Cargando…

Comparison of methacholine and mannitol challenges: importance of method of methacholine inhalation

BACKGROUND: 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 methacho...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cockcroft, Donald W., Davis, Beth E., Blais, Christianne M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014722/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32082392
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13223-020-0410-x
_version_ 1783496694720102400
author Cockcroft, Donald W.
Davis, Beth E.
Blais, Christianne M.
author_facet Cockcroft, Donald W.
Davis, Beth E.
Blais, Christianne M.
author_sort Cockcroft, Donald W.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7014722
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70147222020-02-20 Comparison of methacholine and mannitol challenges: importance of method of methacholine inhalation Cockcroft, Donald W. Davis, Beth E. Blais, Christianne M. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol Review BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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. BioMed Central 2020-02-11 /pmc/articles/PMC7014722/ /pubmed/32082392 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13223-020-0410-x Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Review
Cockcroft, Donald W.
Davis, Beth E.
Blais, Christianne M.
Comparison of methacholine and mannitol challenges: importance of method of methacholine inhalation
title Comparison of methacholine and mannitol challenges: importance of method of methacholine inhalation
title_full Comparison of methacholine and mannitol challenges: importance of method of methacholine inhalation
title_fullStr Comparison of methacholine and mannitol challenges: importance of method of methacholine inhalation
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of methacholine and mannitol challenges: importance of method of methacholine inhalation
title_short Comparison of methacholine and mannitol challenges: importance of method of methacholine inhalation
title_sort comparison of methacholine and mannitol challenges: importance of method of methacholine inhalation
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014722/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32082392
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13223-020-0410-x
work_keys_str_mv AT cockcroftdonaldw comparisonofmethacholineandmannitolchallengesimportanceofmethodofmethacholineinhalation
AT davisbethe comparisonofmethacholineandmannitolchallengesimportanceofmethodofmethacholineinhalation
AT blaischristiannem comparisonofmethacholineandmannitolchallengesimportanceofmethodofmethacholineinhalation