[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.

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.

Obesity in women with asthma: Baseline disadvantage plus greater small-airway responsiveness.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is known to diminish lung volumes and worsen asthma. However, mechanistic understanding is lacking, especially as concerns small-airway responsiveness. The objective of this study was therefore to compare small-airway responsiveness, as represented by the change in expiratory:inspiratory mean lung density ratios (MLDe/i , as determined by computed tomography [CT]) throughout methacholine testing in obese versus non-obese women with asthma. METHODS: Thoracic CT was performed during methacholine bronchoconstriction challenges to produce standardized response curves (SRC: response parameter versus ln[1 + % PD20], where PD20 is the cumulative methacholine dose) for 31 asthma patients (n = 18 non-obese and n = 13 obese patients). Mixed models evaluated obesity effects and interactions on SRCs while adjusting for age and bronchial morphology. Small airway responsiveness as represented by SRC slope was calculated for each third of the MLDe/i response and compared between groups. RESULTS: Obesity-associated effects observed during experimental bronchoconstriction included: (i) a significant baseline effect for forced expiratory volume in 1 second with lower values for the obese (73.11 ± 13.44) versus non-obese (82.19 ± 8.78; p = 0.002) groups prior to methacholine testing and (ii) significantly higher responsiveness in small airways as estimated via differences in MLDe/i slopes (group×ln(1 + % PD20 interaction; p = 0.023). The latter were pinpointed to higher slopes in the obese group at the beginning 2/3 of SRCs (p = 0.004 and p = 0.021). Significant obesity effects (p = 0.035 and p = 0.008) indicating lower forced vital capacity and greater % change in MLDe/I (respectively) throughout methacholine testing, were also observed. CONCLUSION: In addition to baseline differences, small-airway responsiveness (as represented by the change in MLDe/i ) during methacholine challenge is greater in obese women with asthma as compared to the non-obese.

Airway inflammation and hyperresponsiveness in subjects with respiratory symptoms and normal spirometry.

BACKGROUND: Subjects without a previous history of asthma, presenting with unexplained respiratory symptoms and normal spirometry, may exhibit airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) in association with underlying eosinophilic (type 2 (T2)) inflammation, consistent with undiagnosed asthma. However, the prevalence of undiagnosed asthma in these subjects is unknown. METHODS: In this observational study, inhaled corticosteroid-naïve adults without previously diagnosed lung disease reporting current respiratory symptoms and showing normal pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry underwent fractional exhaled nitric oxide (F ENO) measurement, methacholine challenge testing and induced sputum analysis. AHR was defined as a provocative concentration of methacholine causing a 20% fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (PC20) <16 mg·mL-1 and T2 inflammation was defined as sputum eosinophils >2% and/or F ENO >25 ppb. RESULTS: Out of 132 subjects (mean±sd age 57.6±14.2 years, 52% female), 47 (36% (95% CI 28-44%)) showed AHR: 20/132 (15% (95% CI 9-21%)) with PC20 <4 mg·mL-1 and 27/132 (21% (95% CI 14-28%)) with PC20 4-15.9 mg·mL-1. Of 130 participants for whom sputum eosinophils, F ENO or both results were obtained, 45 (35% (95% CI 27-43%)) had T2 inflammation. 14 participants (11% (95% CI 6-16%)) had sputum eosinophils >2% and PC20 ≥16 mg·mL-1, suggesting eosinophilic bronchitis. The prevalence of T2 inflammation was significantly higher in subjects with PC20 <4 mg·mL-1 (12/20 (60%)) than in those with PC20 4-15.9 mg·mL-1 (8/27 (30%)) or ≥16 mg·mL-1 (25/85 (29%)) (p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Asthma, underlying T2 airway inflammation and eosinophilic bronchitis may remain undiagnosed in a high proportion of symptomatic subjects in the community who have normal pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry.

