[Standard technical specifications for methacholine chloride (Methacholine) bronchial challenge test (2023)].

The methacholine challenge test (MCT) is a standard evaluation method of assessing airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) and its severity, and has significant clinical value in the diagnosis and treatment of bronchial asthma. A consensus working group consisting of experts from the Pulmonary Function and Clinical Respiratory Physiology Committee of the Chinese Association of Chest Physicians, the Task Force for Pulmonary Function of the Chinese Thoracic Society, and the Pulmonary Function Group of Respiratory Branch of the Chinese Geriatric Society jointly developed this consensus. Based on the "Guidelines for Pulmonary Function-Bronchial Provocation Test" published in 2014, the issues encountered in its use, and recent developments, the group has updated the Standard technical specifications of methacholine chloride (methacholine) bronchial challenge test (2023). Through an extensive collection of expert opinions, literature reviews, questionnaire surveys, and multiple rounds of online and offline discussions, the consensus addressed the eleven core issues in MCT's clinical practice, including indications, contraindications, preparation of provocative agents, test procedures and methods, quality control, safety management, interpretation of results, and reporting standards. The aim was to provide clinical pulmonary function practitioners in healthcare institutions with the tools to optimize the use of this technique to guide clinical diagnosis and treatment.Summary of recommendationsQuestion 1: Who is suitable for conducting MCT? What are contraindications for performing MCT?Patients with atypical symptoms and a clinical suspicion of asthma, patients diagnosed with asthma requiring assessment of the severity of airway hyperresponsiveness, individuals with allergic rhinitis who are at risk of developing asthma, patients in need of evaluating the effectiveness of asthma treatment, individuals in occupations with high safety risks due to airway hyperresponsiveness, patients with chronic diseases prone to airway hyperresponsiveness, others requiring assessment of airway reactivity.Absolute contraindications: (1) Patients who are allergic to methacholine (MCh) or other parasympathomimetic drugs, with allergic reactions including rash, itching/swelling (especially of the face, tongue, and throat), severe dizziness, and dyspnea; (2) Patients with a history of life-threatening asthma attacks or those who have required mechanical ventilation for asthma attacks in the past three months; (3) Patients with moderate to severe impairment of baseline pulmonary function [Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (FEV1) less than 60% of the predicted value or FEV1<1.0 L]; (4) Severe urticaria; (5) Other situations inappropriate for forced vital capacity (FVC) measurement, such as myocardial infarction or stroke in the past three months, poorly controlled hypertension, aortic aneurysm, recent eye surgery, or increased intracranial pressure.Relative contraindications: (1) Moderate or more severe impairment of baseline lung function (FEV1%pred<70%), but individuals with FEV1%pred>60% may still be considered for MCT with strict observation and adequate preparation; (2) Experiencing asthma acute exacerbation; (3) Poor cooperation with baseline lung function tests that do not meet quality control requirements; (4) Recent respiratory tract infection (<4 weeks); (5) Pregnant or lactating women; (6) Patients currently using cholinesterase inhibitors (for the treatment of myasthenia gravis); (7) Patients who have previously experienced airway spasm during pulmonary function tests, with a significant decrease in FEV1 even without the inhalation of provocative.Question 2: How to prepare and store the challenge solution for MCT?Before use, the drug must be reconstituted and then diluted into various concentrations for provocation. The dilution concentration and steps for MCh vary depending on the inhalation method and provocation protocol used. It is important to follow specific steps. Typically, a specified amount of diluent is added to the methacholine reagent bottle for reconstitution, and the mixture is shaken until the solution becomes clear. The diluent is usually physiological saline, but saline with phenol (0.4%) can also be used. Phenol can reduce the possibility of bacterial contamination, and its presence does not interfere with the provocation test. After reconstitution, other concentrations of MCh solution are prepared using the same diluent, following the dilution steps, and then stored separately in sterile containers. Preparers should carefully verify and label the concentration and preparation time of the solution and complete a preparation record form. The reconstituted and diluted MCh solution is ready for immediate use without the need for freezing. It can be stored for two weeks if refrigerated (2-8 ℃). The reconstituted solution should not be stored directly in the nebulizer reservoir to prevent crystallization from blocking the capillary opening and affecting aerosol output. The temperature of the solution can affect the production of the nebulizer and cause airway spasms in the subject upon inhaling cold droplets. Thus, refrigerated solutions should be brought to room temperature before use.Question 3: What preparation is required for subjects prior to MCT?(1) Detailed medical history inquiry and exclusion of contraindications.(2) Inquiring about factors and medications that may affect airway reactivity and assessing compliance with medication washout requirements: When the goal is to evaluate the effectiveness of asthma treatment, bronchodilators other than those used for asthma treatment do not need to be discontinued. Antihistamines and cromolyn have no effect on MCT responses, and the effects of a single dose of inhaled corticosteroids and leukotriene modifiers are minimal, thus not requiring cessation before the test. For patients routinely using corticosteroids, whether to discontinue the medication depends on the objective of the test: if assisting in the diagnosis of asthma, differential diagnosis, aiding in step-down therapy for asthma, or exploring the effect of discontinuing anti-inflammatory treatment, corticosteroids should be stopped before the provocation test; if the patient is already diagnosed with asthma and the objective is to observe the level of airway reactivity under controlled medication conditions, then discontinuation is not necessary. Medications such as IgE monoclonal antibodies, IL-4Rα monoclonal antibodies, traditional Chinese medicine, and ethnic medicines may interfere with test results, and clinicians should decide whether to discontinue these based on the specific circumstances.(3) Explaining the test procedure and potential adverse reactions, and obtaining informed consent if necessary.Question 4: What are the methods of the MCT? And which ones are recommended in current clinical practice?Commonly used methods for MCT in clinical practice include the quantitative nebulization method (APS method), Forced Oscillalion method (Astograph method), 2-minute tidal breathing method (Cockcroft method), hand-held quantitative nebulization method (Yan method), and 5-breath method (Chai 5-breath method). The APS method allows for precise dosing of inhaled Methacholine, ensuring accurate and reliable results. The Astograph method, which uses respiratory resistance as an assessment indicator, is easy for subjects to perform and is the simplest operation. These two methods are currently the most commonly used clinical practice in China.Question 5: What are the steps involved in MCT?The MCT consists of the following four steps:(1) Baseline lung function test: After a 15-minute rest period, the subjects assumes a seated position and wear a nose clip for the measurement of pulmonary function indicators [such as FEV1 or respiratory resistance (Rrs)]. FEV1 should be measured at least three times according to spirometer quality control standards, ensuring that the best two measurements differ by less than 150 ml and recording the highest value as the baseline. Usually, if FEV1%pred is below 70%, proceeding with the challenge test is not suitable, and a bronchodilation test should be considered. However, if clinical assessment of airway reactivity is necessary and FEV1%pred is between 60% and 70%, the provocation test may still be conducted under close observation, ensuring the subject's safety. If FEV1%pred is below 60%, it is an absolute contraindication for MCT.