutic index (the ratio between improvements in FEV1 over decrease in serum potassium
levels) was more favourable for formoterol than for
salbutamol.9
The unique pharmacodynamic properties of formoterol coupled with a good safety profile should
allow it to be used to good effect as both
maintenance and reliever therapy. However, few
studies have examined formoterol Turbuhaler as
reliever therapy during an acute exacerbation. To
establish the safety and efficacy of formoterol for
relief of acute exacerbations, it is appropriate to
compare the efficacy and safety of the drug with a
traditional reliever therapy in patients with acute
asthma in an emergency room setting. The favourable balance between efficacy and safety of highdose formoterol Turbuhaler relative to high-dose
terbutaline Turbuhaler in the treatment of acute
severe bronchoconstriction has been confirmed,10
although similar comparisons with high-dose salbutamol have not been made. Previous studies
suggest that formoterol 4.5 mg Turbuhaler is an
equivalent bronchodilator dose to salbutamol
200 mg pMDI.4,8 The maximum daily dose of formoterol approved for use via Turbuhaler without
physician consultation is 54 mg (12 inhalations),
which is predicted to be equivalent to 2400 mg of
salbutamol via pMDI.
Short-acting b2 -agonists have often been administered by nebulizer in the emergency room.
However, administration via pMDI plus spacer can
produce equivalent bronchodilation with a more
rapid onset and fewer side effects than with a wet
nebulizer.11,12 Turbuhaler has also been shown to be
an equally effective delivery device in an emergency setting.13,14 In a previous emergency department study, salbutamol Turbuhaler was shown to be
as safe and effective as a double dose of salbutamol
pMDI plus spacer.13 Similarly, terbutaline Turbuhaler increased FEV1 significantly more than the same
dose administered via pMDI plus spacer in patients
with acute severe bronchoconstriction.14
The aim of this 4-h study was to compare the
efficacy and safety of cumulative administered
high-dose formoterol 54 mg (3 18 mg) via Turbuhaler with salbutamol 2400 mg (3 800 mg) via pMDI
plus spacer (multiple doses of salbutamol up to
W. Boonsawat et al.
2400 mg in 1 h are recommended by the global
initiative for asthma [GINA] guidelines for treatment of acute severe asthma1) in a defined group of
patients presenting to an emergency room with
acute severe bronchoconstriction.
Methods
Study design and patients
This was a randomized, double-blind, doubledummy study with parallel groups, conducted at
five centres in Thailand. A local independent ethics
committee approved the protocol before the study
commenced at each centre. Patients (18–67 years)
diagnosed with asthma and presenting to the
emergency department with acute severe bronchoconstriction were included in the study if their
FEV1 was 30–60% of predicted normal values for the
healthy non-smoking Thai population15 and, if aged
X50 years, they had a pulse rate X100 beats/min
on presentation as additional evidence of acute
bronchoconstriction (no pulse criterion was set if
o50 years). This criterion was added to ensure
patients with chronic obstructive airways disease
and fixed airway obstructions were not enrolled.
Patients were excluded from the study if they
required transfer to the intensive care unit, or
nebulized or intravenous b2 -agonists at the initial
assessment. Patients with oxygen saturation p91%
in room air or a severe cardiovascular disorder were
also excluded from the study. The patients therefore did not represent the most severe end of the
spectrum of acute severe asthma.
Within 30 min of arrival at the emergency
department, written consent and demographic
data were obtained and patients were randomized
to receive formoterol Turbuhaler (Oxis, AstraZeneca, Sweden) or salbutamol pMDI (Baker Norton, UK)
plus spacer (VolumaticTM, GlaxoSmithKline, UK).
