Airways hyperresponsiveness and the effects of lung inflation

Lung inflation has a beneficial effect on the airways of healthy subjects. It acts as a bronchoprotector, that is to prevent bronchoconstriction, and as a bronchodilator, in that it reverses bronchial obstruction. The bronchoprotective effect of deep inspiration is more potent than the bronchodilatory one, and the two phenomena appear to advocate different mechanisms. Asthmatics and rhinitics with airways hyperresponsiveness show an impairment in bronchoprotection induced by deep breaths, whereas the bronchodilatory effect, although reduced, is still effective. The lack of the bronchoprotective effect of deep inspiration may contribute to the development of airways hyperresponsiveness. The mechanisms through which lung inflation exerts its beneficial role in healthy subjects, and the factors impairing such an effect in those with airways hyperresponsiveness, are currently under investigation.     

Inflammatory mediators in late antigen-induced rhinitis

To investigate the mechanisms responsible for the late-phase response in patients with allergies, we measured four biochemical mediators (histamine, tosyl-L-arginine methyl ester [TAME]-esterase, kinin, and prostaglandin D2) in nasal secretions after nasal challenge with pollen antigen in 12 patients with allergy. Nine patients had an immediate response and a recurrence of symptoms 3 to 11 hours after challenge. The clinical symptoms during recurrence were accompanied by a second increase in levels of histamine, TAME--esterase, and kinin over base-line values, although kinin levels were lower than during the immediate response. In contrast, although the levels of prostaglandin D2 were significantly increased during the immediate response, they did not increase above base line during the late response. Rechallenge with allergen 11 hours after the initial provocation, however, was associated with reappearance of all four biochemical mediators, including prostaglandin D2. We conclude that the late response to nasal challenge with allergen is accompanied by a second increase in the concentrations of histamine and TAME--esterase but differs from the immediate response in the lack of prostaglandin D2 production and in the amount of kinin generated. Since histamine is released only by mast cells and basophils and prostaglandin D2 is not produced by basophils, we suggest that these cells are partly responsible for the late-phase response.     

The effects of the nasal antihistamines olopatadine and azelastine in nasal allergen provocation.

BACKGROUND: Olopatadine, an antihistamine used in allergic conjunctivitis, is under development as a nasal preparation for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of olopatadine in suppressing symptoms and biomarkers of the immediate reaction induced by nasal allergen provocation and to compare olopatadine with azelastine in the same model. METHODS: The study was approved by the Johns Hopkins University institutional review board, and all subjects gave written consent. We studied 20 asymptomatic subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis. The study had 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover phases that evaluated 2 concentrations of olopatadine, 0.1% and 0.2%. In a third exploratory phase, olopatadine, 0.1%, was compared with topical azelastine, 0.1%, in a patient-masked design. Efficacy variables were the allergen-induced sneezes, other clinical symptoms, and the levels of histamine, tryptase, albumin, lysozyme, and cysteinyl-leukotrienes (third study only) in nasal lavage fluids. RESULTS: Both concentrations of olopatadine produced significant inhibition of all nasal symptoms, compared with placebo. Olopatadine, 0.1%, inhibited lysozyme levels, but olopatadine, 0.2%, inhibited histamine, albumin, and lysozyme. The effects of olopatadine, 0.1%, were comparable to those of azelastine, 0.1%. CONCLUSIONS: Olopatadine, at 0.1% and 0.2% concentrations, was effective in suppressing allergen-induced nasal symptoms. At 0.2%, olopatadine provided evidence suggestive of inhibition of mast cell degranulation.     

Did We Get Sensorimotor Adaptation Wrong? Implicit Adaptation as Direct Policy Updating Rather than Forward-Model-Based Learning

The human motor system can rapidly adapt its motor output in response to errors. The prevailing theory of this process posits that the motor system adapts an internal forward model that predicts the consequences of outgoing motor commands and uses this forward model to plan future movements. However, despite clear evidence that adaptive forward models exist and are used to help track the state of the body, there is no definitive evidence that such models are used in movement planning. An alternative to the forward-model-based theory of adaptation is that movements are generated based on a learned policy that is adjusted over time by movement errors directly (“direct policy learning”). This learning mechanism could act in parallel with, but independent of, any updates to a predictive forward model. Forward-model-based learning and direct policy learning generate very similar predictions about behavior in conventional adaptation paradigms. However, across three experiments with human participants (N = 47, 26 female), we show that these mechanisms can be dissociated based on the properties of implicit adaptation under mirror-reversed visual feedback. Although mirror reversal is an extreme perturbation, it still elicits implicit adaptation; however, this adaptation acts to amplify rather than to reduce errors. We show that the pattern of this adaptation over time and across targets is consistent with direct policy learning but not forward-model-based learning. Our findings suggest that the forward-model-based theory of adaptation needs to be re-examined and that direct policy learning provides a more plausible explanation of implicit adaptation.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT The ability of our brain to adapt movements in response to error is one of the most widely studied phenomena in motor learning. Yet, we still do not know the process by which errors eventually result in adaptation. It is known that the brain maintains and updates an internal forward model, which predicts the consequences of motor commands, and the prevailing theory of motor adaptation posits that this updated forward model is responsible for trial-by-trial adaptive changes. Here, we question this view and show instead that adaptation is better explained by a simpler process whereby motor output is directly adjusted by task errors. Our findings cast doubt on long-held beliefs about adaptation.