(2) Inhalation of diluent and repeat lung function test for control values: the diluent, serving as a control for the inhaled MCh, usually does not significantly impact the subject's lung function. the higher one between baseline value and the post-dilution FEV1 is used as the reference for calculating the rate of FEV1 decline. If post-inhalation FEV1 decreases, there are usually three scenarios: ①If FEV1 decreases by less than 10% compared to the baseline, the test can proceed, continue the test and administer the first dose of MCh. ②If the FEV1 decreases by≥10% and<20%, indicating a heightened airway reactivity to the diluent, proceed with the lowest concentration (dose) of the provoking if FEV1%pred has not yet reached the contraindication criteria for the MCT. if FEV1%pred<60% and the risk of continuing the challenge test is considerable, it is advisable to switch to a bronchodilation test and indicate the change in the test results report. ③If FEV1 decreases by≥20%, it can be directly classified as a positive challenge test, and the test should be discontinued, with bronchodilators administered to alleviate airway obstruction.(3) Inhalation of MCh and repeat lung function test to assess decline: prepare a series of MCh concentrations, starting from the lowest and gradually increasing the inhaled concentration (dose) using different methods. Perform pulmonaryfunction tests at 30 seconds and 90 seconds after completing nebulization, with the number of measurements limited to 3-4 times. A complete Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) measurement is unnecessary during testing; only an acceptable FEV1 measurement is required. The interval between two consecutive concentrations (doses) generally should not exceed 3 minutes. If FEV1 declines by≥10% compared to the control value, reduce the increment of methacholine concentration (dose) and adjust the inhalation protocol accordingly. If FEV1 declines by≥20% or more compared to the control value or if the maximum concentration (amount) has been inhaled, the test should be stopped. After inhaling the MCh, close observation of the subject's response is necessary. If necessary, monitor blood oxygen saturation and auscultate lung breath sounds. The test should be promptly discontinued in case of noticeable clinical symptoms or signs.(4) Inhalation of bronchodilator and repeat lung function test to assess recovery: when the bronchial challenge test shows a positive response (FEV1 decline≥20%) or suspiciously positive, the subject should receive inhaled rapid-acting bronchodilators, such as short-acting beta-agonists (SABA) or short-acting muscarinic antagonists (SAMA). Suppose the subject exhibits obvious symptoms of breathlessness, wheezing, or typical asthma manifestations, and wheezing is audible in the lungs, even if the positive criteria are not met. In that case, the challenge test should be immediately stopped, and rapid-acting bronchodilators should be administered. Taking salbutamol as an example, inhale 200-400 µg (100 µg per puff, 2-4 puffs, as determined by the physician based on the subject's condition). Reassess pulmonary function after 5-10 minutes. If FEV1 recovers to within 10% of the baseline value, the test can be concluded. However, if there is no noticeable improvement (FEV1 decline still≥10%), record the symptoms and signs and repeat the bronchodilation procedure as mentioned earlier. Alternatively, add Ipratropium bromide (SAMA) or further administer nebulized bronchodilators and corticosteroids for intensified treatment while keeping the subject under observation until FEV1 recovers to within 90% of the baseline value before allowing the subject to leave.Question 6: What are the quality control requirements for the APS and Astograph MCT equipment?(1) APS Method Equipment Quality Control: The APS method for MCT uses a nebulizing inhalation device that requires standardized flowmeters, compressed air power source pressure and flow, and nebulizer aerosol output. Specific quality control methods are as follows:a. Flow and volume calibration of the quantitative nebulization device: Connect the flowmeter, an empty nebulization chamber, and a nebulization filter in sequence, attaching the compressed air source to the bottom of the chamber to ensure airtight connections. Then, attach a 3 L calibration syringe to the subject's breathing interface and simulate the flow during nebulization (typically low flow:<2 L/s) to calibrate the flow and volume. If calibration results exceed the acceptable range of the device's technical standards, investigate and address potential issues such as air leaks or increased resistance due to a damp filter, then recalibrate. Cleaning the flowmeter or replacing the filter can change the resistance in the breathing circuit, requiring re-calibration of the flow.b. Testing the compressed air power source: Regularly test the device, connecting the components as mentioned above. Then, block the opening of the nebulization device with a stopper or hand, start the compressed air power source, and test its pressure and flow. If the test results do not meet the technical standards, professional maintenance of the equipment may be required.c. Verification of aerosol output of the nebulization chamber: Regularly verify all nebulization chambers used in provocation tests. Steps include adding a certain amount of saline to the chamber, weighing and recording the chamber's weight (including saline), connecting the nebulizer to the quantitative nebulization device, setting the nebulization time, starting nebulization, then weighing and recording the post-nebulization weight. Calculate the unit time aerosol output using the formula [(weight before nebulization-weight after nebulization)/nebulization time]. Finally, set the nebulization plan for the provocation test based on the aerosol output, considering the MCh concentration, single inhalation nebulization duration, number of nebulization, and cumulative dose to ensure precise dosing of the inhaled MCh.(2) Astograph method equipment quality control: Astograph method equipment for MCT consists of a respiratory resistance monitoring device and a nebulization medication device. Perform zero-point calibration, volume calibration, impedance verification, and nebulization chamber checks daily before tests to ensure the resistance measurement system and nebulization system function properly. Calibration is needed every time the equipment is turned on, and more frequently if there are significant changes in environmental conditions.a. Zero-point calibration: Perform zero-point calibration before testing each subject. Ensure the nebulization chamber is properly installed and plugged with no air leaks.b. Volume calibration: Use a 3 L calibration syringe to calibrate the flow sensor at a low flow rate (approximately 1 L/s).c. Resistance verification: Connect low impedance tubes (1.9-2.2 cmH2O·L-1·s-1) and high impedance tubes (10.2-10.7 cmH2O·L-1·s-1) to the device interface for verification.d. Bypass check: Start the bypass check and record the bypass value; a value>150 ml/s is normal.e. Nebulization chamber check: Check each of the 12 nebulization chambers daily, especially those containing bronchodilators, to ensure normal spraying. The software can control each nebulization chamber to produce spray automatically for a preset duration (e.g., 2 seconds). Observe the formation of water droplets on the chamber walls, indicating normal spraying. If no nebulization occurs, check for incorrect connections or blockages.Question 7: How to set up and select the APS method in MCT?The software program of the aerosol provocation system in the quantitative nebulization method can independently set the nebulizer output, concentration of the methacholine agent, administration time, and number of administrations and combine these parameters to create the challenge test process. In principle, the concentration of the methacholine agent should increase from low to high, and the dose should increase from small to large. According to the standard, a 2-fold or 4-fold incremental challenge process is generally used. In clinical practice, the dose can be simplified for subjects with good baseline lung function and no history of wheezing, such as using a recommended 2-concentration, 5-step method (25 and 50 g/L) and (6.25 and 25 g/L). Suppose FEV1 decreases by more than 10% compared to the baseline during the test to ensure subject safety. In that case, the incremental dose of the methacholine agent can be reduced, and the inhalation program can be adjusted appropriately. If the subject's baseline lung function declines or has recent daytime or nighttime symptoms such as wheezing or chest tightness, a low concentration, low dose incremental process should be selected.Question 8: What are the precautions for the operation process of the Astograph method in MCT?