Formoterol (4 4.5 mg inhalations [18 mg]) was
administered to patients at 0, 30 and 60 min,
to give a total delivered dose of 54 mg, while
salbutamol pMDI plus spacer (4 2 actuations of
100 mg) was given at 0, 30 and 60 min for a
total dose of 2400 mg. As a result of the
double-dummy design, subjects were given
placebo from a Turbuhaler or pMDI plus spacer as
appropriate and inhalations were started with
Turbuhaler or pMDI in random order. To make a
comparison between the investigational treatments possible, a single dose of oral prednisolone
(60 mg) was not administered until 80 min after the
first dose of study drug.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Formoterol (OXISs) Turbuhalers as a rescue therapy
1069
Assessments
Statistics
FEV1 was measured by spirometry at baseline (0),
15, 45, 75, 120, 180 and 240 min after first
administration of the study drug. At each assessment the highest FEV1 value was recorded from
three manoeuvres, additional manoeuvres to a
maximum of eight were performed if a difference
of greater than 5% was observed between the
two highest values. All centres used the same
type of spirometer, which met the American
Thoracic Society standard, and which were
calibrated to 3% accuracy each day. The
primary efficacy variable was the relative increase
from baseline in FEV1 75 min after the first dose
of study drug. Secondary measures of pulmonary
function included, Eaverage the mean area under the
curve (AUC) FEV1 between 75 and 240 min (i.e. the
area under the FEV1 time curve divided by the length
of the measurement interval), Emax ; maximum FEV1
between 75 and 240 min, and FEV1 at 15 and 45 min
after the first and second dose of study drug.
At baseline, 75 and 240 min, patients evaluated
their asthma symptoms by a visual analogue scale
(VAS), (scoring on a line 10 cm long between end
points scale 0–100, 0 [no symptoms] to 100 [severe
symptoms] in answer to the question ‘‘How is your
asthma now?’’ Study staff assessed the VAS score by
measuring with a metric ruler the distance between
0 and the patient’s mark).
The Acute Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire
(Acute AQLQ), was modified in collaboration with
the originator of the AQLQ16 to include only 11
items in two domains (symptoms and emotional
function). The Acute AQLQ, assessed health-related
quality of life subjectively at baseline, 75 and
240 min. The perceived overall effect of treatment
on patient wellbeing was recorded on a 15-point
scale, 75 and 240 min after the first dose of study
drug.
Safety variables were measured at baseline, 15,
45, 75, 120, 180 and 240 min during the 4-h study.
Blood pressure was monitored by a standard
sphygmomanometer; blood samples were drawn
for determination of serum potassium; and a 12lead electrocardiogram (ECG) was performed,
recorded and assessed for heart rate, sinus rhythm
and QT interval. The QT interval corrected for
heart rate (QTc) was calculated using Bazett’s
formula. Average, maximum and minimum effects
were calculated in the same way as FEV1. Adverse
events (AEs) reported or observed during the
treatment period were also recorded. AEs were
also collected through a question at the end of the
4-h study period ‘‘Have you had any health
problems since you received the study drug?’’.
For the spirometry variables, the relative increase
in FEV1 from baseline to 75 min was compared
between treatments using a multiplicative analysis
of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment and
centre as fixed factors and baseline FEV1 as a
covariate. Treatment differences for spirometry
variables: FEV1 at 15, 45, 75 min average FEV1 and
maximum FEV1 were expressed as a ratio (in per
cent). VAS, Acute AQLQ, overall treatment evaluation and safety variables were compared between
treatments using an additive ANOVA with centre
and treatment as fixed factors and, with the
exception of the overall treatment evaluation,
baseline readings as a covariate. The number of
subjects with treatment failure (requiring additional medication in the 4-h period or hospitalization) was compared using the w2-test. All analyses
followed the intention-to-treat approach and Pvalues less than 5% were considered statistically
significant. With 40 patients per group, there was
an 80% chance of detecting a true difference of 17%
in FEV1, assuming a coefficient of variation of 25%.
Results
All 88 patients enrolled in the study were randomized to treatment, 44 were randomized to
formoterol and 44 to salbutamol (Table 1). The
treatment groups were well matched for level of
airway obstruction at entry, FEV1 44% predicted
normal in both groups and before enrolment a
similar number of patients in each treatment group
had taken asthma medication: 64 (73%) inhaled
short-acting b2 -agonists, 31 (35%) inhaled glucocorticosteroids, 29 (33%) oral b2 -agonists, 25 (28%)
xanthines, 5 (6%) systemic glucocorticosteroids, 4
(5%) long-acting b2 -agonists (alone or in combination with inhaled glucocorticosteroids) and 4 (5%)
anticholinergic inhalers. During the study, two
patients discontinued treatment (both in the
formoterol group), one because of protocol deviation and one withdrew consent after 180 min for
practical reasons, both were considered in no need
of further treatment.