Pulmonary function testing for the diagnosis of asthma in preschool children.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To highlight the recent evidence of the lung function techniques used in preschool children to diagnose asthma. RECENT FINDINGS: Several techniques are available to measure lung function and airway inflammation in preschool children, including spirometry (from age 5 years), impulse oscillometry (>3 years), whole-body plethysmography (>3 years), fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) (>5 years), multiple breath washout (>3 years), structured light plethysmography (>1-2 years) and impedance pneumography (>1 years). If applicable, measuring forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and FEV1/forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio using spirometry is useful (cut-off < 80% predicted or below lower limit of normal [LLN] defined as z-score < -1.64) for diagnosing preschool asthma. For those unable to perform spirometry, whole-body plethysmography (sRaw > 1.6 kPa/s) and impulse oscillometry (Rrs and Xrs at 5 Hz z-score > 2) may be useful. Adding a bronchodilator reversibility test (FEV1 increase > 12%, sRaw decrease > 25-30%, Rrs at 5 Hz decrease > 40%) or a bronchial challenge test, for example, exercise test (FEV1 decrease > 10%), may improve the sensitivity of these tests. Elevated FeNO (>25-35 ppb) is a promising adjunctive test for diagnosing preschool asthma. SUMMARY: With trained personnel, lung function testing can be done with high reliability even in children between 2 and 4 years of age. To avoid over and undertreatment of asthma, objective measurement of lung function is clinically important in preschool children.

EAACI position paper on the clinical use of the bronchial allergen challenge: Unmet needs and research priorities.

Allergic asthma (AA) is a common asthma phenotype, and its diagnosis requires both the demonstration of IgE-sensitization to aeroallergens and the causative role of this sensitization as a major driver of asthma symptoms. Therefore, a bronchial allergen challenge (BAC) would be occasionally required to identify AA patients among atopic asthmatics. Nevertheless, BAC is usually considered a research tool only, with existing protocols being tailored to mild asthmatics and research needs (eg long washout period for inhaled corticosteroids). Consequently, existing BAC protocols are not designed to be performed in moderate-to-severe asthmatics or in clinical practice. The correct diagnosis of AA might help select patients for immunomodulatory therapies. Allergen sublingual immunotherapy is now registered and recommended for controlled or partially controlled patients with house dust mite-driven AA and with FEV1 ≥ 70%. Allergen avoidance is costly and difficult to implement for the management of AA, so the proper selection of patients is also beneficial. In this position paper, the EAACI Task Force proposes a methodology for clinical BAC that would need to be validated in future studies. The clinical implementation of BAC could ultimately translate into a better phenotyping of asthmatics in real life, and into a more accurate selection of patients for long-term and costly management pathways.

Allergen provocation tests in respiratory research: building on 50†years of experience.

The allergen provocation test is an established model of allergic airway diseases, including asthma and allergic rhinitis, allowing the study of allergen-induced changes in respiratory physiology and inflammatory mechanisms in sensitised individuals as well as their associations. In the upper airways, allergen challenge is focused on the clinical and pathophysiological sequelae of the early allergic response, and is applied both as a diagnostic tool and in research settings. In contrast, bronchial allergen challenge has almost exclusively served as a research tool in specialised research settings with a focus on the late asthmatic response and the underlying type 2 inflammation. The allergen-induced late asthmatic response is also characterised by prolonged airway narrowing, increased nonspecific airway hyperresponsiveness and features of airway remodelling including the small airways, and hence allows the study of several key mechanisms and features of asthma. In line with these characteristics, allergen challenge has served as a valued tool to study the cross-talk of the upper and lower airways and in proof-of-mechanism studies of drug development. In recent years, several new insights into respiratory phenotypes and endotypes including the involvement of the upper and small airways, innovative biomarker sampling methods and detection techniques, refined lung function testing as well as targeted treatment options further shaped the applicability of the allergen provocation test in precision medicine. These topics, along with descriptions of subject populations and safety, in line with the updated Global Initiative for Asthma 2021 document, will be addressed in this review.

A pilot study of differential gene expressions in patients with cough variant asthma and classic bronchial asthma.

BACKGROUND: Despite extensive exploration of asthma, the mechanism of asthma has not been fully elucidated. Cough variant asthma (CVA) is considered as precursor to classical asthma (CA). Comparative study between CA and CVA may be helpful in further understanding the pathogenesis of asthma. METHODS: Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were isolated from CVA, CA and healthy adults. Each group consisted of five cases. Total RNA was extracted from the PBMCs. Agilent 4 × 44 K human genome oligo microarray was used to detect whole genome expression. Allogeneic clustering, Gene Ontology and KEGG analysis were performed to investigate differentially expressed genes (DEGs). Then, ten candidate genes were screened and verified by real-time PCR. RESULTS: Gene expressions were significantly different among the three groups, with 202 DEGs between the CA and the CVA groups. The Gene Ontology analysis suggested that the DEGs were significantly enriched in 'histone H4-K20 demethylation' and 'antigen processing and presentation of endogenous antigens'. HDC, EGR1, DEFA4, LTF, G0S2, IL4, TFF3, CTSG, FCER1A and CAMP were selected as candidate genes. However, the results of real-time PCR showed that the expression levels of FCER1A, IL4 and HDC in the cough variant asthma group were significantly different from those in the other two groups (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The pathogenesis of CVA and CA may be related to genes such as FCER1A, HDC and IL4. Further studies incorporating a larger sample size should be conducted to find more candidate genes and mechanisms.