(1) Test equipment: The Astograph method utilizes the forced oscillation technique, applying a sinusoidal oscillating pressure at the mouthpiece during calm breathing. Subjects inhale nebulized MCh of increasing concentrations while continuous monitoring of respiratory resistance (Rrs) plots the changes, assessing airway reactivity and sensitivity. The nebulization system employs jet nebulization technology, comprising a compressed air pump and 12 nebulization cups. The first cup contains saline, cups 2 to 11 contain increasing concentrations of MCh, and the 12th cup contains a bronchodilator solution.(2) Provocation process: Prepare 10 solutions of MCh provocant with gradually increasing concentrations.(3) Operational procedure: The oscillation frequency is usually set to 3 Hz (7 Hz for children) during the test. The subject breathes calmly, inhales saline solution nebulized first, and records the baseline resistance value (if the subject's baseline resistance value is higher than 10 cmH2O·L-1·s-1, the challenge test should not be performed). Then, the subject gradually inhales increasing concentrations of methacholine solution. Each concentration solution is inhaled for 1 minute, and the nebulization system automatically switches to the next concentration for inhalation according to the set time. Each nebulizer cup contains 2-3 ml of solution, the output is 0.15 ml/min, and each concentration is inhaled for 1 minute. The dose-response curve is recorded automatically. Subjects should breathe tidally during the test, avoiding deep breaths and swallowing. Continue until Rrs significantly rises to more than double the baseline value, or if the subject experiences notable respiratory symptoms or other discomfort, such as wheezing in both lungs upon auscultation. At this point, the inhalation of the provocant should be stopped and the subject switchs to inhaling a bronchodilator until Rrs returns to pre-provocation levels. If there is no significant increase in Rrs, stop the test after inhaling the highest concentration of MCh.Question 9: How to interpret the results of the MCT?The method chosen for the MCT determines the specific indicators used for interpretation. The most commonly used indicator is FEV1, although other parameters such as Peak Expiratory Flow (PEF) and Rrs can also be used to assess airway hyperresponsiveness.Qualitative judgment: The test results can be classified as positive, suspiciously positive, or negative, based on a combination of the judgment indicators and changes in the subject's symptoms. If FEV1 decreases by≥20% compared to the baseline value after not completely inhaling at the highest concentration, the result can be judged as positive for Methacholine bronchial challenge test. If the patient has obvious wheezing symptoms or wheezing is heard in both lungs, but the challenge test does not meet the positive criteria (the highest dose/concentration has been inhaled), and FEV1 decreases between 10% and 20% compared to the baseline level, the result can also be judged as positive. If FEV1 decreases between 15% and 20% compared to the baseline value without dyspnea or wheezing attacks, the result can be judged as suspiciously positive. Astograph method: If Rrs rises to 2 times or more of the baseline resistance before reaching the highest inhalation concentration, or if the subject's lungs have wheezing and severe coughing, the challenge test can be judged as positive. Regardless of the result of the Methacholine bronchial challenge test, factors that affect airway reactivity, such as drugs, seasons, climate, diurnal variations, and respiratory tract infections, should be excluded.Quantitative judgment: When using the APS method, the severity of airway hyperresponsiveness can be graded based on PD20-FEV1 or PC20-FEV1. Existing evidence suggests that PD20 shows good consistency when different nebulizers, inhalation times, and starting concentrations of MCh are used for bronchial provocation tests, whereas there is more variability with PC20. Therefore, PD20 is often recommended as the quantitative assessment indicator. The threshold value for PD20 with the APS method is 2.5 mg.The Astograph method often uses the minimum cumulative dose (Dmin value, in Units) to reflect airway sensitivity. Dmin is the minimum cumulative dose of MCh required to produce a linear increase in Rrs. A dose of 1 g/L of the drug concentration inhaled for 1-minute equals 1 unit. It's important to note that with the continuous increase in inhaled provocant concentration, the concept of cumulative dose in the Astograph method should not be directly compared to other methods. Most asthma patients have a Dmin<10 Units, according to Japanese guidelines. The Astograph method, having been used in China for over twenty years, suggests a high likelihood of asthma when Dmin≤6 Units, with a smaller Dmin value indicating a higher probability. When Dmin is between 6 and 10 Units, further differential diagnosis is advised to ascertain whether the condition is asthma.Precautions:A negative methacholine challenge test (MCT) does not entirely rule out asthma. The test may yield negative results due to the following reasons:(1) Prior use of medications that reduce airway responsiveness, such as ß2 agonists, anticholinergic drugs, antihistamines, leukotriene receptor antagonists, theophylline, corticosteroids, etc., and insufficient washout time.(2) Failure to meet quality control standards in terms of pressure, flow rate, particle size, and nebulization volume of the aerosol delivery device.(3) Poor subject cooperation leads to inadequate inhalation of the methacholine agent.(4) Some exercise-induced asthma patients may not be sensitive to direct bronchial challenge tests like the Methacholine challenge and require indirect bronchial challenge tests such as hyperventilation, cold air, or exercise challenge to induce a positive response.(5) A few cases of occupational asthma may only react to specific antigens or sensitizing agents, requiring specific allergen exposure to elicit a positive response.A positive MCT does not necessarily indicate asthma. Other conditions can also present with airway hyperresponsiveness and yield positive results in the challenge test, such as allergic rhinitis, chronic bronchitis, viral upper respiratory infections, allergic alveolitis, tropical eosinophilia, cystic fibrosis, sarcoidosis, bronchiectasis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, post-cardiopulmonary transplant, congestive heart failure, and more. Furthermore, factors like smoking, air pollution, or exercise before the test may also result in a positive bronchial challenge test.Question 10: What are the standardized requirements for the MCT report?The report should include: (1) basic information about the subject; (2) examination data and graphics: present baseline data, measurement data after the last two challenge doses or concentrations in tabular form, and the percentage of actual measured values compared to the baseline; flow-volume curve and volume-time curve before and after challenge test; dose-response curve: showing the threshold for positive challenge; (3) opinions and conclusions of the report: including the operator's opinions, quality rating of the examination, and review opinions of the reviewing physician.Question 11: What are the adverse reactions and safety measures of MCT?During the MCT, the subject needs to repeatedly breathe forcefully and inhale bronchial challenge agents, which may induce or exacerbate bronchospasm and contraction and may even cause life-threatening situations. Medical staff should be fully aware of the indications, contraindications, medication use procedures, and emergency response plans for the MCT.