Efficacy
The mean increase in FEV1 from baseline was higher
in the formoterol group than in the salbutamol
group at all time points (Fig. 1a). The adjusted
mean percentage increase in FEV1 from baseline at
75 min was 37% in the formoterol group compared
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1070
W. Boonsawat et al.
Table 1 Patient demographics at baseline (means
and ranges).
No. of patients
Men (n)
Age (years)
SABA use (n)
IGCS use (na)
IGCS dose at
entry (mg)
FEV1 (l)
FEV1 (%
predicted
normal)
Pulse rate
(bpm)
SaO2
Formoterol
Salbutamol
44
14 (32%)
45 (18–67)
34 (77%)
17 (39%)
853 (400–1600)
44
10 (23%)
43 (18–61)
30 (68%)
16 (36%)
881 (300–1200)
1.06 (0.38–1.74) 1.08 (0.47–2.00)
44 (17–60)
44 (21–59)
104 (73–137)
101 (60–129)
96 (91–100)
97 (91–100)
SABA, inhaled short-acting b2 -agonist; IGCS, inhaled
glucocorticosteroid; SaO2, oxygen saturation.
a
Total includes two patients using fluticasone/salmeterol
combination inhaler.
with 28% in the salbutamol group. However, the
adjusted mean difference in favour of formoterol
at 75 min (7.2% [95% CI: 3.2, 18.7]; P ¼ 0:18) was
not statistically significant nor was the trend in
favour of formoterol significant at early time points
(Table 2). Emax was 51% in the formoterol group and
36% in the salbutamol group. The increase in the
formoterol group was significantly higher than that
after treatment with salbutamol (adjusted mean
difference 11.1% [95% CI: 0.6, 22.8]; Po0:05).
Similarly, Eaverage was 43% in the formoterol group
and 28% in the salbutamol group and was significantly higher in formoterol-treated patients (adjusted mean difference 11.7% [95% CI: 0.9, 23.6];
Po0:05). The distribution of patients in each
treatment group achieving or not achieving varying
levels of increase in maximum FEV1 can be seen in
Fig. 1b. No treatment failures occurred in either
treatment group.
Subjective symptom score assessments using the
VAS (0–100 scale) decreased during the course of
the study in both formoterol- and salbutamoltreated patients. Mean baseline scores were 64 in
both groups and they decreased to 7.21 in the
formoterol group and to 10.24 in the salbutamol
group. The difference (3.04) was not statistically
significant. The mean Acute AQLQ score increased
during the study from 2.67–5.88 in the formoterol
group and 2.49–5.69 in the salbutamol group. There
were no significant differences between treatments in the mean Acute AQLQ scores for overall
evaluation or for symptoms and emotion function
Figure 1 Effect of formoterol and salbutamol treatment
on (a) geometric mean % increase in FEV1 and (b)
distribution of patients achieving various levels of %
change in maximum FEV1 from baseline.
domains at 75 or 240 min. Patients’ overall treatment evaluation supported these changes with
comparable scores recorded for formoterol and
salbutamol 75 min (4.59 and 4.25, respectively) and
240 min (5.43 and 5.50, respectively) post-dosing.
Safety
During the 4-h study period, the adjusted mean
minimum serum potassium value was significantly
lower in the formoterol group than in the salbutamol group (3.2 vs. 3.5 mmol/l, respectively;
Po0:001) (Fig. 2a). The adjusted mean average
serum potassium value during the study was also
significantly lower in patients treated with formoterol compared with salbutamol (P ¼ 0:002;
Table 3).
Both systolic and diastolic blood pressure decreased after the first dose of study drug. However,
there were no statistically significant differences
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Formoterol (OXISs) Turbuhalers as a rescue therapy
Table 2
FEV1 mean change from baseline.
