Effects of increasing tidal volume and end-expiratory lung volume on induced bronchoconstriction in healthy humans.

BACKGROUND: Increasing functional residual capacity (FRC) or tidal volume (VT) reduces airway resistance and attenuates the response to bronchoconstrictor stimuli in animals and humans. What is unknown is which one of the above mechanisms is more effective in modulating airway caliber and whether their combination yields additive or synergistic effects. To address this question, we investigated the effects of increased FRC and increased VT in attenuating the bronchoconstriction induced by inhaled methacholine (MCh) in healthy humans. METHODS: Nineteen healthy volunteers were challenged with a single-dose of MCh and forced oscillation was used to measure inspiratory resistance at 5 and 19 Hz (R5 and R19), their difference (R5-19), and reactance at 5 Hz (X5) during spontaneous breathing and during imposed breathing patterns with increased FRC, or VT, or both. Importantly, in our experimental design we held the product of VT and breathing frequency (BF), i.e, minute ventilation (VE) fixed so as to better isolate the effects of changes in VT alone. RESULTS: Tripling VT from baseline FRC significantly attenuated the effects of MCh on R5, R19, R5-19 and X5. Doubling VT while halving BF had insignificant effects. Increasing FRC by either one or two VT significantly attenuated the effects of MCh on R5, R19, R5-19 and X5. Increasing both VT and FRC had additive effects on R5, R19, R5-19 and X5, but the effect of increasing FRC was more consistent than increasing VT thus suggesting larger bronchodilation. When compared at iso-volume, there were no differences among breathing patterns with the exception of when VT was three times larger than during spontaneous breathing. CONCLUSIONS: These data show that increasing FRC and VT can attenuate induced bronchoconstriction in healthy humans by additive effects that are mainly related to an increase of mean operational lung volume. We suggest that static stretching as with increasing FRC is more effective than tidal stretching at constant VE, possibly through a combination of effects on airway geometry and airway smooth muscle dynamics.

[Chinese expert consensus on the clinical applications of bronchial provocation test (2024 edition)].

The bronchial provocation test (BPT) is an important clinical examination to detect airway hyperresponsiveness, primarily in diagnosing asthma with FEV1≥70% of predicted value, including typical asthma and atypical asthma such as cough variant asthma and chest tightness variant asthma. BPT is a valuable tool in differentiating asthma from other chronic airway diseases and assessing the efficacy of asthma treatment. Despite its clinical significance, BPT remains largely underused in clinical practice, primarily due to limited knowledge of its importance and inadequate availability of medical professionals, equipment and medications in primary care settings. In response to this gap, the China Asthma Group of Chinese Thoracic Society has drafted this expert consensus to enhance knowledge and application of BPT among clinical practitioners. This expert consensus specifically focuses on the classic direct provocation agent methacholine, covering general principles and classification of BPT; indications, contraindications, and clinical applications; result interpretation; analyzing potential reasons and coping strategies for false positive and false negative test results; and finally, providing safety precautions and emergency measures. The aim of this expert consensus is to promote the standardized application of BPT.

Salbutamol Easyhaler provides non-inferior relief of methacholine induced bronchoconstriction in comparison to Ventoline Evohaler with spacer: A randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Salbutamol is a cornerstone for relieving acute asthma symptoms, typically administered through a pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI). Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) offer an alternative, but concerns exist whether DPIs provide an effective relief during an obstructive event. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to show non-inferiority of Salbutamol Easyhaler DPI compared to pMDI with spacer in treating methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction. Applicability of Budesonide-formoterol Easyhaler DPI as a reliever was also assessed. METHODS: This was a randomized, parallel-group trial in subjects sent to methacholine challenge (MC) test for asthma diagnostics. Participants with at least 20 % decrease in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) were randomized to receive Salbutamol Easyhaler (2 × 200 µg), Ventoline Evohaler with spacer (4 × 100 µg) or Budesonide-formoterol Easyhaler (2 × 160/4.5 µg) as a reliever. The treatment was repeated if FEV1 did not recover to at least -10 % of baseline. RESULTS: 180 participants (69 % females, mean age 46 yrs [range 18-80], FEV1%pred 89.5 [62-142] %) completed the trial. Salbutamol Easyhaler was non-inferior to pMDI with spacer in acute relief of bronchoconstriction showing a -0.083 (95 % LCL -0.146) L FEV1 difference after the first dose and -0.032 (-0.071) L after the last dose. The differences in FEV1 between Budesonide-formoterol Easyhaler and Salbutamol pMDI with spacer were -0.163 (-0.225) L after the first and -0.092 (-0.131) L after the last dose. CONCLUSION: The study confirms non-inferiority of Salbutamol Easyhaler to Ventoline Evohaler with spacer in relieving acute bronchoconstriction, making Easyhaler a sustainable and safe reliever for MC test and supports its use during asthma attacks.