The role of bronchial challenge test in guiding therapy in preschool children with atypical recurrent respiratory symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective observational cohort study aimed to assess the real-life application of bronchial challenge test (BCT) in the management of preschool children presenting with atypical recurrent respiratory symptoms (ARRS). METHODS: We included children aged 0.5-6 years referred to a pediatric-pulmonology clinic who underwent BCT using methacholine or adenosine between 2012 and 2018 due to ARRS. BCT was considered positive based on spirometry results and/or wheezing, desaturation, and tachypnea reactions. We collected data on demographics, BCT results, pre-BCT and post-BCT treatment changes, and 3-6 months post-BCT compliance and symptom control. The primary outcome measure was the change in treatment post-BCT (step-up or step-down). RESULTS: A total of 228 children (55% males) with a mean age of 4.2 ± 0.6 years underwent BCT (52% adenosine-BCT, 48% methacholine-BCT). Children referred for methacholine were significantly younger compared with adenosine (3.6 ± 1.2 vs. 4.2 ± 1.2 years, p < .01). Methacholine and adenosine BCTs were positive in 95% and 61%, respectively. Overall, changes in management were observed in 122 (53.5%) children following BCT, with 83 (36.4%) being stepped up and 37 (17%) being stepped down. Significantly more children in the methacholine group were stepped up compared with the adenosine group (46% vs. 28%, p = .004). During the follow-up assessment, we observed a clinical improvement in 119/162 (73.4%) of the children, with nearly 87% being compliant. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the importance of BCT in the management of preschool children presenting to pediatric pulmonary units with ARRS. The change in treatment and subsequent clinical improvement observed highlight the added value of BCT to the pulmonologist.

