Cockcroft Donald W, Davis Beth E, Blais Christianne M
1Department of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK Canada.
2Royal University Hospital, 103 Hospital Drive, Saskatoon, SK S7N0W8 Canada.
Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2020 Feb 11;16:14. doi: 10.1186/s13223-020-0410-x. eCollection 2020.
Direct inhalation challenges (e.g. methacholine) are stated to be more sensitive and less specific for a diagnosis of asthma than are indirect challenges (e.g. exercise, non-isotonic aerosols, mannitol, etc.). However, data surrounding comparative sensitivity and specificity for methacholine compared to mannitol challenges are conflicting. When methacholine is inhaled by deep total lung capacity (TLC) inhalations, deep inhalation inhibition of bronchoconstriction leads to a marked loss of diagnostic sensitivity when compared to tidal breathing (TB) inhalation methods. We hypothesized that deep inhalation methacholine methods with resulting bronchoprotection may be the explanation for conflicting sensitivity/specificity data.
We reviewed 27 studies in which methacholine and mannitol challenges were performed in largely the same individuals. Methacholine was inhaled by dosimeter TLC methods in 13 studies and by tidal breathing in 14 studies. We compared the rates of positive methacholine (stratified by inhalation method) and mannitol challenges in both asthmatics and non-asthmatics.
When methacholine was inhaled by TLC inhalations the prevalence of positive tests in asthmatics, 60.2% (548/910), was similar to mannitol, 58.9% (537/912). By contrast, when methacholine was inhaled by tidal breathing the prevalence of positive tests in asthmatics 83.1% (343/413) was more than double that of mannitol, 41.5% (146/351). In non-asthmatics, the two methacholine methods resulted in positive tests in 18.8% (142/756) and 16.2% (27/166) by TLC and TB inhalations respectively. This compares to an overall 8.3% (n = 76) positive rate for mannitol in 913 non-asthmatics.
These data support the hypothesis that the conflicting data comparing methacholine and mannitol sensitivity and specificity are due to the method of methacholine inhalation. Tidal breathing methacholine methods have a substantially greater sensitivity for a diagnosis of asthma than either TLC dosimeter methacholine challenge methods or mannitol challenge. Methacholine challenges should be performed by tidal breathing as per recent guideline recommendations. Methacholine (more sensitive) and mannitol (more specific) will thus have complementary diagnostic features.
与间接激发试验(如运动、非等渗气雾剂、甘露醇等)相比,直接吸入激发试验(如乙酰甲胆碱)对哮喘诊断的敏感性更高,但特异性更低。然而,关于乙酰甲胆碱与甘露醇激发试验的比较敏感性和特异性的数据相互矛盾。当通过深吸气肺总量(TLC)吸入法吸入乙酰甲胆碱时,与潮气呼吸(TB)吸入法相比,深吸气对支气管收缩的抑制作用会导致诊断敏感性显著降低。我们推测,导致支气管保护作用的深吸气乙酰甲胆碱方法可能是敏感性/特异性数据相互矛盾的原因。
我们回顾了27项研究,这些研究在大致相同的个体中进行了乙酰甲胆碱和甘露醇激发试验。13项研究通过剂量计TLC方法吸入乙酰甲胆碱,14项研究通过潮气呼吸吸入。我们比较了哮喘患者和非哮喘患者中乙酰甲胆碱(按吸入方法分层)和甘露醇激发试验阳性率。
当通过TLC吸入法吸入乙酰甲胆碱时,哮喘患者中阳性试验的患病率为60.2%(548/910),与甘露醇的患病率58.9%(537/912)相似。相比之下,当通过潮气呼吸吸入乙酰甲胆碱时,哮喘患者中阳性试验的患病率83.1%(343/413)是甘露醇患病率41.5%(146/351)的两倍多。在非哮喘患者中,两种乙酰甲胆碱方法通过TLC和TB吸入法分别导致18.8%(142/756)和16.2%(27/166)的阳性试验。相比之下,913名非哮喘患者中甘露醇的总体阳性率为8.3%(n = 76)。
这些数据支持了这样的假设,即比较乙酰甲胆碱和甘露醇敏感性和特异性的相互矛盾的数据是由于乙酰甲胆碱的吸入方法。潮气呼吸乙酰甲胆碱方法对哮喘诊断的敏感性明显高于TLC剂量计乙酰甲胆碱激发试验方法或甘露醇激发试验。应按照最近的指南建议通过潮气呼吸进行乙酰甲胆碱激发试验。因此,乙酰甲胆碱(敏感性更高)和甘露醇(特异性更高)将具有互补的诊断特征。