The effect of challenge method on sensitivity and reactivity to adenosine 5'-monophosphate in subjects with suspected asthma

ERS technical standard on bronchial challenge testing: pathophysiology and methodology of indirect airway challenge testing

Recently, this international task force reported the general considerations for bronchial challenge testing and the performance of the methacholine challenge test, a "direct" airway challenge test. Here, the task force provides an updated description of the pathophysiology and the methods to conduct indirect challenge tests. Because indirect challenge tests trigger airway narrowing through the activation of endogenous pathways that are involved in asthma, indirect challenge tests tend to be specific for asthma and reveal much about the biology of asthma, but may be less sensitive than direct tests for the detection of airway hyperresponsiveness. We provide recommendations for the conduct and interpretation of hyperpnoea challenge tests such as dry air exercise challenge and eucapnic voluntary hyperpnoea that provide a single strong stimulus for airway narrowing. This technical standard expands the recommendations to additional indirect tests such as hypertonic saline, mannitol and adenosine challenge that are incremental tests, but still retain characteristics of other indirect challenges. Assessment of airway hyperresponsiveness, with direct and indirect tests, are valuable tools to understand and to monitor airway function and to characterise the underlying asthma phenotype to guide therapy. The tests should be interpreted within the context of the clinical features of asthma.

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

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

Challenging the two-minute tidal breathing challenge test

BACKGROUND

In the adenosine 5'-monophosphate (AMP) bronchial challenge test, AMP is usually administered according to dosing protocols for methacholine. We investigated whether the 2-min tidal breathing challenge test for methacholine is applicable to AMP. Parameters known to affect nebulizer output were studied. Our aim was to determine whether control of additional parameters is needed for currently standardized protocols.

METHODS

The study was performed with the Sidestream nebulizer from the APS Pro Aerosol Provocation System (CareFusion Respiratory). The effects of AMP concentration, jet pressure, and suction flow rate on nebulizer output rate and aerosol droplet size distribution were determined.

RESULTS

The volume median diameter for water increased from 5.10 μm to 8.49 μm when the jet pressure was reduced to obtain the prescribed output rate of 0.13 mL/min. The output rate was increased when a suction flow rate was used to remove the aerosol. Increasing the AMP concentration resulted in smaller droplets and a lower output rate when a suction flow was applied.

CONCLUSIONS

The effects of AMP concentration on nebulizer performance may result in changes in the administered dose and site of deposition of AMP at dose escalation. All of the investigated parameters influence nebulizer performance, hence the outcome of a bronchial challenge test. Therefore, these parameters should not only be specified in challenge testing, but be actively controlled as well.

Comparison of bronchial hyperresponsiveness to methacholine and adenosine and airway inflammation markers in patients with suspected asthma

BACKGROUND

Bronchial hyperresponsiveness is usually measured by bronchial challenge test with direct (e.g., methacholine) and indirect (e.g., adenosine) agonists. There are few studies comparing both types of agents and they have had conflicting concordance.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare the results of both tests in a population with symptoms suggestive of asthma so as to determine their relationship with bronchial inflammatory markers.

METHODS

Seventy-nine patients whose age ranged from 14 to 81 years were recruited for this study. Challenge tests were performed using the tidal volume method. PC₂₀ methacholine and PC₁₅ and PC₂₀ adenosine were calculated. Induced sputum and fraction of exhaled nitric oxide measurements were also performed.

RESULTS

Atopy was found in 69% of the patients. Methacholine PC₂₀ and adenosine PC₁₅ were positive in 32 patients (40.5%), both having a sensitivity of 73%. Percentage of agreement was 45.45% and κ index was only 0.369. Adenosine PC₂₀ elicited lower sensitivity and agreement. No correlation between methacholine PC₂₀ and adenosine PC₁₅ was observed. Higher fraction of exhaled nitric oxide values and sputum eosinophil counts were seen in patients with positive adenosine challenge results. The use of adenosine PC₁₅ or PC₂₀ did not alter the association with inflammatory markers.

CONCLUSIONS

The concordance between both techniques was low. Methacholine is not a reliable predictor of hyperresponsiveness to adenosine, leading us to conclude that the two tests are complementary but not interchangeable in clinical practice. Additionally, responsiveness to the two bronchoconstrictor stimuli does not indicate presence of the same airway abnormality. Indirect stimuli provide a better reflection of bronchial inflammation.

