Lack of effectiveness of magnesium in chronic stable asthma. A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial in normal subjects and in patients with chronic stable asthma.

What Was Tested

The paper reports a study of Magnesium Sulfate, published as a randomized controlled trial.

Magnesium sulfate has been helpful in the treatment of acute exacerbations of asthma.

Who Took Part

The study group was 15 patients.

By PubMed's age tags, the people studied were adults, both men and women.

The researchers performed a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial in 15 patients with chronic, stable asthma and 10 nonasthmatics.

On study day 1, spirometry and albuterol challenge were used to confirm the presence of asthma according to American Thoracic Society criteria.

How the Study Was Run

In design terms this was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled and crossover study.

Random assignment meant chance, not the researchers, decided who got Magnesium Sulfate and who got the comparison, which limits bias.

Blinding on both sides kept the patients and researchers unaware of who received Magnesium Sulfate.

A placebo (an inactive look-alike) gave the Magnesium Sulfate group a baseline to be compared against.

Each person switched between Magnesium Sulfate and the comparison at some point, usually with a gap in between.

On study day 3, subjects were crossed over to receive the other drug.

Spirometry was performed before, during, and after drug or placebo administration.

Circulating ionized magnesium concentrations were determined before and after intravenous magnesium or placebo administration.

What Was Measured

The subject headings attached to it are Asthma, Chronic Disease, Magnesium Sulfate, Respiratory Function Tests and Treatment Failure.

What This Means in Plain Language

The paper is a randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled study of Magnesium Sulfate in 15 patients.

With fewer than 40 people, it is a small study, so it is better read as an early signal for further research than as a settled answer.

The abstract goes on to report its results in about 3 sentences; this page does not restate them, so read the paper for the findings and their limits.

The publication is from 1995 (Archives of internal medicine), a journal based in United States.

More context: all human trials.