Cargando…

Use of a vibrating mesh nebulizer for allergen challenge

BACKGROUND: Allergen inhalation tests are a valuable research tool. The allergen dose producing an early asthmatic response (EAR) can be predicted from methacholine responsiveness and allergen skin test endpoint (STE). The Wright(®) jet nebulizer, which is both inefficient and increasingly difficult...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cockcroft, Donald W., Davis, Beth E., Blais, Christianne M., Boulet, Louis-Philippe, Boulay, Marie-Éve, Villeneuve, Hélène, Gauvreau, Gail M., O’Byrne, Paul M., Howie, Karen J., Obminski, Caitlin D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6878640/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31788006
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13223-019-0392-8
_version_ 1783473489690230784
author Cockcroft, Donald W.
Davis, Beth E.
Blais, Christianne M.
Boulet, Louis-Philippe
Boulay, Marie-Éve
Villeneuve, Hélène
Gauvreau, Gail M.
O’Byrne, Paul M.
Howie, Karen J.
Obminski, Caitlin D.
author_facet Cockcroft, Donald W.
Davis, Beth E.
Blais, Christianne M.
Boulet, Louis-Philippe
Boulay, Marie-Éve
Villeneuve, Hélène
Gauvreau, Gail M.
O’Byrne, Paul M.
Howie, Karen J.
Obminski, Caitlin D.
author_sort Cockcroft, Donald W.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Allergen inhalation tests are a valuable research tool. The allergen dose producing an early asthmatic response (EAR) can be predicted from methacholine responsiveness and allergen skin test endpoint (STE). The Wright(®) jet nebulizer, which is both inefficient and increasingly difficult to obtain, has been used historically. We assessed the Solo(®) vibrating mesh nebulizer as an alternative for allergen and methacholine challenges. METHODS: Eighteen mild atopic asthmatics completed the study. Doubling concentration allergen prick skin tests were performed to determine the STE in allergen units/mL. The Wright(®) protocol was used to measure the methacholine provocation dose causing a 20% forced expired volume in one second (FEV(1)) fall (PD(20)) (μg) and the allergen PD(20) (units). The Solo(®) protocol (0.5 mL nebulized to completion, tidal breathing inhalation) was used to determine both methacholine PD(20) and allergen PD(20). The nebulizer order was randomized and separated by ≥ 2 weeks. RESULTS: All data were log transformed. The allergen PD(20), predicted from the methacholine PD(20) and the STE, was within 2 doubling doses of the PD(20) measured with the Wright(®) and 2.64 doubling doses of that measured with Solo(®). The Wright(®) allergen PD(20) correlated with the Wright(®) methacholine PD(20) (r = 0.74) and the STE (r = 0.78) and more strongly with the product of the two (Wright(®) methacholine PD(20) × STE, r = 0.91, p < 0.00001). The Solo(®) allergen PD(20) showed similar relationships with the Solo(®) methacholine PD(20) (r = 0.61), the STE (r = 0.75) and the product of the two (Solo(®) methacholine PD(20) × STE, r = 0.83, p < 0.00002). The Wright(®) and the Solo(®) methacholine geometric mean PD(20)s were not significantly different (49.3 and 54.5 μg respectively, p = 0.62). The Wright(®) allergen PD(20) was slightly but significantly lower than the Solo(®) allergen PD(20) (geometric means 6.7 and 10.5 units respectively, p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: The Solo(®) allergen PD(20) showed the same relationship with methacholine responsiveness and STE as did the Wright(®). The Solo(®) allergen PD(20) was slightly but significantly higher than the Wright(®) allergen PD(20). The Solo(®) vibrating mesh nebulizer was well tolerated and is an acceptable alternative for allergen challenge. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03491358
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6878640