Mean % change from baselinea (range)
E15
E45
E75
Emax
Eaverage
1071
Formoterol
Salbutamol
19.1
(–8.5, 113.2)
31.4
(–1.4, 127.5)
37.0
(2.1, 151.6)
51.2
(1.2, 182.4)
43.2
(5.3, 176.5)
15.1
(–61.0, 81.7)
22.8
(56.6, 89.9)
27.8
(56.6, 97.4)
36.1
(48.4, 97.4)
28.2
(55.0, 83.0)
Mean (%) ratio form/salba
(95% conf. limits)
P-value
103.5
(95.1, 112.7)
107.0
(97.2, 117.9)
107.2
(96.8, 118.7)
111.1
(100.6, 122.8)
117
(100.9, 123.6)
0.42
0.16
0.18
0.039
0.033
E15 ; effect at 15 min; E45 ; effect at 45 min; E75 ; effect at 75 min; Emax ; maximal effect between 75 and 240 min; Eaverage ; area
under the curve between 75 and 240 min.
a
ANOVA.
in blood pressure between treatment groups
(Table 3). No statistically significant differences
were observed between the groups in heart rate
(Table 3). Similarly, there was no statistically
significant difference between treatments in QTc
(Fig. 2b; Table 3).
Both treatments were well tolerated. Ten
patients reported a total of 13 mild AEs. The most
commonly reported AE was palpitation (five in the
formoterol group and three in the salbutamol
group). Other common AEs were dizziness, headache, fever, tremor and hypoasthaesia, each
reported once with formoterol treatment. There
were no serious AEs.
Discussion
Figure 2 Effect of formoterol and salbutamol treatment
on (a) serum potassium levels, and (b) QTc over the first
4 h after initiation of treatment.
An acute asthma exacerbation can be severe or
even fatal and therefore immediate relief from
bronchospasm is vital. Consequently, the primary
treatments for acute severe asthma in hospital
emergency departments are short-acting b2 -agonists, as they are effective and act rapidly. Previous
studies have shown that the long-acting b2 -agonist,
formoterol has a rapid onset of effect in asthma
patients,4 similar to salbutamol.5,6 Furthermore,
there is some evidence that formoterol Turbuhaler
has a more favourable therapeutic index than
salbutamol delivered via pMDI.9 In this study,
cumulative doses of formoterol Turbuhaler (18, 36
and 54 mg) were at least as effective as salbutamol
pMDI plus spacer (800, 1600 and 2400 mg) based on
improvements in FEV1 at 15 min after each dose
(15, 45 and 75 min from baseline) in patients
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1072
Table 3
W. Boonsawat et al.
Safety results (average values) over 4-h period following treatment.
Safety variable
Heart rate
(bpm)
Systolic blood
pressure
(mmHg)
Diastolic blood
pressure
(mmHg)
QTc interval
(ms)
Serum
potassium
(mmol/l)
Difference in adjusteda
means (95% CI)
Mean baseline values (range)
Mean treatment values (range)
Formoterol
Salbutamol
Formoterol
Salbutamol
93.6 (72–134)
90.5 (60–130)
94.7 (68–129)
90.1 (60–125)
2.0 (1.5, 5.5)
135.5 (99–203)
128.8 (100–
166)
124.8 (96–171)
120.5 (92–157)
0.8 (3.7, 5.3)
83.6 (55–126)
81.1 (59–113)
75.6 (54–108)
75.2 (54–102)
0.9 (4.3, 2.5)
421.4 (358–
527)
4.0 (2.9–5.3)
418.8 (353–
476)
3.9 (3.1–4.9)
428.5 (370–
523)
3.5 (2.8–4.3)
422.9 (342–
484)
3.7 (2.6–4.7)
3.6 (6.0, 13.1)
0.2** (0.4, 0.1)
QTc ¼ QT interval corrected for heart rate.**Po0.01.
Adjusted mean treatment difference from ANOVA.
a
presenting at the emergency department with
acute severe asthma.