The use of the mannitol test as an outcome measure in asthma intervention studies: a review and practical recommendations.

BACKGROUND: The mannitol test is an indirect bronchial challenge test widely used in diagnosing asthma. Response to the mannitol test correlates with the level of eosinophilic and mast cell airway inflammation, and a positive mannitol test is highly predictive of a response to anti-inflammatory treatment with inhaled corticosteroids. The response to mannitol is a physiological biomarker that may, therefore, be used to assess the response to other anti-inflammatory treatments and may be of particular interest in early phase studies that require surrogate markers to predict a clinical response. The main objectives of this review were to assess the practical aspects of using mannitol as an endpoint in clinical trials and provide the clinical researcher and respiratory physician with recommendations when designing early clinical trials. METHODS: The aim of this review was to summarise previous uses of the mannitol test as an outcome measure in clinical intervention studies. The PubMed database was searched using a combination of MeSH and keywords. Eligible studies included intervention or repeatability studies using the standard mannitol test, at multiple timepoints, reporting the use of PD15 as a measure, and published in English. RESULTS: Of the 193 papers identified, 12 studies met the inclusion criteria and data from these are discussed in detail. Data on the mode of action, correlation with airway inflammation, its diagnostic properties, and repeatability have been summarised, and suggestions for the reporting of test results provided. Worked examples of power calculations for dimensioning study populations are presented for different types of study designs. Finally, interpretation and reporting of the change in the response to the mannitol test are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: The mechanistic and practical features of the mannitol test make it a useful marker of disease, not only in clinical diagnoses, but also as an outcome measure in intervention trials. Measuring airway hyperresponsiveness to mannitol provides a novel and reproducible test for assessing efficacy in intervention trials, and importantly, utilises a test that links directly to underlying drivers of disease.

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.

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.

Bronchial hyperresponsiveness is common in Hanoi, Vietnam: Asthma probably underdiagnosed.

BACKGROUND: Bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR) is a key pathophysiological feature of asthma. Methacholine challenge test (MCT) is a common bronchoprovocation test useful for confirming a diagnosis of asthma. Studies of BHR in the general population of Asian countries are rare. AIM: To estimate prevalence and determinants of BHR in Hanoi, Vietnam, and to study the association between BHR and symptoms common in asthma and previously diagnosed asthma. METHODS: 1500 out of 5872 randomly selected adults in urban and rural Hanoi, who had participated in a questionnaire survey (83% participated), were randomly selected and invited to clinical examinations. Totally 684 subjects (46%) participated. MCT was performed in 366 subjects. BHR was defined as a FEV1-decrease of ≥20% from baseline following methacholine inhalations (PC20). Cut offs used in the analyses were PC20 ≤ 1 mg/ml, ≤2 mg/ml and ≤8 mg/ml. RESULTS: The prevalence of BHR was 16.4% at doses ≤8 mg/ml, while 9.6% reacted on doses ≤2 mg/ml. PC20 ≤ 2 mg/ml was associated with FEV1 <80% of predicted. PC20 ≤ 2 mg/ml, but not PC20 ≤ 8 mg/ml, was associated with multi-sensitization to airborne allergens. BHR defined as PC20 ≤ 8 mg/ml was associated with age >45y. The combination of asthmatic wheeze (wheezing with breathlessness apart from colds) and BHR, irrespectively of magnitude of BHR, was more common than the combination of BHR with previously diagnosed asthma. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate BHR to be more common in Hanoi than previously found in south-east Asia. Although the prevalence of physician diagnosed asthma has increased in Vietnam, our results indicate that asthma still may be underdiagnosed in Vietnam.

Current Asthma Prevalence Using Methacholine Challenge Test in Korean Children from 2010 to 2014.

