Associations of AMP and adenosine induced dyspnea sensation to large and small airways dysfunction in asthma.

BACKGROUND: Bronchial provocation is often used to confirm asthma. Dyspnea sensation, however, associates poorly with the evoked drop in FEV1. Provocation tests only use the large airways parameter FEV1, although dyspnea is associated with both large- and small airways dysfunction. Aim of this study was to explore if adenosine 5'-monophosphate (AMP) and adenosine evoke an equal dyspnea sensation and if dyspnea associates better with large or small airways dysfunction. METHODS: We targeted large airways with AMP and small airways with dry powder adenosine in 59 asthmatic (ex)-smokers with ≥5 packyears, 14 ± 7 days apart. All subjects performed spirometry, impulse oscillometry (IOS), and Borg dyspnea score. In 36 subjects multiple breath nitrogen washout (MBNW) was additionally performed. We analyzed the association of the change (Δ) in Borg score with the change in large and small airways parameters, using univariate and multivariate linear regression analyses. MBNW was analyzed separately. RESULTS: Provocation with AMP and adenosine evoked similar levels of dyspnea. ΔFEV1 was not significantly associated with ΔBorg after either AMP or adenosine provocation, in both univariate and multivariate analyses. In multivariate linear regression, a decrease in FEF25-75 during adenosine provocation was independently associated with an increase in Borg. In the multivariate analyses for AMP provocation, no significant associations were found between ΔBorg and any large or small airways parameters. CONCLUSION: AMP and adenosine induce equally severe dyspnea sensations. Our results suggest that dyspnea induced with dry powder adenosine is related to small airways involvement, while neither large nor small airways dysfunction was associated with AMP-induced dyspnea. TRAIL REGISTRATION: NCT01741285 at www.clinicaltrials.gov , first registered Dec 4th, 2012.

Predictors of clinical response to extrafine and non-extrafine particle inhaled corticosteroids in smokers and ex-smokers with asthma.

We performed a post-hoc analysis of the OLiVIA-study investigating whether current and ex-smoking asthmatics with small airways dysfunction (SAD) show a better response in airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) to small particle adenosine after treatment with extrafine compared to non-extrafine particle inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), and to investigate which clinical parameters predict a favorable response to both treatments. We show that smoking and ex-smoking asthmatics with and without SAD have a similar treatment response with either extrafine or non-extrafine particle ICS. We also found that lower blood neutrophils are associated with a smaller ICS-response in smokers and ex-smokers with asthma, independent from the level of blood eosinophils.

Realising the potential of various inhaled airway challenge agents through improved delivery to the lungs.

Inhaled airway challenges provoke bronchoconstriction in susceptible subjects and are a pivotal tool in the diagnosis and monitoring of obstructive lung diseases, both in the clinic and in the development of new respiratory medicines. This article reviews the main challenge agents that are in use today (methacholine, mannitol, adenosine, allergens, endotoxin) and emphasises the importance of controlling how these agents are administered. There is a danger that the optimal value of these challenge agents may not be realised due to suboptimal inhaled delivery; thus considerations for effective and reproducible challenge delivery are provided. This article seeks to increase awareness of the importance of precise delivery of inhaled agents used to challenge the airways for diagnosis and research, and is intended as a stepping stone towards much-needed standardisation and harmonisation in the administration of inhaled airway challenge agents.

Extrafine compared to non-extrafine particle inhaled corticosteroids in smokers and ex-smokers with asthma.