For the emergency treatment of asthma with
salbutamol at home, GINA guidelines1 suggest up to
800 mg of salbutamol to be used every 20 min, with
further subsequent doses depending on the severity
of asthma. For this high-dose study we chose three
inhalations administered within 1 h (a cumulative
dose of salbutamol 2400 mg), which should be an
adequate total dose for most patients with acute
severe asthma. Previous experience in patients
with stable asthma and healthy volunteers suggested that a cumulative dose of formoterol 54 mg
via Turbuhaler (delivered dose corresponding to
72 mg metered dose) would be the nearest equivalent dose to salbutamol 2400 mg regarding bronchodilation.4,8
As the study progressed, the difference in the
FEV1 observed between formoterol- and salbutamol-treated patients widened. This increasing
difference in effect was significant only after the
75 min time point. This difference probably reflected either a difference in dose/potency of the
treatments or the longer duration of action
observed with formoterol.4,17 No difference in
onset of action has been seen between the two
drugs in studies performed in stable asthma5 and
following an induced bronchospasm.6 The rapid
onset of bronchodilator effect of formoterol 4.5–
36 mg within 1–4 min in stable asthma and longer
duration of action up to 12 h17 also has the
potential to improve outcomes for patients with
acute severe asthma in an emergency setting,
providing it is associated with at least as good a
safety profile as salbutamol. Insufficient response
in FEV1 to inhaled rapid- and short-acting b2 agonists in patients with acute severe asthma may
require hospitalization and the supervision of
further doses of b2 -agonists to monitor for possible
side effects.1 In this study, it was notable that the
increase in FEV1 in response to salbutamol appeared to plateau soon after the last dose, whereas
FEV1 continued to improve for the duration of the
study following formoterol administration. In our
study population there were no treatment failures
and no patients required hospital admission after
the 4-h follow-up.
In addition to inducing bronchodilation, stimulation of b2 -adrenoceptors can result in extrapulmonary effects. As high doses of b2 -agonists may
often be required to treat acute severe bronchoconstriction, safety may become an important
consideration that dictates the dose and frequency
of administration, and therefore the use of these
agents.18 Therefore, blood pressure, heart rate,
ECG and serum potassium were monitored during
the study. There was no significant difference
between the active treatments on blood pressure,
ECG and heart rate. Formoterol significantly reduced average serum potassium values by more
than salbutamol. However, this difference between
treatments was not considered of clinical importance, with the lowest individual value on treatment observed in the salbutamol group (Table 3).
Previous studies have shown that the systemic/
extrapulmonary effects of formoterol are similar or
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Formoterol (OXISs) Turbuhalers as a rescue therapy
less pronounced than with short-acting b2 -agonists,
such as terbutaline19 or salbutamol,8 especially
when full dose–response curves for efficacy and
safety are considered.9 The doses of formoterol and
salbutamol used in this study were not equieffective. The efficacy of formoterol over 4 h was
significantly better than that of salbutamol. Consequently the systemic activity measured as a
decrease in serum potassium was also significantly
greater after administration of formoterol,
although clinically not important. Furthermore,
there were no discontinuations due to AEs with
either formoterol or salbutamol during the study
and both treatments were equally well tolerated.
The efficacy of formoterol has been demonstrated
in this study based on objective lung function
assessments. However, additional subjective benefits on symptoms and health-related quality of life
were apparent with both formoterol and salbutamol. VAS and Acute AQLQ were both used to assess
patient’s symptoms and wellbeing subjectively.
Formoterol and salbutamol treatment caused
equally rapid improvement in symptoms by both
assessments. Both formoterol and salbutamol produced similar improvements in the symptoms and
emotional function domains of the Acute AQLQ, and
patients did not distinguish any difference in the
overall treatment evaluation. Therefore, from a
patient’s perspective, formoterol appears to be at
least as good as salbutamol at improving wellbeing.
These findings support those obtained in a recent
placebo-controlled study in patients with methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction, where both
formoterol and salbutamol provided early relief
from dyspnoea (Borg scale) within the first minute
after inhalation.20
While the results of this 4-h study are unlikely to
warrant a revision of guidelines for treating asthma
in an emergency setting,1 they offer reassurance
that formoterol may be used for the safe and
effective treatment of acute asthma exacerbations
at home. The clinical implications of these results
are important as many patients use formoterol for
maintenance therapy and as an alternative asneeded therapy. This study demonstrated that
patients prescribed formoterol Turbuhaler for
regular or as-needed therapy can also obtain rapid
and effective relief of acute severe exacerbations
upon the inhalation of the maximum daily dose.
Thus, the need for patients to carry and use
another rapid-acting inhaled bronchodilator in the
case of an emergency is not supported by these
findings.
To summarize, in this study formoterol 3 18 mg
via Turbuhaler was well tolerated and at least as
effective as salbutamol 3 800 mg via pMDI plus
1073
spacer in patients with acute severe asthma. After
75 min, formoterol demonstrated significantly better bronchodilation than salbutamol, that lasted for
4 h, which was the duration of this study.