Single and multiple breath nitrogen washout compared with the methacholine test in patients with suspected asthma and normal spirometry.

BACKGROUND: Methods used to assess ventilation heterogeneity through inert gas washout have been standardised and showed high sensitivity in diagnosing many respiratory diseases. We hypothesised that nitrogen single or multiple breath washout tests, respectively nitrogen single breath washout (N2SBW) and nitrogen multiple breath washout (N2MBW), may be pathological in patients with clinical suspicion of asthma but normal spirometry. Our aim was to assess whether N2SBW and N2MBW are associated with methacholine challenge test (MCT) results in this population. We also postulated that an alteration in SIII at N2SBW could be detected before the 20% fall of forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) in MCT. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This prospective, observational, single-centre study included patients with suspicion of asthma with normal spirometry. Patients completed questionnaires on symptoms and health-related quality-of-life and underwent the following lung function tests: N2SBW (SIII), N2MBW (Lung clearance index (LCI), Scond, Sacin), MCT (FEV1 and sGeff) as well as N2SBW between each methacholine dose. RESULTS: 182 patients were screened and 106 were included in the study, with mean age of 41.8±14 years. The majority were never-smokers (58%) and women (61%). MCT was abnormal in 48% of participants, N2SBW was pathological in 10.6% at baseline and N2MBW abnormality ranged widely (LCI 81%, Scond 18%, Sacin 43%). The dose response rate of the MCT showed weak to moderate correlation with the subsequent N2SBW measurements during the provocation phases (ρ 0.34-0.50) but no correlation with N2MBW. CONCLUSIONS: Both MCT and N2 washout tests are frequently pathological in patients with suspicion of asthma with normal spirometry. The weak association and lack of concordance across the tests highlight that they reflect different but not interchangeable pathological pathways of the disease.

Impact of the pulmonary ventilation function on the prognosis of suspected asthma patients: a retrospective observational study.

OBJECTIVE: Asthma is a common chronic respiratory diseases, and the relationship between pulmonary ventilation function and the prognosis of patients with suspected asthma is not well understood. This study aims to explore the impact of pulmonary ventilation functions on the prognosis of patients with suspected asthma. METHODS: This retrospective observational study included patients with suspected asthma who were diagnosed and treated at the Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine between August 2015 and January 2020. The primary outcome of interest was improvement in asthma symptoms, as measured by bronchial provocation test (BPT) results within one year after diagnosis. The impact of pulmonary ventilation functions on prognosis was explored by multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients were included in the study. Patients with normal (OR = 0.123, p = .004) or generally normal (OR = 0.075, p = .039) pulmonary ventilation function were more likely to achieve improvement in asthma symptoms compared with patients with mild obstruction. There were no significant differences between the improvement and non-improvement groups in baseline characteristics. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that suspected asthma patients with normal or generally normal pulmonary ventilation function are more likely to achieve improvement in asthma symptoms within one year compared to patients with mild obstruction.

[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.

A new tidal breathing measurement device detects bronchial obstruction during methacholine challenge test.

