Dupilumab in persistent asthma with elevated eosinophil levels.

BACKGROUND: Moderate-to-severe asthma remains poorly treated. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of dupilumab (SAR231893/REGN668), a fully human monoclonal antibody to the alpha subunit of the interleukin-4 receptor, in patients with persistent, moderate-to-severe asthma and elevated eosinophil levels. METHODS: We enrolled patients with persistent, moderate-to-severe asthma and a blood eosinophil count of at least 300 cells per microliter or a sputum eosinophil level of at least 3% who used medium-dose to high-dose inhaled glucocorticoids plus long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs). We administered dupilumab (300 mg) or placebo subcutaneously once weekly. Patients were instructed to discontinue LABAs at week 4 and to taper and discontinue inhaled glucocorticoids during weeks 6 through 9. Patients received the study drug for 12 weeks or until a protocol-defined asthma exacerbation occurred. The primary end point was the occurrence of an asthma exacerbation; secondary end points included a range of measures of asthma control. Effects on various type 2 helper T-cell (Th2)-associated biomarkers and safety and tolerability were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 52 patients were assigned to the dupilumab group, and 52 patients were assigned to the placebo group. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. Three patients had an asthma exacerbation with dupilumab (6%) versus 23 with placebo (44%), corresponding to an 87% reduction with dupilumab (odds ratio, 0.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.02 to 0.28; P<0.001). Significant improvements were observed for most measures of lung function and asthma control. Dupilumab reduced biomarkers associated with Th2-driven inflammation. Injection-site reactions, nasopharyngitis, nausea, and headache occurred more frequently with dupilumab than with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with persistent, moderate-to-severe asthma and elevated eosinophil levels who used inhaled glucocorticoids and LABAs, dupilumab therapy, as compared with placebo, was associated with fewer asthma exacerbations when LABAs and inhaled glucocorticoids were withdrawn, with improved lung function and reduced levels of Th2-associated inflammatory markers. (Funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01312961.).

The oral CRTh2 antagonist QAW039 (fevipiprant): A phase II study in uncontrolled allergic asthma.

BACKGROUND: There is an unmet medical need for allergic asthma patients who are uncontrolled on conventional therapies. The aim of this study was to collect efficacy and safety data for QAW039, an oral chemoattractant receptor-homologous molecule expressed on Th2 cells (CRTh2) receptor antagonist, for the treatment of asthma. METHODS: This was an exploratory phase II, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled multi-center study. Patients with mild-to-moderate uncontrolled allergic asthma (N = 170) were either without or weaned off inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting ß-agonists (LABA) and randomized (1:1) to QAW039 (500 mg once daily) or to placebo for 28 days. RESULTS: Overall, 157 patients completed the study. There were no significant differences between QAW039 and placebo for trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) or Asthma control questionnaire (ACQ) in the total population. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that patients with a FEV1 <70% of predicted at baseline treated with QAW039 had significant improvement compared with placebo in trough FEV1 (QAW039- Placebo [Δ] = 207 mL; 90% confidence interval [CI]: 96, 319; P = 0.002) and ACQ7 (Δ = -0.41; 90%CI: -0.69, -0.13; P = 0.009). QAW039 reached a mean maximum concentration (Cmax) of 3440 ng/mL on day 28 at a median Tmax of 1 h (range 0.5-4 h). Most adverse events (AEs) were mild/moderate and balanced between both groups, with no serious AEs. CONCLUSIONS: In the general study population, no improvement in lung function was observed with QAW039. However, a subgroup analysis revealed that patients with greater severity of airflow limitation (FEV1 < 70%) had improved lung function and asthma control when treated with QAW039. QAW039 also demonstrated a favorable safety profile. TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT01253603.

Practice parameter for the diagnosis and management of primary immunodeficiency.

The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) and the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI) have jointly accepted responsibility for establishing the "Practice parameter for the diagnosis and management of primary immunodeficiency." This is a complete and comprehensive document at the current time. The medical environment is a changing environment, and not all recommendations will be appropriate for all patients. Because this document incorporated the efforts of many participants, no single individual, including those who served on the Joint Task Force, is authorized to provide an official AAAAI or ACAAI interpretation of these practice parameters. Any request for information about or an interpretation of these practice parameters by the AAAAI or ACAAI should be directed to the Executive Offices of the AAAAI, the ACAAI, and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. These parameters are not designed for use by pharmaceutical companies in drug promotion.