BACKGROUND: Smoking is as prevalent in asthmatics as in the general population. Asthmatic smokers benefit less from inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) than non-smoking asthmatics, possibly due to more smoking-induced small airways disease. Thus targeting small airways may be important in treating asthmatic (ex-)smokers. We hypothesized that extrafine particle ICS improve small airways function more than non-extrafine particle ICS in asthmatic (ex-)smokers. METHODS: We performed an open-label, randomized, three-way cross-over study comparing extrafine beclomethasone (HFA-QVAR) to non-extrafine beclomethasone (HFA-Clenil) and fluticasone (HFA-Flixotide) in 22 smokers and 21 ex-smokers with asthma (?5 packyears). RESULTS: Improvement from baseline in PD20 adenosine after using QVAR, Clenil or Flixotide was 1.04 ± 1.71, 1.09 ± 2.12 and 0.94 ± 1.97 doubling doses, mean ± standard deviation (SD), respectively. The change from baseline in R5-R20 at PD20 adenosine after using QVAR, Clenil or Flixotide was ?0.02 ± 0.27, 0.02 ± 0.21, and ?0.02 ± 0.31 kPa sL?1, mean ± SD, respectively. The change in PD20 adenosine and R5-R20 at PD20 adenosine were neither statistically significant different between QVAR and Clenil (p = 0.86 and p = 0.82) nor between QVAR and Flixotide (p = 0.50 and p = 0.96). CONCLUSION: Similar effectiveness in improving small airways function was found for extrafine and non-extrafine particle ICS treatment for asthmatic smokers and ex-smokers.

Targeting the small airways with dry powder adenosine: a challenging concept.

Background: Small-particle inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) provide a higher small airway deposition than large-particle ICS. However, we are still not able to identify asthma patients who will profit most from small-particle treatment. Objective: We aimed to identify these patients by selectively challenging the small and large airways. We hypothesized that the airways could be challenged selectively using small- and large-particle adenosine, both inhaled at a high and a low flow rate. Design: In this cross-over study 11 asthma subjects performed four dry powder adenosine tests, with either small (MMAD 2.7 µm) or large (MMAD 6.0 µm) particles, inhaled once with a low flow rate (30 l min-1) and once with a high flow rate (60 l min-1). Spirometry and impulse oscillometry were performed after every bronchoprovocation step. We assumed that FEV1 reflects the large airways, and FEF25-75%, R5-R20 and X5 reflect the small airways. Results: The four adenosine tests were not significantly different with respect to the threshold values of FEV1 (p = 0.12), FEF25-75% (p = 0.37), R5-R20 (p = 0.60) or X5 (p = 0.46). Both small- and large-particle adenosine induced a response in the small airways in the majority of the tests. Conclusions: In contrast to our hypothesis, all four adenosine tests provoked a response in the small airways and we could not identify different large- or small-airway responders. Interestingly, even the test with large particles and a high flow rate induced a small-airway response, suggesting that selective challenging of the small airways is not necessary. Future studies should investigate the relation between particle deposition and the site of an airway response.

Prerequisites for a dry powder inhaler for children with cystic fibrosis.

Correct inhalation technique is essential for effective use of dry powder inhalers (DPIs), as their effectiveness largely depends on the patient's inhalation manoeuvre. Children are an especially challenging target population for DPI development due to the large variability in understanding and inspiratory capacities. We previously performed a study in which we determined the prerequisites for a paediatric DPI in a mostly healthy paediatric population, for which we used an empty test inhaler with variable internal airflow resistance and mouthpiece. In the current study we investigated what specifications are required for a DPI for children with cystic fibrosis (CF), for which we expanded on our previous findings. We recorded flow profiles of 35 children with CF (aged 4.7-14.7 years) at three airflow resistances (0.031-0.045 kPa0.5.min.L-1) from which various inspiratory parameters were computed. Obstructions in the mouth during inhalation were recorded with a sinuscope. All children were able to perform a correct inhalation manoeuvre, although video analysis showed that children did not place the inhaler correctly in the mouth in 17% of the cases. No effect was found of medium to high airflow resistance on total inhaled volume, which implies that the whole resistance range tested is suitable for children with CF aged 4-14 years. No effect could be established of either mouthpiece design or airflow resistance on the occurrence of obstructions in the mouth cavity. This study confirms our previous conclusion that the development of DPIs specifically for children is highly desired. Such a paediatric DPI should function well at 0.5 L inhaled volume and a peak inspiratory flow rate of 20 to 30 L/min, depending on the internal airflow resistance. This resistance can be increased up to 0.045 kPa0.5.min.L-1 (medium-high) to reduce oropharyngeal deposition. A higher resistance may be less favourable due to its compromising effect on PIF and thereby on the energy available for powder dispersion.

