4.6 Article

Budesonide Versus Acetazolamide for Prevention of Acute Mountain Sickness

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
Volume 131, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2017.05.034

Keywords

Acetazolamide; Acute mountain sickness; Budesonide; High altitude; Prevention

Funding

  1. Wilderness Medical Society's Herbert N. Hultgren Grant
  2. Institute for Altitude Medicine Igor Gamow Grant
  3. American Alpine Club's Research Grant

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Inhaled budesonide has been suggested as a novel prevention for acute mountain sickness. However, efficacy has not been compared with the standard acute mountain sickness prevention medication acetazolamide. METHODS: This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial compared inhaled budesonide versus oral acetazolamide versus placebo, starting the morning of ascent from 1240 m (4100 ft) to 3810 m (12,570 ft) over 4 hours. The primary outcome was acute mountain sickness incidence (headache and Lake Louise Questionnaire = 3 and another symptom). RESULTS: A total of 103 participants were enrolled and completed the study; 33 (32%) received budesonide, 35 (34%) acetazolamide, and 35 (34%) placebo. Demographics were not different between the groups (P > .09). Acute mountain sickness prevalence was 73%, with severe acute mountain sickness of 47%. Fewer participants in the acetazolamide group (n = 15, 43%) developed acute mountain sickness compared with both budesonide (n = 24, 73%) (odds ratio [OR] 3.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-10.1) and placebo (n = 22, 63%) (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.2-1.2). Severe acute mountain sickness was reduced with acetazolamide (n = 11, 31%) compared with both budesonide (n = 18, 55%) (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1-7.2) and placebo (n = 19, 54%) (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.1-1), with a number needed to treat of 4. CONCLUSION: Budesonide was ineffective for the prevention of acute mountain sickness, and acetazolamide was preventive of severe acute mountain sickness taken just before rapid ascent. (c) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available