Occupational asthma induced by fish exposure.

Occupational asthma triggered by inhaling fish-derived aerosols is estimated to affect 2-8% of exposed individuals. This primarily affects workers in the fish processing industry. Fishmongers, rarely experience this issue, as recent research found no significant difference in asthma rates compared to a control group. We report the case of a fishmonger who presented with a 1-year history of rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma. The patient attributed these symptoms to his occupational exposure within the fish market environment, which worsened in the cold storage warehouse. Symptoms improved during holidays. Diagnosis involved skin-prick tests, sIgE (ImmunoCAP-specific IgE) measurements, and bronchial challenge tests, confirming occupational asthma from fish bioaerosol exposure. Parvalbumins, common fish proteins, share structural similarities, leading to cross-reactivity in fish allergy sufferers. In this case, sensitivity to rGad c1 (cod parvalbumin) was identified as the primary trigger for the patient's asthma, and responsible for sensitizations observed across various tested fish species.

Impact of airway challenges on cardiovascular risk in asthma - a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: People experiencing asthma exacerbations are at increased risk of cardiovascular events. To better understand the relationship between asthma exacerbations and cardiovascular risk, this randomized case-control, cross-over controlled trial assessed the immediate systemic inflammatory and vascular responses to acutely induced pulmonary inflammation and bronchoconstriction in people with asthma and controls. METHODS: Twenty-six people with asthma and 25 controls underwent three airway challenges (placebo, mannitol, and methacholine) in random order. Markers of cardiovascular risk, including serum C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, and tumor necrosis factor, endothelial function (flow-mediated dilation), microvascular function (blood-flow following reactive hyperemia), and arterial stiffness (pulse wave velocity) were evaluated at baseline and within one hour following each challenge. The systemic responses in a) asthma/control and b) positive airway challenges were analyzed. (ClinicalTrials.gov reg# NCT02630511). RESULTS: Both the mannitol and methacholine challenges resulted in clinically significant reductions in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) in asthma (-7.6% and -17.9%, respectively). Following positive challenges, reduction in FEV1 was -27.6% for methacholine and -14.2% for mannitol. No meaningful differences in predictors of cardiovascular risk were observed between airway challenges regardless of bronchoconstrictor response. CONCLUSION: Neither acutely induced bronchoconstriction nor pulmonary inflammation and bronchoconstriction resulted in meaningful changes in systemic inflammatory or vascular function. These findings question whether the increased cardiovascular risk associated with asthma exacerbations is secondary to acute bronchoconstriction or inflammation, and suggest that other factors need to be further evaluated such as the cardiovascular impacts of short-acting inhaled beta-agonists.

Polypharmacy Interactions Impacting Methacholine Challenge Testing for Asthma Assessment in Older People.

Objective To investigate potential reasons for unusually high incidence of negative Methacholine Challenge Tests (MCT), following standardized MCT medication-hold protocol, in older people with physician-diagnosed asthma. Design An analysis of a longitudinal observational parent study of asthma. Setting Community-dwelling participants were evaluated in an outpatient clinic and at home. Participants Screening inclusion criteria for the parent study included 60 years of age or older, physician diagnosis of asthma, and a positive response to at least one of six asthma screening questions. Participants were enrolled in the study if they also demonstrate either: (1) a postbronchodilator administration response showing an increase of at least 12% and 200 mL in forced expiratory volume or an increase of at least 12% and 200 mL in forced vital capacity, or (2) an MCT result of PC20 ≤ 16 mg/mL (indicating bronchial hyper-responsiveness, MCT positive). Exclusion criteria included diagnosis of cognitive impairment or dementia, residing in a long-term care facility, more than 20 pack/ year smoking history or a history of smoking within the previous five years, inability to perform pulmonary function testing maneuvers, and a Prognostic Index score of greater than 10. Interventions Analysis of participant data for non-medication- and medication-exposure factors for association with negative MCT results. Results Anticholinergic burden and statin use were positively associated with negative MCT. Conclusion Medications not accounted for in medication-hold protocols, and concurrently in use, may impact clinical tests and outcomes.

Clinical analysis of the "small plateau" sign on the flow-volume curve followed by deep learning automated recognition.

BACKGROUND: Small plateau (SP) on the flow-volume curve was found in parts of patients with suspected asthma or upper airway abnormalities, but it lacks clear scientific proof. Therefore, we aimed to characterize its clinical features. METHODS: We involved patients by reviewing the bronchoprovocation test (BPT) and bronchodilator test (BDT) completed between October 2017 and October 2020 to assess the characteristics of the sign. Patients who underwent laryngoscopy were assigned to perform spirometry to analyze the relationship of the sign and upper airway abnormalities. SP-Network was developed to recognition of the sign using flow-volume curves. RESULTS: Of 13,661 BPTs and 8,168 BDTs completed, we labeled 2,123 (15.5%) and 219 (2.7%) patients with the sign, respectively. Among them, there were 1,782 (83.9%) with the negative-BPT and 194 (88.6%) with the negative-BDT. Patients with SP sign had higher median FVC and FEV1% predicted (both P < .0001). Of 48 patients (16 with and 32 without the sign) who performed laryngoscopy and spirometry, the rate of laryngoscopy-diagnosis upper airway abnormalities in patients with the sign (63%) was higher than those without the sign (31%) (P = 0.038). SP-Network achieved an accuracy of 95.2% in the task of automatic recognition of the sign. CONCLUSIONS: SP sign is featured on the flow-volume curve and recognized by the SP-Network model. Patients with the sign are less likely to have airway hyperresponsiveness, automatic visualizing of this sign is helpful for primary care centers where BPT cannot available.

Does bronchial hyperresponsiveness predict a diagnosis of cough variant asthma in adults with chronic cough: a cohort study.

Bronchial hyperresponsiveness is a typical, but non-specific feature of cough variant asthma (CVA). This study aimed to determine whether bronchial hyperresponsiveness may be considered as a predictor of CVA in non-smoking adults with chronic cough (CC). The study included 55 patients with CC and bronchial hyperresponsiveness confirmed in the methacholine provocation test, in whom an anti-asthmatic, gradually intensified treatment was introduced. The diagnosis of CVA was established if the improvement in cough severity and cough-related quality of life in LCQ were noted.The study showed a high positive predictive value of bronchial hyperresponsiveness in this population. Cough severity and cough related quality of life were not related to the severity of bronchial hyperresponsiveness in CVA patients. A poor treatment outcome was related to a low baseline capsaicin threshold and the occurrence of gastroesophageal reflux-related symptoms. In conclusion, bronchial hyperresponsiveness could be considered as a predictor of cough variant asthma in non-smoking adults with CC.

Can bronchial challenge test with adenosine or methacholine at preschool age predict school-age asthma?

OBJECTIVE: Bronchial challenge test (BCT) measures current airways-hyperreactivity, however, its predictive role in pre-school children (<6 years) for the diagnosis of asthma at school age is still debatable. We aimed to find whether preschool children with a positive adenosine or methacholine BCT are more prone to asthma at school age. METHODS: We included children aged 6-13 years with respiratory symptoms that were previously referred to our pulmonary function laboratory for BCT (methacholine or adenosine, depending on the question asked) at age 10 months to 6 years (baseline). BCT was considered positive based on spirometry results or wheezing, desaturation, and tachypnea reactions. The primary outcome measure was asthma diagnosis at school age using the well-validated International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) questionnaire. We used logistic regression analysis to explore whether positive BCT could predict school-age asthma while including age and collected modified asthma predictive index in the model. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-one of 189 children (53% males), completed the ISAAC questionnaire (response rate = 80%). Mean ages at BCT and at follow-up were 3.9 ± 1.28 and 9.4 ± 1.85 years, respectively. At baseline, 40 of 67 had a positive adenosine test and 73 of 84 had a positive methacholine BCT. Thirty-nine children were diagnosed with asthma at school age. Logistic regression analysis showed that a positive adenosine test at pre-school age was the best predictor, significantly increasing the odds of asthma at school age by 6.34 (95% CI: 1.23-32.81, p = .028), while methacholine did not show significance (p = .69). CONCLUSION: Choosing the relevant BCT for the question asked, positive adenosine, but not methacholine test, at pre-school, may predict asthma at school age.