Bronchial hyperresponsiveness to methacholine and adenosine monophosphate and the degree of atopy in children with allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

nonasthmatic patients with allergic rhinitis often have bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR). Not only the presence but also the degree of atopy are important factors in BHR of patients with asthma. BHR is commonly evaluated by bronchial challenges using direct or indirect stimuli.

OBJECTIVES

to assess BHR to methacholine (direct) and to adenosine monophosphate (AMP) (indirect) in children with allergic rhinitis and to compare their relationships with the degree of atopy.

METHODS

methacholine and AMP challenges were performed in 88 children with allergic rhinitis, and a provocative concentration causing a 20% decrease in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (PC(20)) was calculated for each challenge. The degree of atopy was measured using serum total IgE levels, number of positive skin prick test results, and atopic scores (sum of graded wheal size).

RESULTS

BHR to methacholine (PC(20) <8 mg/mL) and to AMP (PC(20) <200 mg/mL) was observed in 22 (25%) and 30 (34%) patients, respectively. No association was found between BHR to methacholine and any atopy parameter. In contrast, serum total IgE levels and atopic scores were higher in the group with BHR to AMP than in the group without BHR to AMP. Furthermore, a significant association was found between the degree of these 2 parameters and BHR to AMP (score for trend, P < .001 and P = .03, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

both BHR to methacholine and BHR to AMP were detected in a significant proportion of children with allergic rhinitis. The degree of atopy seems to be an important factor in BHR to AMP but not in BHR to methacholine.

Provocative challenges to help diagnose and monitor asthma: exercise, methacholine, adenosine, and mannitol

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review bronchial provocations tests used in the measurement of bronchial hyperresponsiveness to help in the diagnosis of asthma.

RECENT FINDINGS

The bronchial provocations tests reviewed include exercise, methacholine, AMP and mannitol, with reference to methodology and monitoring of treatment.

SUMMARY

Methacholine is used for identifying bronchial hyperresponsiveness and to guide treatment. Exercise is used as a bronchial provocation test because demonstrating prevention of exercise-induced asthma is an indication for use of a drug. Both of these tests are being used to study tolerance to beta2 agonists. There is increasing use of eucapnic voluntary hyperpnea as a surrogate bronchial provocation test for exercise to identify exercise-induced asthma, particularly in athletes. For methacholine and AMP there is concern about the different breathing patterns used to inhale these aerosols and the impact they have on the cutoff point for identifying bronchial hyperresponsiveness. A new test that uses a kit containing prepacked capsules of different doses of mannitol and a delivery device is discussed. There is increasing interest in using tests that act indirectly by release of mediators because the bronchial hyperresponsiveness itself is an indicator of the presence of inflammation. Since treatment of inflammation leads to loss of bronchial hyperresponsiveness to indirect stimuli, these tests are well suited to identify success of treatment.

Relationships of methacholine and AMP responsiveness with peak expiratory flow variability in children with asthma

BACKGROUND

Both bronchial responsiveness (BR) and peak expiratory flow (PEF) variability are increased in asthma. PEF variability is presumed to reflect the degree of BR in asthma. BR is commonly assessed by bronchial challenges using direct or indirect stimuli.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare methacholine and adenosine 5'-monophosphate (AMP) responsiveness with regard to their relationships with PEF variability in children with asthma.

METHODS

Methacholine and AMP challenge tests were performed in 79 children with mild to moderate asthma, and a provocative concentration causing a 20% decline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (PC(20)) was calculated for each challenge. Subjects recorded PEF each morning and each evening for 14 consecutive days. PEF variability was expressed as amplitude percentage mean (amp%mean; high PEF minus low PEF on each day, expressed as a percentage of their mean, averaged over 14 days), and as the lowest percentage highest (low%high; the lowest PEF expressed as a percentage of the highest PEF recorded over the period).

RESULTS

Methacholine PC(20) correlated significantly but weakly with both indices of PEF variability (amp%mean: r=-0.285, P=0.011; low%high: r=0.238, P=0.034). However, there was a significant and strong correlation between AMP PC(20) and both amp%mean (r=-0.583, P=0.000) and low%high (r=0.496, P=0.000). For AMP PC(20), the correlations were stronger than for methacholine PC(20) (comparison of correlation coefficients with amp%mean: P=0.021; with low%high: P=0.063).

CONCLUSION

Both methacholine PC(20) and AMP PC(20) correlated significantly with PEF variability. However, the stronger correlations for AMP PC(20) than for methacholine PC(20) suggest that PEF variability may be better reflected by BR assessed by AMP than by methacholine.