PURPOSE: Bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR), a hallmark of bronchial asthma, is typically diagnosed through a methacholine inhalation test followed by spirometry, known as the methacholine challenge test (MCT). While spirometry relies on proper patients' cooperation and precise execution of forced breathing maneuvers, we conducted a comparative analysis with the portable nanomaterial-based sensing device, SenseGuard™, to non-intrusively assess tidal breathing parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective study, 37 adult participants with suspected asthma underwent sequential spirometry and SenseGuard™ measurements after inhaling increasing methacholine doses. RESULTS: Among the 37 participants, 18 were MCT responders, 17 were non-responders and 2 were excluded due to uninterpretable data. The MCT responders exhibited a significant lung function difference when comparing the change from baseline to maximum response. This was evident through a notable decrease in forced expiratory volume in 1 â€‹s (FEV1) levels in spirometry, as well as in prominent changes in tidal breathing parameters as assessed by SenseGuard™, including the expiratory pause time (Trest) to total breath time (Ttot) ratio, and the expiratory time (Tex) to Ttot ratio. Notably, the ratios Trest/Ttot (∗p â€‹= â€‹0.02), Tex/Ttot (∗p â€‹= â€‹0.002), and inspiratory time (Tin) to Tex (∗p â€‹= â€‹0.04) identified MCT responders distinctly, corresponding to spirometry (∗p â€‹< â€‹0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that tidal breathing assessment using SenseGuard™ device reliably detects clinically relevant changes of respiratory parameter during the MCT. It effectively distinguishes between responders and non-responders, with strong agreement to conventional spirometry-measured FEV1. This technology holds promise for monitoring clinical respiratory changes in bronchial asthma patients pending further studies.

El manejo del asma como enfermedad inflamatoria crónica y problema sanitario global: documento de posicionamiento de las sociedades científicas / The management of asthma as a chronic inflammatory disease and global health problem: a position paper from the scientific societies

El asma es la enfermedad respiratoria más prevalente en el mundo; puede afectar a personas de todas las edades y es potencialmente mortal. En la actualidad, contamos con tratamientos de mantenimiento que son efectivos en la mayoría de los pacientes con asma y, sin embargo, una proporción importante no tiene bien controlada su enfermedad a pesar de los medios disponibles. En este documento, con el respaldo de las sociedades de los médicos que tratan el asma en España, se quiere llamar la atención de la sociedad y los profesionales sobre este problema en nuestro país. Se pone el foco sobre los aspectos clínicos, diagnósticos y terapéuticos del asma y se plantean algunas acciones de mejora en el ámbito de los pacientes y en el profesional sanitario que, en vista de los resultados actuales derivados de la falta de control del asma, podrían ser beneficiosas tanto en los resultados clínicos para los pacientes como en los de salud pública

Asthma is the most prevalent respiratory disease worldwide and it can affect people of all ages and is potentially fatal. Today, maintenance treatments are available that are effective in most patients, yet a significant proportion have poorly controlled disease, despite the resources on offer. This document, endorsed by members of the Spanish medical societies involved in the treatment of asthma, is intended to draw the attention of society and professionals to this problem in Spain. It focuses on the clinical, diagnostic and therapeutic aspects of asthma, and proposes some actions for improvement as regards patients and healthcare professionals which, in view of the current results arising from inadequate asthma control, might be beneficial to improve outcomes for both patients and public health

Actualización de la prueba de provocación bronquial con ejercicio (PPBE) / Update of the bronchial provocation test with exercise

The bronchial challenge test with exercise aims to demonstrate the presence of exercise-induced bronchial hyperreactivity, characteristic of bronchial asthma. Its realization is well standardized, requiring special environmental conditions, preparation and submaximum effort of the patient. The response is measured by spirometry, and it is considered a positive exercise test a drop in the expired volume at the first second (FEV1) of 10%. This article describes the elements necessary to facilitate this exam, according to national and international standards and guidelines.

La prueba de provocación bronquial con ejercicio tiene como objetivo demostrar la presencia de hiperreactividad bronquial inducida por ejercicio, característica del asma bronquial. Su realización está bien estandarizada, requiriendo de condiciones ambientales especiales, preparación y esfuerzo submáximo del paciente. La respuesta se mide mediante espirometría, y se considera una prueba de provocación con ejercicio positivo, a una caída del volumen espirado al primer segundo (VEF1) del 10%. En este artículo se describen los elementos necesarios para facilitar la realización de este examen, acorde a normas y guías nacionales e internacionales.