Asthma-like symptom or "cystic fibrosis asthma"?

INTRODUCTION: The diagnosis of asthma is still a difficult problem in cystic fibrosis. There is no consensus on how to define "CF asthma". The aim of this study was to determine the role of bronchodilator response and laboratory evidence of allergy in "CF asthma". MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients aged ≥6 years with evaluated bronchodilator response and characteristics of atopy were included in the study. Patients diagnosed with Allergic Bronchopulmonary Aspergillosis or pulmonary exacerbation were excluded. RESULT: A total of 204 CF patients were evaluated, and 40 who met the criteria were included. Asthma had been diagnosed in ten patients. A positive bronchodilator response was present in 47.3% of the patients tested. Aeroallergen sensitization was present in 52.5% of the patients. While the frequency of recurrent/history of wheezing, family history of atopy and elevated total immunoglobulin E were similar (p> 0.05), the frequencies of inhaled medication use and coexistence of asthma were statistically higher in the group with positive allergen sensitization (p<0.05). The frequencies of positive bronchodilator response (77.7% versus 37.9%) and a family history of asthma/atopy (40% versus. 23%) were found to be similar in CF asthma and CF. There were significant increases in total IgE and allergen-specific IgE and an increase in the frequency of aeroallergen sensitization in CF asthma compared to CF (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although not routinely used in the evaluation of patients, allergen specific-IgE and skin prick test for aeroallergen sensitization may be used as an adjunctive test in patients with suspected clinical findings. The recognition of CF asthma may facilitate the development of targeted therapies.

Mucociliary Clearance Differs in Mild Asthma by Levels of Type 2 Inflammation.

BACKGROUND: Although mucus plugging is a well-reported feature of asthma, whether asthma and type 2 inflammation affect mucociliary clearance (MCC) is unknown. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does type 2 inflammation influence mucus clearance rates in patients with mild asthma who are not receiving corticosteroids? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The clearance rates of inhaled radiolabeled particles were compared between patients with mild asthma with low (n = 17) and high (n = 18) levels of T2 inflammation. Fraction exhaled nitric oxide (Feno) was used to prospectively segregate subjects into T2 Lo (Feno < 25 ppb) and T2 Hi (Feno > 35 ppb) cohorts. Bronchial brush samples were collected with fiber-optic bronchoscopy, and quantitative polymerase chain reaction was performed to measure expression of genes associated with T2 asthma. MCC rate comparisons were also made with a historical group of healthy control subjects (HCs, n = 12). RESULTS: The T2 Lo cohort demonstrated increased MCC when compared with both T2 Hi and historic HCs. MCC within the T2 Hi group varied significantly, with some subjects having low or zero clearance. MCC decreased with increasing expression of several markers of T2 airway inflammation (CCL26, NOS2, and POSTN) and with Feno. MUC5AC and FOXJ1 expression was similar between the T2Lo and T2Hi cohorts. INTERPRETATION: Increasing T2 inflammation was associated with decreasing MCC. High rates of MCC in T2 Lo subjects may indicate a compensatory mechanism present in mild disease but lost with high levels of inflammation. Future studies are required to better understand mechanisms and whether impairments in MCC in more severe asthma drive worse clinical outcomes.

Spirometric Response to Bronchodilator and Eucapnic Voluntary Hyperpnea in Adults With Asthma.

BACKGROUND: The spirometric response to fast-acting bronchodilator is used clinically to diagnose asthma and in clinical research to verify its presence. However, bronchodilator responsiveness does not correlate with airway hyper-responsiveness measured with the direct-acting stimulus of methacholine, demonstrating that bronchodilator responsiveness is a problematic method for diagnosing asthma. The relationship between bronchodilator responsiveness and airway hyper-responsiveness assessed with indirect-acting stimuli is not known. METHODS: Retrospectively, the spirometric responses to inhaled bronchodilator and a eucapnic voluntary hyperpnea challenge (EVH) were compared in 39 non-smoking adult subjects with asthma (26 male, 13 female; mean ± SD age 26.9 ± 7.8 y; mean ± SD body mass index 26.3 ± 4.7 kg/m2). All subjects met one or both of 2 criteria: ≥ 12% and 200 mL increase in FEV1 after inhaled bronchodilator, and ≥ 10% decrease in FEV1 after an EVH challenge. RESULTS: Overall, FEV1 increased by 9.9 ± 7.9% after bronchodilator (3.93 ± 0.97 to 4.28 ± 0.91 L, P < .001) and decreased by 23.9 ± 15.0% after the EVH challenge (3.89 ± 0.89 to 2.96 ± 0.88 L, P < .001). However, the change in FEV1 after bronchodilator did not correlate with the change after EVH challenge (r = 0.062, P = .71). Significant bronchodilator responsiveness predicted a positive response to EVH challenge in 9 of 33 subjects (sensitivity 27%). Following EVH, the change in FEV1 strongly correlated with the change in FVC (FEV1 percent change vs FVC percent change, r = 0.831, P < .001; FEV1 ΔL vs FVC ΔL, r = 0.799, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: These results extend previous findings that demonstrate a lack of association between bronchodilator responsiveness and methacholine responsiveness. Given the poor concordance between the spirometric response to fast-acting bronchodilator and the EVH challenge, these findings suggest that the airway response to inhaled ß2-agonist must be interpreted with caution and in the context of its determinants and limitations.