The diagnosis and management of acute and chronic urticaria: 2014 update.

These parameters were developed by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters (JTFPP), representing the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI); the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI); and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. The AAAAI and ACAAI have jointly accepted responsibility for establishing "The diagnosis and management of acute and chronic urticaria: 2014 update." This is a complete and comprehensive document at the current time. The medical environment is a changing environment, and not all recommendations will be appropriate for all patients. Because this document incorporated the efforts of many participants, no single individual, including those who served on the JTFPP, is authorized to provide an official AAAAI or ACAAI interpretation of these practice parameters. Any request for information about or an interpretation of these practice parameters by the AAAAI or ACAAI should be directed to the Executive Offices of the AAAAI, the ACAAI, and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. The JTFPP understands that the cost of diagnostic tests and therapeutic agents is an important concern that might appropriately influence the work-up and treatment chosen for a given patient. The JTFPP recognizes that the emphasis of our primary recommendations regarding a medication might vary, for example, depending on third-party payer issues and product patent expiration dates. However, because a given test or agent's cost is so widely variable and there is a paucity of pharmacoeconomic data, the JTFPP generally does not consider cost when formulating practice parameter recommendations. In extraordinary circumstances, when the cost/benefit ratio of an intervention is prohibitive, as supported by pharmacoeconomic data, commentary might be provided. These parameters are not designed for use by pharmaceutical companies in drug promotion. The JTFPP is committed to ensuring that the practice parameters are based on the best scientific evidence that is free of commercial bias. To this end, the parameter development process includes multiple layers of rigorous review. These layers include the workgroup convened to draft the parameter, the task force reviewers, and peer review by members of each sponsoring society. Although the task force has the final responsibility for the content of the documents submitted for publication, each reviewer comment will be discussed, and reviewers will receive written responses to comments, when appropriate. To preserve the greatest transparency regarding potential conflicts of interest, all members of the JTFPP and the practice parameter workgroups will complete a standard potential conflict of interest disclosure form, which will be available for external review by the sponsoring organization and any other interested individual. In addition, before confirming the selection of a Work Group chairperson, the Joint Task Force will discuss and resolve all relevant potential conflicts of interest associated with this selection. Finally, all members of parameter workgroups will be provided a written statement regarding the importance of ensuring that the parameter development process is free of commercial bias. Practice parameters are available online at www.jcaai.org and www.allergyparameters.org.

Food allergy: a practice parameter update-2014.

This parameter was developed by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters, representing the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI); the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI); and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (JCAAI). The AAAAI and the ACAAI have jointly accepted responsibility for establishing "Food Allergy: A practice parameter update-2014." This is a complete and comprehensive document at the current time. The medical environment is a changing one, and not all recommendations will be appropriate for all patients. Because this document incorporated the efforts of many participants, no single individual, including those who served on the Joint Task Force, is authorized to provide an official AAAAI or ACAAI interpretation of these practice parameters. Any request for information about or an interpretation of these practice parameters by the AAAAI or ACAAI should be directed to the Executive Offices of the AAAAI, ACAAI, and JCAAI. These parameters are not designed for use by pharmaceutical companies in drug promotion.

Atopic dermatitis: a practice parameter update 2012.

This parameter was developed by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters, representing the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI); the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI); and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. The AAAAI and the ACAAI have jointly accepted responsibility for establishing "Atopic dermatitis: a practice parameter update 2012." This is a complete and comprehensive document at the current time. The medical environment is a changing environment, and not all recommendations will be appropriate for all patients. Because this document incorporated the efforts of many participants, no single individual, including those who served on the Joint Task Force, is authorized to provide an official AAAAI or ACAAI interpretation of these practice parameters. Any request for information about or an interpretation of these practice parameters by the AAAAI or ACAAI should be directed to the Executive Offices of the AAAAI, the ACAAI, and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. These parameters are not designed for use by pharmaceutical companies in drug promotion. Published practice parameters of the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters for Allergy & Immunology are available online at http://www.jcaai.org.

