Article

Bronchial responsiveness to methacholine in chronic bronchitis: relationship to airflow obstruction and cold air responsiveness.

Thorax (Impact Factor: 8.56). 01/1985; 39(12):912-8. DOI: 10.1136/thx.39.12.912
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The response to inhaled methacholine is increased in patients with chronic airflow obstruction, but it is not known whether this is due to true hyperresponsiveness or is a result of the airflow obstruction. In asthmatics the response to methacholine correlates with the bronchoconstriction produced by hyperventilation of cold dry air. We studied 27 patients with a history of smoking and chronic bronchitis with a range of severity of airflow obstruction. Bronchial responses to methacholine (expressed as the provocation concentration causing a fall in FEV1 of 20%-PC20) and isocapnic hyperventilation of cold dry air were measured. In 19 patients the PC20 was less than 8 mg/ml (that is, in the asthmatic range) but only three developed bronchoconstriction in response to hyperventilation. There was a linear correlation between the log PC20 and the FEV1 (r = 0.86, p less than 0.001). The results suggest that in patients with chronic airflow obstruction the response to methacholine is determined by the degree of airflow obstruction, and cannot be used in the diagnosis of asthma in the absence of additional information.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Robin S Roberts, Aug 18, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
38 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although the term "all that wheezes is not asthma" is not new, and the long list of asthma masqueraders has remained essentially the same for several decades, the importance of knowing when to question the accuracy ofa diagnosis of asthma has remained critical for physicians who care for patients with respiratory symptoms. The concepts of "asthma control" and"asthma severity" are currently evolving, although the fundamental hall-marks that define the syndrome of asthma endure and should be mastered by asthma specialists. Asthma masqueraders, including several that may confound a correct diagnosis of asthma, are important to consider when either the presentation of asthma is atypical or the response of the patient to treatment is suboptimal. COPD and VCD head the list of diagnoses most likely to be confused with asthma in everyday practice. Correctly identifying the diagnosis of COPD enables implementation of an up-to-date treatment plan that differs from asthma management. VCD is a vastly under recognized syndrome whose existence is widely accepted but whose pathophysiology is poorly understood, and correctly identifying a VCD component to asthma symptoms enables both a reduction in costly and potentially harmful asthma medications and focus on specific VCD treatment, such as speech therapy. For less common and uncommon asthma masqueraders, it is important to be familiar with their typical clinical presentation and basic diagnostic approaches.
    Medical Clinics of North America 02/2006; 90(1):61-76. DOI:10.1016/j.mcna.2005.08.004 · 2.80 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is increasing interest in the possibility that rhinitis and asthma are intricately interlinked. The aim of this baseline audit was to investigate the prevalence and characteristics of rhinitis symptoms in a large-scale UK primary care-based survey of patients with asthma. A questionnaire about the presence/absence and type of nasal symptoms, seasonal variations, and trigger factors was developed and piloted. This was then distributed among approximately 10,500 patients with clinician-diagnosed asthma via a national database of practice nurses. We achieved a response from 7,129 patients (68%). Of these, 76% (n=5,420) had symptoms indicative of rhinitis as shown by the presence of more than one of the following: nasal blockage; runny nose; sneezing; and itchy eyes, ears or palate. 58% reported predominantly seasonal symptoms and 42% predominantly perennial symptoms. Sneezing was reported in a significantly greater proportion of patients with seasonal (66%) than perennial (58%) symptoms, together with itchy eyes/ears/palate (seasonal 60%, perennial 48%) and rhinorrhoea (56%, 51%) (all p< or =0.001). Symptoms of nasal blockage were more commonly reported in the group with perennial symptoms (perennial 61%, seasonal 53%) (p<0.001). In this large national baseline survey, 76% of patients with asthma reported symptoms indicative of rhinitis. In view of the very high prevalence of rhinitis among people with asthma, we suggest that the diagnosis of rhinitis is considered in all those with asthma.
    Primary Care Respiratory Journal 05/2005; 14(2):83-7. DOI:10.1016/j.pcrj.2004.10.005 · 2.91 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There are no predictors known that can identify COPD patients who will respond to treatment with ICS. We investigated 30 patients (median age 65 (range 44-83, 12 females) with mild to moderately severe COPD. All patients had post bronchodilator FEV1/forced vital capacity ratio of less than 70% and a reversibility of less than 12% and 200 ml from baseline. We wanted to determine if airway responsiveness (AHR) to histamine and mannitol could predict who would respond to a 3-month course of ICS. At baseline, all patients had AHR to histamine, but only 7 (23%) patients to mannitol. After 3 months of treatment with ICS, there was no significant change in spirometry or the quality of life when analysing all individuals together. However, FEV1% predicted improved from 67% (IQR12) to 79% (IQR16) in mannitol positive patients; whereas it was unchanged in the mannitol negative patients. The difference in the mean change of FEV1% predicted between the two groups was 12 (IQR13.5) and this was highly significant (p=0.001). The improvement in quality of life (SGRQ 30 (IQR10.5) to 21 (IQR12; p=0.01) was only significant in the patients positive to mannitol. We propose that AHR to mannitol could predict ICS-responsiveness in mild to moderately severe COPD patients.
    Pulmonary Pharmacology &amp Therapeutics 02/2005; 18(2):83-8. DOI:10.1016/j.pupt.2004.10.005 · 2.57 Impact Factor