Evaluation of bronchial challenge test results for use in assessment of paediatric eczema: a retrospective series.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD), asthma, and allergic rhinitis are associated diseases involved in the atopic march. The bronchial challenge test (BCT) is a tool that evaluates airway hyperresponsiveness in patients with asthma. This study aimed to evaluate whether a positive BCT result is useful in assessment of paediatric AD. METHODS: This retrospective case series included 284 patients with AD who had BCT results. Clinical information and laboratory parameters were reviewed, including AD severity (using the SCORing Atopic Dermatitis [SCORAD]), skin hydration, and transepidermal water loss. RESULTS: Of the 284 patients who had BCT, 106 had positive BCT results and 178 had negative BCT results. A positive BCT result was associated with a history of asthma (P<0.0005), sibling with asthma (P=0.048), serum immunoglobulin E (P=0.045), eosinophil count (P=0.017), and sensitisation to food allergens in the skin prick test (P=0.027). There was no association between a positive BCT result and personal allergic rhinitis, parental atopy, sibling allergic rhinitis or AD, skin prick response to dust mites, objective SCORAD score, skin hydration, transepidermal water loss, exposure to smoking, incense burning, cat or dog ownership, or AD treatment aspects (eg, food avoidance and traditional Chinese medicine). Logistic regression showed significant associations of a positive BCT result with a history of asthma (adjusted odds ratio=4.05; 95% confidence interval=1.92-8.55; P<0.0005) and sibling atopy (adjusted odds ratio=2.25; 95% confidence interval=1.03-4.92; P=0.042). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with paediatric AD, a positive BCT result was independently and positively associated with personal history of asthma and sibling history of atopy, but not with any other clinical parameters.

[BRONCHIAL ASTHMA WITH VOCAL CORD DYSFUNCTION DIFFERENTIATED FROM SEVERE ASTHMA BY BRONCHOSCOPY].

Although an important cause of vocal cord dysfunction (VCD) is psychogenic reaction, VCD may be associated with severe asthma and must be distinguished from the disease. A 30-years-old woman was admitted to our hospital with dyspnea despite treatment for asthma. Inspiratory stridor and expiratory wheezes were noted, and neck and chest computed tomography showed normal airways and lungs. Fractional exhaled nitric oxide levels were also normal. Pulmonary function test with a flow-volume loop curve showed normal expiratory loop with flattening of the inspiratory loop after methacholine inhalation. During the attack, bronchoscopy revealed the vocal cord closing with stridor during the inspiratory phase. Therefore, the patient was diagnosed with VCD. The dyspnea improved with respiratory rehabilitation and pursed-lip breathing. VCD should be considered in the differential diagnosis of intractable severe asthma. In this case, bronchoscopy and bronchial inhalation challenge with methacholine helped in the diagnosis.

Reduction of bronchial response to mannitol after partial switch from conventional tobacco to electronic cigarette consumption.

BACKGROUND: Regarding the multiple health effects of e-cigarettes, there are insufficient data on potential effects on bronchial reactivity (BHR). In the present study, we assessed the impact of a switch from conventional to e-cigarettes on BHR under realistic conditions over a period of 3 months. METHODS: Sixty subjects who declared to reduce or stop their tobacco consumption by inhalation of nicotine-containing liquids via e-cigarette, and 20 volunteers participating in a stop-smoking program were included. Data was analysed using parametric and non-parametric statistical procedures. Spirometry, determinations of exhaled carbon monoxide (eCO) and nitric oxide (FeNO), provocation testing with mannitol as an indirect bronchial stimulus, and cotinine measurements were used to investigate BHR and nicotine abstinence. RESULTS: BHR to mannitol significantly decreased in the group using e-cigarettes and nicotine-containing liquids over a period of three months in this real-life setting. Participants reduced their tobacco consumption to about 25% or lower, confirmed by a reduction in eCO. Changes in lung function and FeNO were small and not statistically significant, and changes in the stop-smoking group were similar to those in the e-cigarette group. CONCLUSION: The reduction in BHR that can be expected after a reduction of cigarette consumption was not abolished by the concomitant use of e-cigarettes. Whether the decrease in BHR observed after 3 months is maintained when using e-cigarettes over longer time periods or has an individual prognostic value, must be clarified in long-term studies.

Closing volume detection by single-breath gas washout and forced oscillation technique.

Closing volume (CV) is commonly measured by single-breath nitrogen washout (CVSBW). A method based on the forced oscillation technique was recently introduced to detect a surrogate CV (CVFOT). As the two approaches are based on different physiological mechanisms, we aim to investigate CVFOT and CVSBW relationship at different degrees and patterns of airway obstruction. A mathematical model was developed to evaluate the CVSBW and CVFOT sensitivity to different patterns of airway obstruction, either located in a specific lung region or equally distributed throughout the lung. The two CVs were also assessed during slow vital capacity (VC) maneuvers in triplicate in 13 healthy subjects and pre- and postmethacholine challenge (Mch) in 12 subjects with mild-moderate asthma. Model simulations suggest that CVSBW is more sensitive than CVFOT to the presence of few flow-limited or closed airways that modify the contribution of tracer-poor and tracer-rich lung regions to the overall exhaled gas. Conversely, CVFOT occurs only when at least ∼65% of lung units are flow limited or closed, regardless of their regional distribution. CVSBW did not differ between healthy subjects and those with asthma (17 ± 9% VC vs. 22 ± 10% VC), whereas CVFOT did (16 ± 5% VC vs. 23 ± 6% VC, P < 0.01). In patients with asthma, both CVSBW and CVFOT increased post-Mch (33 ± 7% VC P < 0.001 and 43 ± 12% VC P < 0.001, respectively). CVSBW weakly correlated with CVFOT (r = 0.45, P < 0.01). The closing capacities (CV + residual volume) were correlated (r = 0.74, P < 0.001), but the changes with Mch in both CVs and closing capacities did not correlate. CVFOT is easy to measure and provides a reproducible parameter useful for describing airway impairment in obstructive respiratory diseases.NEW & NOTEWORTHY The forced oscillation technique can identify a surrogate of closing volume (CVFOT). We investigated its relationship with the one measured by single-breath washout (CVSBW). CVFOT weakly correlates with CVSBW. The respective closing capacities were correlated, but their increases after methacholine challenge in asthmatics did not. Our results suggest that CVFOT is less sensitive than CVSBW to few flow-limited/closed airways but more specific in detecting increases in flow-limited/closed airways involving the majority of the lung.