Bronchodilator test in extreme old age: Adverse effects of short-acting beta-2 adrenergic agonists with clinical repercussion and bronchodilator response

SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate chronological age as a limiting factor to perform the bronchodilator test, determine significant adverse effects of short-acting beta 2 agonists with clinical repercussions, and assess bronchodilator response in extreme-old-age patients who undergo the spirometry test. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional and retrospective study. The sample was extracted from the database (spirometer and respiratory questionnaire) of a pulmonary function service. Patients over 90 years old were included in the research, and we evaluated their bronchodilator response and its significant adverse effects that may have clinical repercussions related to the bronchodilator. RESULTS: A sample of 25 patients aged 92.12 ± 2.22 years (95% CI, 91.20 - 93.04), with a minimum age of 90 years and a maximum of 97 years and a predominance of females with 72% (18/25). The bronchodilator test was performed in 84% (21/25) of the patients. The bronchodilator response was evaluated in 19 of the 21 patients (90.47%) who underwent the bronchodilator test. Two tests did not meet the criteria of acceptability and reproducibility. No clinical adverse effects were observed with the bronchodilator medication (salbutamol) during or after the exam. CONCLUSIONS: Chronological age is not a limiting factor for the bronchodilator test, short-acting beta-2 agonists did not present adverse effects with significant clinical repercussion and were useful in the diagnosis and therapeutic guidance of extreme-old-age patients.

RESUMO OBJETIVOS: Avaliar se idade cronológica é um fator limitante para realizar prova broncodilatadora, determinar efeitos adversos significativos com repercussão clínica dos beta-2 agonistas de curta ação e avaliar a resposta broncodilatadora na espirometria, na velhice extrema. MÉTODOS: Estudo transversal, retrospectivo. Amostra extraída do banco de dados (espirômetro e questionário respiratório) de um serviço de função pulmonar. Incluídos na pesquisa pacientes com ≥90 anos, sendo avaliados a resposta broncodilatadora e efeitos adversos significativos com repercussão clínica ao broncodilatador. RESULTADOS: Amostra de 25 pacientes com idade de 92,12 ± 2,22 anos (IC 95%; 91,20 - 93,04), idade mínima de 90 anos e máxima de 97 anos, predominando o sexo feminino, com 72% (18/25). A prova broncodilatadora foi realizada em 84% (21/25) dos pacientes. A avaliação da resposta ao broncodilatador foi feita em 19 dos 21 pacientes (90,47%) que realizaram a prova broncodilatadora, uma vez que dois desses exames não preencheram os critérios de aceitabilidade e reprodutibilidade. A resposta broncodilatadora foi significativa em 10,52% (2/19) dos pacientes, ambos portadores de pneumopatia obstrutiva. Não foram observados efeitos adversos com repercussão clínica da medicação broncodilatadora (salbutamol) durante ou após sua realização. CONCLUSÕES: A idade cronológica não é um fator limitante para a realização da prova broncodilatadora, os beta-2 agonistas de curta ação não apresentaram efeitos adversos com repercussão clínica significativa e foram bastante úteis para auxiliar no diagnóstico e orientação terapêutica na velhice extrema.

Short and extended provocation tests have similar negative predictive value in non-immediate hypersensitivity to beta-lactams in children