BACKGROUND: Most epidemiological studies depend on the subjects' response to asthma symptom questionnaires. Questionnaire-based study for childhood asthma prevalence may overestimate the true prevalence. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of "Current asthma" using the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) questionnaire and methacholine challenge test in Korean children. METHODS: Our survey on allergic disease included 4,791 children (age 7-12 years) from 2010 to 2014 in Korean elementary schools. Bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR) was defined as provocative concentration of methacholine causing a 20% fall in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) (PC20) ≤ 16 mg/mL. "Current asthma symptoms" was defined as positive response to "Wheezing, current," "Treatment, current," or "Exercise, current." "Current asthma" was defined when the subjects with "Current asthma symptoms" showed BHR on the methacholine challenge test or had less than 70% of predicted FEV1 value. RESULTS: The prevalence of "Wheezing, ever," "Wheezing, current," "Diagnosis, ever," "Treatment, current," "Exercise, current," and "Current asthma symptoms" was 19.6%, 6.9%, 10.0%, 3.3%, 3.5%, and 9.6%, respectively, in our cross-sectional study of Korean elementary school students. The prevalence of BHR in elementary school students was 14.5%. The prevalence of BHR in children with "Wheezing, ever," "Wheezing, current," "Diagnosis, ever," "Treatment, current," and "Exercise, current" was 22.3%, 30.5%, 22.4%, 28.8%, and 29.9%, respectively. BHR was 26.1% in those with "Current asthma symptoms." The prevalence of "Current asthma" was 2.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Our large-scale study provides 2.7% prevalence of current asthma in Korean elementary school children. Since approximately one third of the children who have "Current asthma symptoms" present BHR, both subjective and objective methods are required to accurately predict asthma in subjects with asthma symptoms.

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.

Comparison of spirometry and impulse oscillometry in methacholine challenge test for the detection of airway hyperresponsiveness in adults.

INTRODUCTION: Airway hyper-responsiveness (AHR) is a characteristic feature of asthma. The aim of this study was to compare the impulse oscillometry (IOS) and spirometry to methacholine for AHR detection among individuals with clinically hyper-reactive airway disease suggestive of bronchial asthma and baseline spirometry were normal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults with symptoms suggestive of AHR and normal baseline spirometry test were selected. The short protocol of methacholine challenge test (MCT) was performed for all subjects using IOS and spirometry simultaneously. The primary endpoint was to compare the methacholine dosage causing a 20% drop in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), with methacholine dosage that causing 40% increasing the baseline respiratory resistance at 5 hertz (R5), as measured by IOS. RESULT: A total of 235 participants were analyzed, 184 (78.2%) had positive test results with R5, while 81 (34.4%) had positive MCT results with FEV1.The sensitivity and specificity of MCT with R5were 87.3%, 64.6%, and MCT with FEV1 were 39.1%, 85.4%, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was greater at lower doses of MCT at R5, (AUROC: 0.653; p= 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The results showed higher sensitivity, negative predictive value, and earlier response of the short protocol of MCT with IOS, compared to MCT with spirometry. Our study suggested the utility of IOS in addition to conventional spirometry as a method of choice in MCT for detection of AHR.

Single-step direct drug provocation testing is safe for delabelling selected non-low-risk penicillin allergy labels.

BACKGROUND: Penicillin allergy labels are prevalent, and removal of incorrect labels improves patient outcomes and health economics. Labels may be classified as "low-risk" or "non-low-risk," of which the symptoms of the latter chiefly suggest immunoglobulin E-mediated etiology. Traditionally, "non-low-risk" allergy labels are evaluated by penicillin skin testing followed by graded multistep penicillin drug provocation testing (DPT). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety of assessing "non-low-risk" labels with single-step direct DPT. METHODS: We consecutively enrolled inpatients and outpatients of a teaching hospital in Sydney, Australia, with penicillin allergy labels requiring penicillin for first-line treatment. Patients were classified as "low-risk" or "non-low-risk" based on the allergy labels. All patients proceeded directly to amoxicillin DPT, unless there was a history of anaphylaxis within 10 years of assessment to a beta-lactam (except for cefazolin) or Gell and Coombs type 2, type 3, or severe type 4 reaction. This was followed by a course of amoxicillin. RESULTS: A total of 149 patients (41 inpatients, 108 outpatients) were enrolled. No patient was excluded from the study. No patient experienced life-threatening reactions to the protocol. There were 85 patients who reported "non-low-risk" allergy labels. One patient developed generalized pruritus and rash that resolved with standard-dose antihistamines, 2 developed delayed benign maculopapular exanthem, and 3 experienced diarrhea during the course of amoxicillin. CONCLUSION: In our cohort, direct single-step DPT was safe, with only 6 patients with "non-low-risk" allergy experiencing benign reactions. We hope that further studies can be performed into single-step direct DPT to evaluate "non-low-risk" penicillin allergy labels. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: LNR/16/HAWKE/452.

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.