A focused parameter update: hereditary angioedema, acquired C1 inhibitor deficiency, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor-associated angioedema.

These parameters were developed by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters (JTFPP), representing the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI); the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI); and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. The AAAAI and the ACAAI have jointly accepted responsibility for establishing "A focused parameter update: Hereditary angioedema, acquired C1 inhibitor deficiency, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor-associated angioedema." This is a complete and comprehensive document at the current time. The medical environment is a changing environment, and not all recommendations will be appropriate for all patients. Because this document incorporated the efforts of many participants, no single individual, including those who served on the JTFPP, is authorized to provide an official AAAAI or ACAAI interpretation of these practice parameters. Any request for information about or an interpretation of these practice parameters by the AAAAI or ACAAI should be directed to the Executive Offices of the AAAAI, the ACAAI, and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. The Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters understands that the cost of diagnostic tests and therapeutic agents is an important concern that might appropriately influence the work-up and treatment chosen for a given patient. The JTFPP recognizes that the emphasis of our primary recommendations regarding a medication might vary, for example, depending on third-party payer issues and product patent expiration dates. However, because the cost of a given test or agent is so widely variable and there is a paucity of pharmacoeconomic data, the JTFPP generally does not consider cost when formulating practice parameter recommendations. In some instances the cost benefit of an intervention is considered relevant, and commentary might be provided. These parameters are not designed for use by pharmaceutical companies in drug promotion. The Joint Task Force is committed to ensuring that the practice parameters are based on the best scientific evidence that is free of commercial bias. To this end, the parameter development process includes multiple layers of rigorous review. These layers include the Workgroup convened to draft the parameter, the Task Force Reviewers, and peer review by members of each sponsoring society. Although the Task Force has the final responsibility for the content of the documents submitted for publication, each reviewer comment will be discussed, and reviewers will receive written responses to comments when appropriate. To preserve the greatest transparency regarding potential conflicts of interest, all members of the Joint Task Force and the Practice Parameters Workgroups will complete a standard potential conflict of interest disclosure form, which will be available for external review by the sponsoring organization and any other interested individual. In addition, before confirming the selection of a Workgroup chairperson, the Joint Task Force will discuss and resolve all relevant potential conflicts of interest associated with this selection. Finally, all members of parameter workgroups will be provided a written statement regarding the importance of ensuring that the parameter development process is free of commercial bias.

Environmental assessment and exposure reduction of cockroaches: a practice parameter.

This parameter was developed by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters, representing the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI); the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI); and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. The AAAAI and the ACAAI have jointly accepted responsibility for establishing "Environmental assessment and remediation: a practice parameter." This is a complete and comprehensive document at the current time. The medical environment is a changing environment, and not all recommendations will be appropriate for all patients. Because this document incorporated the efforts of many participants, no single person, including those who served on the Joint Task Force, is authorized to provide an official AAAAI or ACAAI interpretation of these practice parameters. Any request for information about or an interpretation of these practice parameters by the AAAAI or ACAAI should be directed to the Executive Offices of the AAAAI, the ACAAI, and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. These parameters are not designed for use by pharmaceutical companies in drug promotion. The findings and conclusions in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Is a single blood eosinophil count a reliable marker for "eosinophilic asthma?".

INTRODUCTION: "Eosinophilic asthma" refers to an asthma phenotype characterized by predominance of eosinophils in the bronchial airways and corticosteroid responsiveness. Recent clinical trials of eosinophil-blocking agents have utilized a blood eosinophil count of 300 or 400 eosinophils/mm(3) or higher to identify subjects with moderate to severe asthma. We observed multiple instances of counts which varied widely in the same patient within the same day. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether there is significant variability in blood eosinophil counts taken throughout the day in the same patients with moderate asthma. METHODS: Twelve subjects had serial blood eosinophil counts obtained within a 24-hour period. RESULTS: Twelve subjects were enrolled: seven subjects had moderate asthma, three subjects had mild asthma, and two control subjects had no asthma. The variability of blood eosinophil counts ranged from 17% to 396%. No specific diurnal pattern was found among the subjects. The highest variability were seen in three moderate asthmatics (396%, 170%, and 154%) and one mild asthmatic (164%) while the other subjects had variability of 84% or less. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed significant variability in blood eosinophil counts within a 24-hour period in the same subjects. The highest variability was seen in moderate asthmatics. These findings would appear to place the utility of a single eosinophil count in question.

Budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler versus budesonide: a randomized controlled trial in black patients with asthma.

OBJECTIVE: Concerns exist that responses to long-acting ß(2)-adrenergic agonists in black patients may differ from the general population. The efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FM) pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) versus budesonide dry powder inhaler (BUD DPI) were evaluated in adolescent and adult black asthma patients. METHODS: This 12-week, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, phase IV US study was conducted in 311 self-reported black patients aged ≥12 years with moderate to severe persistent asthma, previously receiving medium- to high-dose inhaled corticosteroid. After 2 weeks on BUD 90 µg × 2 inhalations twice daily (bid), symptomatic patients were randomized to BUD/FM 160/4.5 µg × 2 inhalations bid or BUD 180 µg × 2 inhalations bid. RESULTS: Improvement in predose forced expiratory volume in 1 second from baseline to the treatment mean (primary variable) was greater with BUD/FM versus BUD (0.16 vs. 0.07 L; p = .008); this effect was also observed at weeks 2, 6, and end of treatment (p ≤ .032). Greater improvements (p < .001) in peak expiratory flow with BUD/FM versus BUD were seen at first measurement and maintained during 12 weeks (morning: 25.34 vs. 7.53 L/minute, respectively; evening: 21.61 vs. 7.67 L/minute, respectively); greater improvements in daily asthma symptom score and rescue medication use were also observed (p ≤ .039). Both treatments were well tolerated, with similar safety profiles. CONCLUSIONS: In this population of black asthma patients, BUD/FM pMDI resulted in greater improvements in pulmonary function and asthma control versus BUD DPI, with similar safety profiles.

Exercise-induced bronchoconstriction update: therapeutic management.

Management of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) should include both prevention and treatment directed toward the underlying asthma and bronchial hyperresponsiveness. Both nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic approaches should be followed. Preexercise warm-up, to take advantage of the refractory period that follows EIB, is an important preventive technique. Dietary interventions such as fish oil, vitamin D, and ascorbic acid have shown promising results. Beta 2-agonists are considered the most effective agents for EIB at this time but intermittent use is recommended to avoid tolerance or decreased effectiveness with daily regular use. Leukotriene inhibitors and mast cell stabilizing agents can be useful in EIB but are less effective than beta 2-agonists. Tolerance to beta 2-agonists is not prevented by concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroid but it is not known whether use of leukotriene inhibitors can affect tolerance. EIB in elite athletes with no underlying asthma may have a different pathogenesis.

Omalizumab: an update on efficacy and safety in moderate-to-severe allergic asthma.

Omalizumab is an anti-immunoglobulin E (anti-IgE) monoclonal antibody approved in the United States since 2003 for treatment of moderate-to-severe allergic asthma in adults and adolescents (aged ≥12 years) inadequately controlled with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). Current treatment guidelines recommend considering the addition of omalizumab if allergic asthma symptoms are not adequately controlled with high-dose ICS + long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) therapy. This study was designed to review the clinical efficacy and safety of omalizumab as established in previously published pivotal clinical trials used to support registration in the United States, i.e., primarily including patients receiving only concomitant ICS therapy, as well as results from the recently completed additional study, which specifically enrolled patients who were poorly controlled despite high-dose ICS + LABA therapy ± additional controllers (including oral corticosteroids [OCSs]). Summary of published omalizumab pivotal trials and associated extension trials, plus key results from the additional study, were used. Pediatric data (i.e., <12 years) were outside the scope of this article. Treatment with omalizumab significantly reduced asthma exacerbations versus placebo when added to ICS therapy during both steroid-stable and steroid-reduction phases of two pivotal trials. In the additional study, omalizumab significantly reduced asthma exacerbation rates versus placebo when added to high-dose ICS + LABA therapy with or without other controller medications. Results from the additional clinical study further support current asthma guideline recommendations to consider omalizumab in steps 5 or 6 for persistent allergic asthma patients whose symptoms are not adequately controlled despite high-dose ICS + LABA therapy ± additional controllers (including OCS).

A randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study of single-dose omalizumab in patients with H1-antihistamine-refractory chronic idiopathic urticaria.

BACKGROUND: Proof-of-concept studies with omalizumab in patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU) have shown significant decreases in mean urticaria activity scores (UASs). OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in patients with CIU who remain symptomatic despite concomitant H(1)-antihistamine therapy. METHODS: This phase II, prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study investigated omalizumab in patients aged 12 to 75 years in the United States and 18 to 75 years in Germany with a UAS over 7 days (UAS7) of 12 or greater despite antihistamine therapy. Patients were randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive a single subcutaneous dose of 75, 300, or 600 mg of omalizumab or placebo added to a stable dose of H(1)-antihistamine. The primary efficacy outcome was change from baseline to week 4 in UAS7. Patients were followed for an additional 12 weeks to monitor safety. RESULTS: Ninety patients from the United States or Germany were enrolled. Both the 300-mg omalizumab group (-19.9 vs -6.9, P < .001) and the 600-mg omalizumab group (-14.6 vs -6.9, P = .047) showed greater improvement versus the placebo group in UAS7. No meaningful difference was observed for the 75-mg omalizumab group. Similar results were seen for key secondary end points of weekly hive and itch scores. Onset of effect occurred after 1 to 2 weeks. Omalizumab was well tolerated, and the incidence of adverse events was similar across treatment groups. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that a fixed dose of 300 or 600 mg of omalizumab provides rapid and effective treatment of CIU in patients who are symptomatic despite treatment with H(1)-antihistamines.

Stinging insect hypersensitivity: a practice parameter update 2011.

These parameters were developed by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters, representing the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI); the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI); and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. The AAAAI and the ACAAI have jointly accepted responsibility for establishing "Stinging insect hypersensitivity: a practice parameter update II." Because this document incorporated the efforts of many participants, no single individual, including those who served on the Joint Task Force, is authorized to provide an official AAAAI or ACAAI interpretation of these practice parameters. Any request for information about or an interpretation of these practice parameters by the AAAAI or the ACAAI should be directed to the Executive Offices of the AAAAI, the ACAAI, and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. This is a complete and comprehensive document at the current time. The medical environment is a changing environment, and not all recommendations will be appropriate for all patients. These parameters are not designed for use by pharmaceutical companies in drug promotion. The Joint Task Force understands that the cost of diagnostic tests and therapeutic agents is an important concern that may appropriately influence the work-up and treatment chosen for a given patient. The Joint Task Force recognizes that the emphasis of our primary recommendations regarding a medication may vary, for example, depending on third party payer issues and product patent expiration dates. However, since a given test or agent's cost is so widely variable, and there is a paucity of pharmacoeconomic data, the Joint Task Force generally does not consider cost when formulating Practice Parameter recommendations. In extraordinary circumstances, when the cost benefit of an intervention is prohibitive as supported by pharmacoeconomic data, commentary may be provided.

The diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis practice parameter: 2010 update.

These parameters were developed by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters, representing the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI); the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI); and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. The AAAAI and the ACAAI have jointly accepted responsibility for establishing "The Diagnosis and Management of Anaphylaxis Practice Parameter: 2010 Update." This is a complete and comprehensive document at the current time. The medical environment is a changing environment, and not all recommendations will be appropriate for all patients. Because this document incorporated the efforts of many participants, no single individual, including those who served on the Joint Task Force, is authorized to provide an official AAAAI or ACAAI interpretation of these practice parameters. Any request for information about or an interpretation of these practice parameters by the AAAAI or ACAAI should be directed to the Executive Offices of the AAAAI, the ACAAI, or the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. These parameters are not designed for use by pharmaceutical companies in drug promotion.

