MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7035625964

Adverse Effects of ß-Agonists: Are They Clinically Relevant?

2003· article· en· W7035625964 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatological and COVID-19 studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsthmaAdverse effectBronchodilatorTachyphylaxisSalmeterolDiseaseConfoundingFenoterol
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inhaled β2-adrenoceptor agonists (β2-agonists) are the most commonly used asthma medications in many Western countries. Minor adverse effects such as palpitations, tremor, headache and metabolic effects are predictable and dose related. Time series studies suggested an association between the relatively nonselective β-agonist fenoterol and asthma deaths. Three case-control studies confirmed that among patients prescribed fenoterol, the risk of death was significantly elevated even after controlling for the severity of asthma. The Saskatchewan study not only found an increased risk of death among patients dispensed fenoterol, but also suggested this might be a class effect of β2-agonists. However, in subsequent studies, the long-acting β2-agonist salmeterol was not associated with increased asthma mortality. In a case-control study blood albuterol (salbutamol) concentrations were found to be 2.5 times higher among patients who died of asthma compared with controls. It is speculated that such toxic concentrations could cause tachyarrhythmias under conditions of hypoxia and hypokalemia. The risk of asthma exacerbations and near-fatal attacks may also be increased among patients dispensed fenoterol, but this association may be largely due to confounding by severity. Although salmeterol does not appear to increase the risk of near-fatal attacks, there is a consistent association with the use of nebulized β2-agonists. Nebulized and oral β2-agonists are also associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular death, ischemic heart disease and cardiac failure. Caution should be exercised when first prescribing a β-agonist for patients with cardiovascular disease. A potential mechanism for adverse effects with regular use of β2-agonists is tachyphylaxis. Tachyphylaxis to the bronchodilator effects of long-acting β2-agonists can occur, but has been consistently demonstrated only for formoterol (eformoterol) a full agonist, rather than salmeterol, a partial agonist. Tachyphylaxis to protection against induced bronchospasm occurs with both full and partial β2-agonists, and probably within a matter of days at most. Underlying airway responsiveness to directly acting bronchoconstricting agents is not increased when the bronchodilator effect of the regular β2-agonist has been allowed to wear off, although there may be an increase in responsiveness to indirectly acting agents. While there has been speculation that underlying airway inflammation in asthma may be made worse by regular use of short-acting β2-agonists, in contradistinction, a number of studies have shown that long-acting β2-agonists have positive anti-inflammatory effects. An Australian Cochrane Airways Group systematic review of the randomized, controlled trials of short-acting β-agonists found only minimal and clinically unimportant differences between regular use and use as needed. Regular short-acting treatment was better than placebo. However, a subsequent systematic review has found that regular use of long-acting β-agonists had significant advantages over regular use of short-acting β-agonists. More studies and data are needed on the regular use of β2-agonists in patients not taking inhaled corticosteroids, and in potentially vulnerable groups, such as the elderly and those with particular genotypes for the β-receptor, who might be more prone to adverse effects.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicDermatological and COVID-19 studiesFrench-language works237,207