Introduction and objectives: Drug provocation tests (DPTs) are the gold-standard method to diagnose non-immediate hypersensitivity reactions (NIHSR) to beta-lactam antibiotics (BL) in children. Our aim was to compare the negative predictive value (NPV) of one-day (short) DPT versus 3-7 days (extended) DPT for the diagnosis of NIHSR to BL in paediatric age. A secondary aim was to compare confidence on drug re-exposure after short and extended negative DPTs. Methods: The occurrence of HSR on drug re-exposure and drug refusal after negative diagnostic DPTs were evaluated in children/adolescents with a history of NIHSR to BL using a questionnaire performed six months to ten years after DPT. Patients were divided into two groups according to the protocol performed: short DPT vs. extended DPT. Results: We enrolled 212 children and adolescents (86 females, 126 males, mean age at DPT 5.52 years, p25 = 3 years, p75 = 7.25 years): 69 tested with short DPT, and 143 with extended DPT. The NPV of both types of DPT together was 95.2%. The NPV of short DPT was 97.5% and the NPV of extended DPT was 93.8% (p = 0.419). After negative DPT, beta-lactams were refused by carers in 14.75% of the children requiring subsequent treatment, 6.98% in the short DPT group and 18.99% in the extended DPT group (p = 0.074). Conclusions: In our paediatric sample, prolonging drug administration did not increase the NPV of diagnostic DPT for NIHSR to BL or reduce drug refusal. Altogether, the data here reported suggest that, however intuitive, prolonging DPT is not beneficial in the parameters analysed

No disponible

Actualización en la prueba de provocación bronquial con metacolina en el niño / Update in the bronchial challenge test with methacholine in children

This document updates the recommendations of the bronchial challenge test with methacholine in children. It is based primarily on the recommendations contained in the guide on the technical standard of the bronchial challenge test for methacholine from the European Society of Respiratory Diseases. The main change is the recommendation to use PD20 (methacholine dose that causes a 20% drop in FEV1) instead of PC20 (methacholine concentration that causes a 20% drop in FEV1), which allows for comparable results when different devices and different protocols are used.

Este documento actualiza las recomendaciones de la prueba de provocación bronquial con metacolina en niños. Se basa fundamentalmente en las recomendaciones contenidas en la guía sobre el estándar técnico de la prueba de provocación bronquial de metacolina de la Sociedad Europea de Enfermedades Respiratorias. El principal cambio es la recomendación de utilizar la PD20 (dosis de metacolina que provoca una caída de 20% del VEF1) en vez de PC20 (concentración de metacolina que provoca una caída del 20% en el VEF1), lo cual permite tener resultados comparables cuando se usan diferentes dispositivos y diferentes protocolos.

Contribution of in vivo and in vitro testing for the diagnosis of local allergic rhinitis

No disponible

Chlorine Inhalation Challenge in Humans: Development of a New Closed-Circuit Methodology / Prueba de provocación bronquial con cloro en humanos: desarrollo de una nueva metodología con circuito-cerrado

No disponible

Seguridad y tolerancia de la prueba de provocación bronquial con manitol inhalado en la EPOC leve- moderada / Safety and tolerance of the inhaled mannitol bronchial provocation test in mild-moderate COPD

INTRODUCCIÓN: la prueba de provocación bronquial con manitol inhalado (Osmohale(R)) es un test indirecto de medición de la hiperrespuesta bronquial. Se desconoce su utilidad clínica en pacientes con EPOC y su perfil de seguridad en pacientes con EPOC leve-moderado. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: estudio observacional prospectivo en el que participaron pacientes con EPOC leve-moderado, atendidos ambulatoriamente durante la fase de estabilidad de su enfermedad. Para todos los pacientes se recogieron los datos de función pulmonar y puntuación del cuestionario CAT. Se sometió a los pacientes a un test de provocación bronquial comercializado (Osmohale(R)). RESULTADOS: participaron en el estudio 72 pacientes con EPOC leve-moderado. En un 26% de los participantes se demostró la existencia de HRB. No hubo ningún abandono de la prueba por efectos adversos. La prueba fue bien tolerada por los pacientes, con la tos como efecto secundario más frecuentemente comunicado. La prueba fue segura, con una caída media del FEV1 del 10% y un tiempo medio de realización de la misma de 27 minutos. CONCLUSIONES: la prueba de provocación bronquial con manitol inhalado es un procedimiento seguro y bien tolerado en pacientes con EPOC leve-moderado