Efficacy and safety of a new 20% immunoglobulin preparation for subcutaneous administration, IgPro20, in patients with primary immunodeficiency.

Subcutaneous human IgG (SCIG) therapy in primary immunodeficiency (PID) offers sustained IgG levels throughout the dosing cycle and fewer adverse events (AEs) compared to intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG). A phase I study showed good local tolerability of IgPro20, a new 20% liquid SCIG stabilized with L-proline. A prospective, open-label, multicenter, single-arm, phase III study evaluated the efficacy and safety of IgPro20 in patients with PID over 15 months. Forty-nine patients (5-72 years) previously treated with IVIG received weekly subcutaneous infusions of IgPro20. The mean serum IgG level was 12.5 g/L. No serious bacterial infections were reported. There were 96 nonserious infections (rate 2.76/patient per year). The rate of days missed from work/school was 2.06/patient per year, and the rate of hospitalization was 0.2/patient per year. Ninety-nine percent of AEs were mild or moderate. No serious, IgPro20-related AEs were reported. IgPro20 effectively protected patients with PID against infections and maintained serum IgG levels without causing unexpected AEs.

Use of mannitol inhalation challenge in assessment of cough.

Bronchial provocation testing uses a variety of direct and indirect inhalational challenges to evaluate airway hyperreactivity. Mannitol, a simple, easy-to-administer hypertonic stimulus available in many countries, is currently under review by the FDA in the US. Healthy subjects show no airway response to inhaled mannitol; asthmatic patients respond with airway narrowing similar to challenges with hypertonic saline and exercise. Mannitol challenge also has a tussive effect that is independent of bronchoconstriction, suggesting different physiologic pathways. Patients with chronic cough show increased sensitivity to mannitol, and mannitol testing may be useful for evaluating heterogeneity in the cough response.

Comparison of mannitol and methacholine to predict exercise-induced bronchoconstriction and a clinical diagnosis of asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma can be difficult to diagnose, but bronchial provocation with methacholine, exercise or mannitol is helpful when used to identify bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR), a key feature of the disease. The utility of these tests in subjects with signs and symptoms of asthma but without a clear diagnosis has not been investigated. We investigated the sensitivity and specificity of mannitol to identify exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) as a manifestation of BHR; compared this with methacholine; and compared the sensitivity and specificity of mannitol and methacholine for a clinician diagnosis of asthma. METHODS: 509 people (6-50 yr) were enrolled, 78% were atopic, median FEV1 92.5% predicted, and a low NAEPPII asthma score of 1.2. Subjects with symptoms of seasonal allergy were excluded. BHR to exercise was defined as a > or = 10% fall in FEV1 on at least one of two tests, to methacholine a PC20 < or = 16 mg/ml and to mannitol a 15% fall in FEV1 at < or = 635 mg or a 10% fall between doses. The clinician diagnosis of asthma was made on examination, history, skin tests, questionnaire and response to exercise but they were blind to the mannitol and methacholine results. RESULTS: Mannitol and methacholine were therapeutically equivalent to identify EIB, a clinician diagnosis of asthma, and prevalence of BHR. The sensitivity/specificity of mannitol to identify EIB was 59%/65% and for methacholine it was 56%/69%. The BHR was mild. Mean EIB % fall in FEV1 in subjects positive to exercise was 19%, (SD 9.2), mannitol PD15 158 (CI:129,193) mg, and methacholine PC20 2.1(CI:1.7, 2.6) mg/ml. The prevalence of BHR was the same: for exercise (43.5%), mannitol (44.8%), and methacholine (41.6%) with a test agreement between 62 & 69%. The sensitivity and specificity for a clinician diagnosis of asthma was 56%/73% for mannitol and 51%/75% for methacholine. The sensitivity increased to 73% and 72% for mannitol and methacholine when two exercise tests were positive. CONCLUSION: In this group with normal FEV1, mild symptoms, and mild BHR, the sensitivity and specificity for both mannitol and methacholine to identify EIB and a clinician diagnosis of asthma were equivalent, but lower than previously documented in well-defined populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This was a multi-center trial comprising 25 sites across the United States of America.