Global strategy for asthma management and prevention

Authors Jan L. Brozek, MD, PhD – Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics and Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada Jean Bousquet, MD, PhD – Service des Maladies Respiratoires, Hopital Arnaud de Villeneuve, Montpellier, France, INSERM, CESP U1018, Respiratory and Environmental Epidemiology Team, France, and WHO Collaborating Center for Rhinitis and Asthma Carlos E. Baena-Cagnani, MD – Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Cordoba, Cordoba, Argentina Sergio Bonini, MD – Institute of Neurobiology and Molecular Medicine – CNR, Rome, Italy and Department of Medicine, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy G. Walter Canonica, MD – Allergy & Respiratory Diseases, DIMI, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy Thomas B. Casale, MD – Division of Allergy and Immunology, Department of Medicine, Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska, USA Roy Gerth van Wijk, MD, PhD – Section of Allergology, Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands Ken Ohta, MD, PhD – Division of Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, Department of Medicine, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan Torsten Zuberbier, MD – Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Charite Universitatsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany Holger J. Schunemann, MD, PhD, MSc – Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics and Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

/pdf/allergic-rhinitis-and-its-impact-on-asthma-20b4c7y0pr.pdf

Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma

I. Purpose and Scope II. Methacholine Challenge Testing A. Indications B. Contraindications C. Technician Training/Qualifications D. Safety E. Patient Preparation F. Choice and Preparation of Methacholine G. Dosing Protocols 1. Two-Minute Tidal Breathing Dosing Protocol 2. Five-Breath Dosimeter Protocol H. Nebulizers and Dosimeters I. Spirometry and Other End-point Measures J. Data Presentation K. Interpretation III. Exercise Challenge A. Indications B. Contraindications and Patient Preparation C. Exercise Challenge Testing D. Assessing the Response References Appendix A: Sample Methacholine Challenge Test Consent Form Appendix B: Sample Methacholine Challenge Pretest Questionnaire Appendix C: Sample Report Format Appendix D: Equipment Sources

Guidelines for methacholine and exercise challenge testing-1999. This official statement of the American Thoracic Society was adopted by the ATS Board of Directors, July 1999.

These guidelines have been replaced by British Guideline on the Management of Asthma. A national clinical guideline. Superseded By 2012 Revision Of 2008 Guideline: British Guideline on the Management of Asthma. Thorax 2008 May; 63(Suppl 4): 1–121.

/pdf/british-guideline-on-the-management-of-asthma-a-national-3q1wreyszl.pdf

British guideline on the management of asthma: A national clinical guideline

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, also called chronic airflow limitation (CAL)) are the most frequent diagnoses in patients with intrathoracic airways obstruction [1]. Often these patients show a spontaneous variability in the degree of airways obstruction, which can be documented by serial lung function measurements. Large variability in the degree of airways obstruction is indicative of an increased susceptibility of the patient to environmental stimuli that cause acute airway narrowing. Knowledge of the potential severity of these episodes of acute airways obstruction is of clinical interest. Therefore, several quantitative measures of the response of the airways to bronchoconstrictors in vivo have been advocated over the past two decades. The objective of the present guidelines is to address the methodological issues of the various available techniques, and to provide up-to-date international guidelines on standardization. The present recommendations might not represent the potentially best methodologies. However, they do represent the currently validated techniques, by which interchangeable results can be obtained among laboratories.

Variable airways obstruction can be mimicked in the laboratory by challenge tests with bronchoconstrictive stimuli (fig. 1) [2]. This enables one to measure the degree of the so-called «airway responsiveness» of the subject to a particular agent. Since the bronchoconstrictive response varies from one stimulus to another, one needs to specify the challenging agent. Therefore, the term «nonspecific» airway responsiveness should be abandoned.



Figure 1– 
Dose-response curves to inhaled methacholine using the dosimeter method in 3 subjects. Airway hyperresponsiveness in asthma is characterised by a leftward shift of the curve (hypersensitivity), a steeper slope (hyperreactivity), and an increase in maximal response (excessive airway narrowing). Modified from de Pee et al. [243] with permission.



Airway hyperresponsiveness refers to an exaggerated response to the bronchoconstrictor. This is reflected by an increased sensitivity to the stimulus, which …

https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/erj/6/Suppl_16/53.full.pdf

Airway Responsiveness. Standardized Challenge Testing With Pharmacological, Physical and Sensitizing Stimuli in Adults. Report Working Party Standardization of Lung Function Tests, European Community for Steel and Coal. Official Statement of the European Respiratory Society

An easy and safe dose-response histamine-inhalation test is described, to measure the level of non-specific bronchial reactivity. The test was performed in 307 subject. Non-specific bronchial reactivity was increased in 3% of presumed normal subjects, in 100% of active asthmatics and in 69% of asymptomatic asthmatics with previous symptoms only at times of exposure to clinically relevant allergens. It was also increased in 47% of patients with cough and no other chest symptoms, in 40% of patients with rhinitis and vague chest symptoms not by themselves diagnostic of asthma, and in 22% of patients with rhinitis and no chest symptoms. The patients with asthma were studied when their asthma was well controlled and when their minimum drug requirements had been established. The mean level of bronchial reactivity increased with increasing minimum drug requirements. The level of bronchial reactivity also showed a strong negative correlation with the forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1). Atopic subjects, with or without asthma, showed a significant positive correlation between the level of bronchial reactivity and atopic status as indicated by the number of positive allergy skin tests.

Bronchial reactivity to inhaled histamine: a method and clinical survey.

Controlled standardised histamine inhalation tests were carried out in 21 asthmatics to determine the degree of non-specific bronchial hyperreactivity with and without prior treatment with several anti-asthmatic drugs. A significant protective effect was produced by inhaled salbutamol, 200 microgram, ingested salbutamol, 4 mg, inhaled Sch1000, 40 microgram inhaled atropine sulphate, 290 microgram, and ingested choline theophylinate (200 or 400 mg) producing serum theophylline levels over 10 mg/l. Inhaled salbutamol was consistently the most effective and was significantly better than the other drugs. The protective effect between the other four was not significantly different. Drug side-effects occurred only with the ingested drugs. No significant protection was detected after ingested choline theophyllinate producing serum theophylline levels of less than 10 mg/l, inhaled sodium cromoglycate, 20 mg given once or six-hourly for one week, or ingested ascorbic acid, 1 gram.

https://thorax.bmj.com/content/thoraxjnl/32/4/429.full.pdf

J. J. A. Mellon

Papers

Bronchial reactivity to inhaled histamine: a method and clinical survey.

Protective effect of drugs on histamine-induced asthma.