Bohadana Abraham B, Wild Pascal, Izbicki Gabriel
Respiratory Research Unit, (RUPI) Pulmonary Institute, Shaare Zedek Medical Center (Affiliated with the Hadassah School of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem), 12 Baiyt Street, 91031 Jerusalem, Israel.
INRS - National Research and Safety Institute, 1 rue du Morvan, CS 60027, 54519 Vandoeuvre Cedex, France.
Clin Respir J. 2018 Apr;12(4):1536-1544. doi: 10.1111/crj.12701. Epub 2017 Sep 18.
Conventionally, symptoms occurring during the methacholine test are not taken into account when interpreting the test results. We examined whether the evaluation of methacholine-induced symptoms (MIS) added to the test interpretation based on the PC20FEV1 by assessing their prevalence, their similarity with symptoms justifying referral and their relationship with airway responsiveness.
Eighty-two patients with suspected asthma completed a questionnaire of symptoms and underwent bronchial challenge with methacholine. Based on MIS and airway responsiveness (responders = PC20FEV1 < 8 mg/mL), subjects were classified as asymptomatic non-responders (ANRs), asymptomatic responders (ARs), symptomatic non-responders (SNRs) and symptomatic responders (SRs). Airway responsiveness for all subjects, including non-responders (ie, fall in FEV1 < 20%), was assessed by the methacholine concentration response-slope (MCRS) obtained using all points of the curve.
ARs (n = 6) were poor-perceivers of bronchoconstriction. SNRs (n = 16) did not differ from SRs (n = 34) in any clinical parameter, including the proportion of subjects (∼80%) whose methacholine test reproduced symptoms justifying referral. In turn, SNRs differed significantly from ANRs (n = 26) by having lower baseline FEV1 (P = .005), more physician-diagnosed asthma (P < .001), more use of respiratory medication (P = .032), and relatively greater responsiveness as manifested by a steeper MCRS (P < .001).
The occurrence of asthma-like symptoms during the methacholine test was associated with milder airway hyperresponsiveness that would go unnoticed by the PC20FEV1. This finding suggests that SNRs should not be merely classified as having normal responsiveness, as currently recommended, but further assessed for airway inflammation. Our results helped planning a longitudinal study to investigate the prognostic validity of this approach.
传统上,在解释乙酰甲胆碱试验结果时,不考虑试验期间出现的症状。我们通过评估乙酰甲胆碱诱发症状(MIS)的发生率、与证明转诊合理的症状的相似性及其与气道反应性的关系,研究了将MIS评估添加到基于PC20FEV1的试验解释中是否可行。
82例疑似哮喘患者完成了症状问卷,并接受了乙酰甲胆碱支气管激发试验。根据MIS和气道反应性(反应者=PC20FEV1<8mg/mL),将受试者分为无症状无反应者(ANR)、无症状反应者(AR)、有症状无反应者(SNR)和有症状反应者(SR)。通过使用曲线所有点获得的乙酰甲胆碱浓度反应斜率(MCRS)评估所有受试者的气道反应性,包括无反应者(即FEV1下降<20%)。
AR(n=6)对支气管收缩的感知较差。SNR(n=16)与SR(n=34)在任何临床参数上均无差异,包括乙酰甲胆碱试验重现证明转诊合理的症状的受试者比例(约80%)。反过来,SNR与ANR(n=26)有显著差异,表现为基线FEV1较低(P=0.005)、医生诊断的哮喘更多(P<0.001)、呼吸药物使用更多(P=0.032),以及MCRS更陡所表现出的相对更高的反应性(P<0.001)。
乙酰甲胆碱试验期间出现类似哮喘的症状与较轻的气道高反应性相关,而PC20FEV1可能会忽略这一点。这一发现表明,SNR不应像目前所建议的那样仅仅被归类为具有正常反应性,而应进一步评估气道炎症。我们的结果有助于规划一项纵向研究,以调查这种方法的预后有效性。