References
1. Global strategy for asthma management and prevention.
WHO/NHLBI workshop report. National Institutes for Health,
National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. Publication no. 023659, 2002.
2. Weiss EB. Status asthmaticus. In: Weiss EB, Segal MS,
editors. Bronchial asthma: mechanisms and therapeutics.
Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1976. p. 875–913.
3. Stanescu DC. High doses of sympathomimetic in severe
bronchial asthma. Eur Respir J 1989;2:597–8.
4. Palmqvist M, Persson G, Lazer L, Rosenborg J, Larsson P,
Lo. tvall J. Inhaled dry-powder formoterol and salmeterol in
asthmatic patients: onset of action, duration of effect and
potency. Eur Respir J 1997;10:2484–9.
5. Seberova! E, Andersson A. Oxiss (formoterol given by
Turbuhalers) showed as rapid an onset of action as
salbutamol given by a pMDI. Respir Med 2000;94:607–11.
6. Politiek MJ, Boorsma M, Aalbers R. Comparison of formoterol, salbutamol and salmeterol in methacholine-induced
severe bronchoconstriction. Eur Respir J 1999;13:988–92.
7. Lo. fdahl C-G, Svedmyr N. Formoterol fumarate, a new b2adrenoceptor agonist. Acute studies of selectivity and
duration of effect after inhaled and oral administration.
Allergy 1989;44:264–71.
8. Rosenborg J, Bengtsson T, Larsson P, Blomgren A, Persson G,
Lo. tvall J. Relative systemic dose potency and tolerability of
inhaled formoterol and salbutamol in healthy subjects and
asthmatics. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000;56:363–70.
9. Rosenborg J, Larsson P, Rott Z, Bo. cskei C, Poczi M, Juha! sz G.
Relative therapeutic index between inhaled formoterol and
salbutamol in asthma patients. Respir Med 2002;96:412–7.
!
10. Malolepszy J, Bo. szo. rmenyi
Nagy G, Selroos O, Larsson P,
Brander R. Safety of formoterol turbuhaler at cumulative
dose of 90 mg in patients with acute bronchial obstruction.
Eur Respir J 2001;18:928–34.
11. Turner MO, Patel A, Ginsburg S, Fitzgerald J. Bronchodilator
delivery in acute airflow obstruction. Arch Intern Med
1997;157:1736–44.
12. Cates CJ, Rowe BH, Bara A. Holding chambers versus
nebulisers for b2-agonist treatment of acute asthma
(Cochrane Review). Cochrane Database System Rev
2002:CD000052.
13. Nana A, Youngchaiyud P, Maranetra N, et al. b2-agonists
administered by dry powder inhaler can be used in acute
asthma. Respir Med 1998;92:167–72.
14. Tonnesen F, Laursen LC, Evald T, Sta( hl E, Ibsen TB.
Bronchodilating effect of terbutaline powder in acute
severe bronchial obstruction. Chest 1994;105:697–700.
15. Dejsomritrutai W, Nana A, Maranetra KN, et al. Reference
spirometric values for healthy lifetime nonsmokers in
Thailand. J Med Assoc Thai 2000;83:457–66.
16. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Ferrie PJ, Griffith LE. Measuring
quality of life in asthma. Am Rev Respir Dis 1993;147:832–8.
17. Ringdal N, Derom E, Wa( hlin-Boll E, Pauwels R. Onset and
duration of action of single doses of formoterol inhaled via
Turbuhalers. Respir Med 1998;92:1017–21.
18. Peters JI. Emergency treatment of asthma. Curr Opin Med
1995;1:65–72.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1074
19. To. tterman KJ, Huhti L, Sutinen E, et al. Tolerability to high
doses of formoterol and terbutaline via Turbuhaler s
for 3 days in stable asthmatic patients. Eur Respir J
1998;12:573–9.
W. Boonsawat et al.
20. van der Woude HJ, Politiek M, Aalbers R. Formoterol
provides rapid relief from acute dyspnoea following
methacholine-induced bronchospasm. Eur Respir J 2002; 20
(Suppl. 38): 306s.