Increased IL-6 and Potential IL-6 trans-signalling in the airways after an allergen challenge.

BACKGROUND: In asthma, IL-6 is a potential cause of enhanced inflammation, tissue damage and airway dysfunction. IL-6 signalling is regulated by its receptor, which is composed of two proteins, IL-6R and GP130. In addition to their membrane form, these two proteins may be found as extracellular soluble forms. The interaction of IL-6 with soluble IL-6R (sIL-6R) can trigger IL-6 trans-signalling in cells lacking IL-6R. Conversely, the soluble form of GP130 (sGP130) competes with its membrane form to inhibit IL-6 trans-signalling. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to analyse IL-6 trans-signalling proteins in the airways of subjects after an allergen challenge. METHODS: We used a model of segmental bronchoprovocation with an allergen (SBP-Ag) in human subjects with allergy. Before and 48 h after SBP-Ag, bronchoalveolar lavages (BALs) allowed for the analysis of proteins in BAL fluids (BALFs) by ELISA, and membrane proteins on the surface of BAL cells by flow cytometry. In addition, we performed RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) and used proteomic data to further inform on the expression of the IL-6R subunits by eosinophils, bronchial epithelial cells and lung fibroblasts. Finally, we measured the effect of IL-6 trans-signalling on bronchial fibroblasts, in vitro. RESULTS: IL-6, sIL-6R, sGP130 and the molar ratio of sIL-6R/sGP130 increased in the airways after SBP-Ag, suggesting the potential for enhanced IL-6 trans-signalling activity. BAL lymphocytes, monocytes and eosinophils displayed IL-6R on their surface and were all possible providers of sIL-6R, whereas GP130 was highly expressed in bronchial epithelial cells and lung fibroblasts. Finally, bronchial fibroblasts activated by IL-6 trans-signalling produced enhanced amounts of the chemokine, MCP-1 (CCL2). CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: After a bronchial allergen challenge, we found augmentation of the elements of IL-6 trans-signalling. Allergen-induced IL-6 trans-signalling activity can activate fibroblasts to produce chemokines that can further enhance inflammation and lung dysfunction.

Identification of late asthmatic reactions following specific inhalation challenge.

Specific inhalation challenge (SIC) is the reference standard for the diagnosis of occupational asthma. Current guidelines for identifying late asthmatic reactions are not evidence based. OBJECTIVES: To identify the fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) required following SIC to exceed the 95% CI for control days, factors which influence this and to show how this can be applied in routine practice using a statistical method based on the pooled SD for FEV1 from three control days. METHODS: Fifty consecutive workers being investigated for occupational asthma were asked to self-record FEV1 hourly for 2 days before admission for SIC. These 2 days were added to the in-hospital control day to calculate the pooled SD and 95% CI. RESULTS: 45/50 kept adequate measurements. The pooled 95% CI was 385 mL (SD 126), or 14.2% (SD 6.2) of the baseline FEV1, but was unrelated to the baseline FEV1 (r=0.06, p=0.68), or gender, atopy, smoking, non-specific reactivity or treatment before or during SIC. Thirteen workers had a late asthmatic reaction with ≥2 consecutive FEV1 measurements below the 95% CI for pooled control days, 4/13 had <15% and 9/13 >15% late fall from baseline. The four workers with ≥2 values below the 95% CI all had independent evidence of occupational asthma. CONCLUSION: The pooled SD method for defining late asthmatic reactions has scientific validity, accounts for interpatient spirometric variability and diurnal variation and can identify clinically relevant late asthmatic reactions from smaller exposures. For baseline FEV1 <2.5 L, a 15% fall is within the 95% CI.

The Role of the TL1A/DR3 Axis in the Activation of Group 2 Innate Lymphoid Cells in Subjects with Eosinophilic Asthma.

Rationale: Group 2 innate lymphoid cells (ILC2s) are critical for type 2 inflammation. In murine models of asthma, some ILC2s remain activated in the absence of epithelial cell-derived cytokine signaling, implicating alternate stimulatory pathways. DR3 (death receptor 3), a member of the tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily, is expressed on ILC2s. Genome-wide association studies report an association between DR3 ligand, TL1A (tumor necrosis factor-like protein 1A), and chronic inflammatory conditions.Objectives: We investigated the TL1A/DR3 axis in airway ILC2 biology in eosinophilic asthma.Methods: Stable subjects with mild asthma were subject to allergen inhalation challenge, and DR3 expression on sputum cells was assessed. We investigated cytokine regulation of DR3 expression on ILC2s and steroid sensitivity. Airway TL1A was assessed in sputum from subjects with mild asthma and subjects with prednisone-dependent severe eosinophilic asthma.Measurements and Main Results: There was a significant increase in sputum DR3+ ILC2s 24 hours after allergen challenge, and DR3 expression on ILC2s was upregulated by IL-2, IL-33, or TSLP in vitro. Stimulation with TL1A significantly increased IL-5 expression by ILC2s and was attenuated by dexamethasone, an effect that was negated in the presence of TSLP. Airway TL1A levels were increased 24 hours after allergen challenge in subjects with mild asthma but were significantly greater in those with severe eosinophilic asthma. The highest levels were detected in subjects with severe asthma with airway autoimmune responses. C1q+ immune complexes from the sputa of subjects with severe asthma with high autoantibody levels stimulated TL1A production by monocytes.Conclusions: The TL1A/DR3 axis is a costimulator of ILC2s in asthma, particularly in the airways of patients with a predisposition to autoimmune responses.