Adenosine dry powder inhalation for bronchial challenge testing, part 2: proof of concept in asthmatic subjects.

Adenosine is an indirect stimulus to assess bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR(2)) in asthma. Bronchial challenge tests are usually performed with nebulised solutions of adenosine 5'-monophosphate (AMP(3)). The nebulised AMP test has several disadvantages, like long administration times and a restrictive maximum concentration that does not result in BHR in all patients. In this study, we investigated the applicability of dry powder adenosine for assessment of BHR in comparison to nebulised AMP. Dry powder adenosine was prepared in doubling doses (0.01-80 mg) derived from the nebulised AMP test with addition of two higher doses. Five asthmatic subjects performed two bronchial challenge tests, one with nebulised AMP following the 2-min tidal breathing method; the second with dry powder adenosine administered with an investigational inhaler and single slow inhalations (inspiratory flow rate 30-40 L/min). All subjects reached a 20% fall in FEV1(4) with the new adenosine test (PD20(5)) compared to four subjects with the AMP test (PC20(6)). Dry powder adenosine was well tolerated by all subjects and better appreciated than nebulised AMP. In conclusion, this new bronchial challenge test appears to be a safe and convenient alternative to the nebulised AMP test to assess BHR in asthmatic subjects.

Adenosine dry powder inhalation for bronchial challenge testing, part 1: inhaler and formulation development and in vitro performance testing.

Dry powder administration of adenosine by use of an effective inhaler may be an interesting alternative to nebulisation of adenosine 5'-monophosphate in bronchial challenge testing, because of a shorter administration time and more consistent delivered fine particle dose over the entire dose range. In this study, we tested various powder formulations and classifier based dispersion principles and investigated the in vitro performance of the most promising formulation/classifier combination in a new test inhaler system. Spray-dried formulations of either pure adenosine (100%) or adenosine and lactose as diluent (1% and 10% adenosine) were prepared to cover the entire expected dose range for adenosine (0.01-20mg). All three powders, in all 12 suggested doses, dispersed well with the newly developed test inhaler with a multiple air jet classifier disperser, into aerosols with an average volume median diameter of 3.1µm (3.0-3.3µm). For eleven out of 12 dose steps, the fine particle fractions<5µm as percent of the loaded dose varied within the range of 67-80% (mean: 74%). The new test concept allows for more consistent aerosol delivery over the entire dose range with narrower size distributions than nebulisation and thus may improve adenosine administration in bronchial challenge testing.

Challenging the two-minute tidal breathing challenge test.

BACKGROUND: In the adenosine 5'-monophosphate (AMP) bronchial challenge test, AMP is usually administered according to dosing protocols for methacholine. We investigated whether the 2-min tidal breathing challenge test for methacholine is applicable to AMP. Parameters known to affect nebulizer output were studied. Our aim was to determine whether control of additional parameters is needed for currently standardized protocols. METHODS: The study was performed with the Sidestream nebulizer from the APS Pro Aerosol Provocation System (CareFusion Respiratory). The effects of AMP concentration, jet pressure, and suction flow rate on nebulizer output rate and aerosol droplet size distribution were determined. RESULTS: The volume median diameter for water increased from 5.10 µm to 8.49 µm when the jet pressure was reduced to obtain the prescribed output rate of 0.13 mL/min. The output rate was increased when a suction flow rate was used to remove the aerosol. Increasing the AMP concentration resulted in smaller droplets and a lower output rate when a suction flow was applied. CONCLUSIONS: The effects of AMP concentration on nebulizer performance may result in changes in the administered dose and site of deposition of AMP at dose escalation. All of the investigated parameters influence nebulizer performance, hence the outcome of a bronchial challenge test. Therefore, these parameters should not only be specified in challenge testing, but be actively controlled as well.