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68786402019-11-29 Use of a vibrating mesh nebulizer for allergen challenge Cockcroft, Donald W. Davis, Beth E. Blais, Christianne M. Boulet, Louis-Philippe Boulay, Marie-Éve Villeneuve, Hélène Gauvreau, Gail M. O’Byrne, Paul M. Howie, Karen J. Obminski, Caitlin D. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol Research BACKGROUND: Allergen inhalation tests are a valuable research tool. The allergen dose producing an early asthmatic response (EAR) can be predicted from methacholine responsiveness and allergen skin test endpoint (STE). The Wright(®) jet nebulizer, which is both inefficient and increasingly difficult to obtain, has been used historically. We assessed the Solo(®) vibrating mesh nebulizer as an alternative for allergen and methacholine challenges. METHODS: Eighteen mild atopic asthmatics completed the study. Doubling concentration allergen prick skin tests were performed to determine the STE in allergen units/mL. The Wright(®) protocol was used to measure the methacholine provocation dose causing a 20% forced expired volume in one second (FEV(1)) fall (PD(20)) (μg) and the allergen PD(20) (units). The Solo(®) protocol (0.5 mL nebulized to completion, tidal breathing inhalation) was used to determine both methacholine PD(20) and allergen PD(20). The nebulizer order was randomized and separated by ≥ 2 weeks. RESULTS: All data were log transformed. The allergen PD(20), predicted from the methacholine PD(20) and the STE, was within 2 doubling doses of the PD(20) measured with the Wright(®) and 2.64 doubling doses of that measured with Solo(®). The Wright(®) allergen PD(20) correlated with the Wright(®) methacholine PD(20) (r = 0.74) and the STE (r = 0.78) and more strongly with the product of the two (Wright(®) methacholine PD(20) × STE, r = 0.91, p < 0.00001). The Solo(®) allergen PD(20) showed similar relationships with the Solo(®) methacholine PD(20) (r = 0.61), the STE (r = 0.75) and the product of the two (Solo(®) methacholine PD(20) × STE, r = 0.83, p < 0.00002). The Wright(®) and the Solo(®) methacholine geometric mean PD(20)s were not significantly different (49.3 and 54.5 μg respectively, p = 0.62). The Wright(®) allergen PD(20) was slightly but significantly lower than the Solo(®) allergen PD(20) (geometric means 6.7 and 10.5 units respectively, p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: The Solo(®) allergen PD(20) showed the same relationship with methacholine responsiveness and STE as did the Wright(®). The Solo(®) allergen PD(20) was slightly but significantly higher than the Wright(®) allergen PD(20). The Solo(®) vibrating mesh nebulizer was well tolerated and is an acceptable alternative for allergen challenge. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03491358 BioMed Central 2019-11-26 /pmc/articles/PMC6878640/ /pubmed/31788006 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13223-019-0392-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Cockcroft, Donald W.
Davis, Beth E.
Blais, Christianne M.
Boulet, Louis-Philippe
Boulay, Marie-Éve
Villeneuve, Hélène
Gauvreau, Gail M.
O’Byrne, Paul M.
Howie, Karen J.
Obminski, Caitlin D.
Use of a vibrating mesh nebulizer for allergen challenge
title Use of a vibrating mesh nebulizer for allergen challenge
title_full Use of a vibrating mesh nebulizer for allergen challenge
title_fullStr Use of a vibrating mesh nebulizer for allergen challenge
title_full_unstemmed Use of a vibrating mesh nebulizer for allergen challenge
title_short Use of a vibrating mesh nebulizer for allergen challenge
title_sort use of a vibrating mesh nebulizer for allergen challenge
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6878640/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31788006
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13223-019-0392-8
work_keys_str_mv AT cockcroftdonaldw useofavibratingmeshnebulizerforallergenchallenge
AT davisbethe useofavibratingmeshnebulizerforallergenchallenge
AT blaischristiannem useofavibratingmeshnebulizerforallergenchallenge
AT bouletlouisphilippe useofavibratingmeshnebulizerforallergenchallenge
AT boulaymarieeve useofavibratingmeshnebulizerforallergenchallenge
AT villeneuvehelene useofavibratingmeshnebulizerforallergenchallenge
AT gauvreaugailm useofavibratingmeshnebulizerforallergenchallenge
AT obyrnepaulm useofavibratingmeshnebulizerforallergenchallenge
AT howiekarenj useofavibratingmeshnebulizerforallergenchallenge
AT obminskicaitlind useofavibratingmeshnebulizerforallergenchallenge