Open AccessAdenosine monophosphate is not superior to histamine for bronchial provocation test for assessment of asthma control and symptoms
Author(s) -
Wu Fan,
Guan WeiJie,
Gao Yi,
An JiaYing,
Xie YanQing,
Liu WenTing,
Yu XinXin,
Zheng JinPing
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
the clinical respiratory journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.789
H-Index - 33
eISSN - 1752-699X
pISSN - 1752-6981
DOI - 10.1111/crj.12360
Subject(s) - medicine , asthma , provocation test , bronchial hyperresponsiveness , adenosine monophosphate , adenosine , histamine , adverse effect , anesthesia , gastroenterology , respiratory disease , pathology , lung , alternative medicine
Background Adenosine monophosphate (AMP) may reflect airway inflammation and hyperresponsiveness, but relationship between AMP and histamine (His, a conventional stimulus) bronchial provocation test (BPT) in asthma is not fully elucidated. Objectives To compare both BPTs and determine their utility in reflecting changes of asthmatic symptoms. Methods BPTs were performed in a cross‐over fashion, at 2–4 day intervals. Cumulative doses eliciting 20% FEV 1 fall (PD 20 FEV 1 ), diagnostic performance and adverse events (AEs) were compared. Patients with PD 20 FEV 1 lower than geometric mean were defined as responders, otherwise poor responders. Patients with uncontrolled and partly controlled asthma, who maintained their original inhaled corticosteroids therapy, underwent reassessment of airway responsiveness and asthmatic symptoms 3 and 6 months after. Results Nineteen uncontrolled, 22 partly controlled and 19 controlled asthmatic patients and 24 healthy subjects were recruited. Lower PD 20 FEV 1 geometric means were associated with poorer asthma control in His‐BPT (0.424 μmol vs 1.684 μmol vs 3.757 μmol), but not AMP‐BPT (11.810 μmol vs 7.781 μmol vs 10.220 μmol). Both BPTs yielded similar overall diagnostic performance in asthma (area under curve: 0.842 in AMP‐BPT vs 0.850 in His‐BPT). AEs, including wheezing and tachypnea, were similar and mild. Ten patients with uncontrolled and 10 partly controlled asthma were followed‐up. At months 3 and 6, we documented an increase in PD 20 FEV 1 ‐AMP and PD 20 FEV 1 ‐His, which did not correlate with reduction asthmatic symptom scores. This overall applied in responders and poor responders of AMP‐BPT and His‐BPT. Conclusion Despite higher screening capacity of well‐controlled asthma, AMP‐BPT confers similar diagnostic performance and safety with His‐BPT. AMP‐BPT might not preferentially reflect changes asthmatic symptoms.