INTRODUCTION: bronchial provocation test with inhaled mannitol (Osmohale(R)) is and indirect approach to the measurement of bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR). Neither its clinical utility in COPD nor the secutiry profile en mild to moderate COPD patients is well kwon. MATERIAL AND METHODS: this was an observational prospective study enrrolling mild to moderate COPD patients in an outpatient setting during stability period. Data about lung fuction and CAT questionaire were collected from all patients. Aproved bronchial provocation test (Osmohale (R)) was performed. RESULTS: 72 mild to moderate COPD patients were included. BHR could be assesed in 26% of the sample. There was no drop out due to adverse events. The test was well tolerated, with cough being the most reported adverse event. The test was safe, with a mean FEV1 drop of 10% and a mean performance time of 27 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: bronchial provocation test with inhaled manitol is a safe and well tolerated procedure in mild to moderate COPD patients

Papel de la medición de la FENO en el diagnóstico y control del asma. Debate del grupo multidisciplinar de expertos de la reunión Asma Meeting Point 2017 / The Role of FENO in the Diagnosis and Control of Asthma. Expert Multidisciplinary Group Debate during the Asthma Meeting Point 2017

No disponible

Seguridad de la interrupción del tratamiento para el asma antes de la realización de la prueba de metacolina / Safety of suspending asthma treatment before performing a methacholine challenge test

No disponible

Occupational asthma to detergent protease associated with a late-phase neutrophilic cutaneous response

No disponible

Excesiva variabilidad en la realización e interpretación de la prueba de provocación bronquial con metacolina / Excessive variability in the performance and interpretation of the metacholine bronchial challenge test

No disponible

Overweight effect on spirometric parameters in adolescents undergoing exercise / Efeito do excesso de peso sobre parâmetros espirométricos de adolescentes submetidos ao exercício

ABSTRACT Objective To evaluate effects of overweight on spirometric parameters in adolescents who underwent bronchial provocation test for exercise. Methods We included 71 male adolescents. The diagnosis of asthma was done based on participants’ clinical history and on the International Study Questionnaire Asthma and Allergies in Childhood, and the diagnosis of obesity was based on body mass index above 95th percentile. The bronchospasm induced by exercise was assessed using the run-walk test on a treadmill for eight minutes. The decrease in forced expiratory volume in one second > or equal to 10% before exercise was considered positive, and to calculate the intensity in exercise-induced bronchospasm we measured the maximum percentage of forced expiratory volume in one second and above the curve area. Data analysis was carried out using the Mann-Whitney U test and Friedman test (ANOVA), followed by Wilcoxon test (p<0.05). In addition, we used Fisher’s exact test to analyze the exercise-induced bronchospasm frequency. Results Significant differences were observed among obese adolescents in exercise-induced bronchospasm frequency (p=0,013) and in relation to time required for recovery after exercise (p=0,007). Conclusion Overweight can influence the increase in the exercise-induced bronchospasm frequency in non-asthmatic adolescents compared with eutrophic adolescents.

RESUMO Objetivo Avaliar o efeito do excesso de peso sobre parâmetros espirométricos em adolescentes submetidos ao teste de broncoprovocação por exercício. Métodos Participaram do estudo 71 adolescentes do sexo masculino. O diagnóstico de asma foi obtido por meio de histórico clínico e do questionário International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood, e o de obesidade, pelo índice de massa corporal acima do percentil 95. Para avaliar o broncoespasmo induzido pelo exercício, utilizou-se o teste correr/caminhar em esteira ergométrica, com duração de 8 minutos, considerando positivo se diminuição do volume expiratório forçado no primeiro segundo >10% do valor pré-exercício e, para a intensidade do broncoespasmo induzido pelo exercício, foram utilizados o cálculo da queda percentual máxima do volume expiratório forçado no primeiro segundo e a área acima da curva. A análise dos dados foi realizada pelo teste U Mann-Whitney e pela ANOVA de Friedman, seguido do teste de Wilcoxon (p<0,05). O teste de Fisher foi empregado para analisar a frequência de broncoespasmo induzido pelo exercício. Resultados Foram encontradas diferenças significativas quanto à frequência de broncoespasmo induzido pelo exercício (p=0,013) e ao tempo de recuperação pós-exercício (p=0,007) nos adolescentes obesos. Conclusão O excesso de peso pode influenciar no aumento da frequência de broncoespasmo induzido pelo exercício em adolescentes não asmáticos, quando comparados a eutróficos.