Propranolol inhalation challenge in relation to histamine response in children with asthma.

The relation between airway responsiveness to propranolol and histamine was studied in 32 asthmatic children. Propranolol and histamine were given by nebuliser to a maximum dose of 16 mg/ml and 32 mg/ml respectively and the response was measured as the provocative concentration of agonist causing a 20% fall in FEV1 (PC20). A PC20 histamine value of less than 32 mg/ml was obtained in 24 of the 32 children, of whom 15 had a measurable PC20 propranolol (less than 16 mg/ml). In these 24 children the geometric mean PC20 histamine was 4.5 mg/ml and 14.4 mg/ml respectively in those with and without a measurable PC20 propranolol (p = 0.023). There was a linear relationship between histamine and propranolol PC20 values (r = 0.60), and between PC20 histamine and FEV1 % predicted (r = 0.43), but not between PC20 propranolol and FEV1 % predicted (r = 0.38). In an open time course study in 12 children with asthma recovery of FEV1 after inhaled propranolol was incomplete in seven of the children after 90 minutes. When inhaled propranolol was followed by inhaled ipratropium bromide in a further 11 children FEV1 had returned to baseline in all children after 60 minutes. Thus propranolol inhalation can be used in children with asthma to assess the contribution of the beta adrenergic system to the regulation of bronchial smooth muscle tone. The test has several disadvantages in comparison with histamine provocation-long duration, the prolonged action of propranolol, and the fact that only the children with substantial hyperreactivity to histamine react to propranolol.     

Effect of inhaled frusemide on responses of airways to bradykinin and adenosine 5'-monophosphate in asthma.

BACKGROUND--Inhaled frusemide exerts a protective effect against bronchoconstriction induced by several indirect stimuli in asthma. This effect could be caused by interference with neural pathways. The effect of inhaled frusemide on bronchoconstriction induced by inhaled bradykinin, which is thought to cause bronchoconstriction via neural mechanisms, was studied and compared with the effects of adenosine 5'-monophosphate (AMP) which probably produces its airway effects by augmenting mast cell mediator release and interfering with neural pathways. METHODS--Patients first underwent AMP and bradykinin challenges. They were then studied in a randomised, placebo controlled, double blind fashion. Ten atopic asthmatic subjects, studied on four days, were pretreated with inhaled frusemide (40 mg) or placebo for 10 minutes, five minutes before challenge with increasing concentrations of nebulised AMP or bradykinin. RESULTS--On the open visit days the provocative concentrations required to reduce forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) by 20% from baseline (PC20) for AMP and bradykinin were 16.23 (1.42-67.16) and 2.75 (0.81-6.6) mg/ml. There was a significant correlation between baseline AMP and bradykinin PC20 values. For AMP the geometric mean PC20 values following pretreatment with inhaled frusemide and matched placebo were 80.97 (9.97- > 400.0) and 14.86 (2.6-104.6) mg/ml respectively (95% CI 0.49 to 0.98). For bradykinin the geometric mean PC20 values following pretreatment with inhaled frusemide and matched placebo were 13.22 (2.53- > 16.0) and 2.52 (0.45-5.61) mg/ml respectively (95% CI 0.43 to 1.01). Frusemide afforded 5.45 and 5.24 fold protection against AMP and bradykinin-induced bronchoconstriction respectively. Furthermore, there was a significant correlation between protection afforded to the airways against AMP and bradykinin. CONCLUSIONS--These data suggest that inhaled frusemide affords protection against bradykinin-induced bronchoconstriction which is comparable to that against AMP, supporting a common mechanism of action for frusemide.     

Changes in neurokinin A (NKA) airway responsiveness with inhaled frusemide in asthma

BACKGROUND: Inhaled frusemide exerts a protective effect against bronchoconstriction induced by several indirect stimuli in asthma which could be due to interference of airway nerves. A randomised, double blind, placebo controlled study was performed to investigate the effect of the potent loop diuretic, frusemide, administered by inhalation on the bronchoconstrictor response to neurokinin A (NKA) and histamine in 11 asthmatic subjects. METHODS: Subjects attended the laboratory on four separate occasions to receive nebulised frusemide (40 mg) or matched placebo 10 minutes prior to bronchial challenge with NKA and histamine in a randomised, double blind order. Changes in airway calibre were followed as forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and responsiveness to the agonists was expressed as the provocative concentration causing a 20% fall in FEV1 from baseline (PC20). RESULTS: Compared with placebo, inhaled frusemide reduced the airway responsiveness to NKA in all the subjects studied, the geometric mean (range) values for PC20NKA increasing significantly (p < 0.001) from 130.3 (35.8-378.8) to 419.9 (126.5-1000) micrograms/ml after placebo and frusemide, respectively. Moreover, a small but significant change in airway responsiveness to histamine was recorded after frusemide, their geometric mean (range) PC20 values being 0.58 (0.12-3.80) and 1.04 (0.28-4.33) mg/ml after placebo and frusemide, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The decrease in airway responsiveness to NKA after administration of frusemide by inhalation suggests that this drug may interfere with the activation of neurotransmission in human asthma.




     

Effect of a platelet activating factor antagonist, WEB 2086, on allergen induced asthmatic responses.

BACKGROUND--Platelet activating factor (PAF) has been implicated in the pathogenesis of airway hyperresponsiveness in asthma. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of a selective PAF antagonist (WEB 2086), given in doses known to antagonise the effects of inhaled PAF in human subjects, on allergen induced early and late asthmatic responses and on airway hyperresponsiveness. METHODS--Eight atopic, mildly asthmatic subjects were studied during a screening period and two treatment periods. During the screening period subjects inhaled an allergen to which they were known to be sensitised and the response was measured as the fall in the forced expired volume in one second (FEV1) to show the presence of early (0-1 h) and late (3-7 h) asthmatic responses. On another day the subjects inhaled allergen diluent. During the treatment periods subjects inhaled allergen after one week's pretreatment with WEB 2086 (100 mg three times a day) or placebo administered in a randomised, double blind, crossover fashion. Histamine airway responsiveness was measured 24 hours before and 24 hours after allergen and the results were expressed as the provocative concentration causing a 20% fall in FEV1 (PC20). RESULTS--The maximal early asthmatic response after allergen with placebo treatment was 18.4% (SE 4.4%) and with WEB 2086 18.9% (4.4%). The maximal late response with placebo treatment was 21.7% (5.3%) and with WEB 2086 21.2% (3.0%). The log difference (before and after allergen) in histamine PC20 was 0.35 (0.06) after placebo treatment and 0.30 (0.1) after WEB 2086. CONCLUSIONS--These results indicate that one week of treatment with an orally administered PAF antagonist (WEB 2086) does not attenuate allergen induced early or late responses or airway hyperresponsiveness.     

Potentiating effect of inhaled acetaldehyde on bronchial responsiveness to methacholine in asthmatic subjects.

BACKGROUND--It has recently been reported that acetaldehyde induces bronchoconstriction indirectly via histamine release. However, no study has been performed to assess whether acetaldehyde worsens bronchial responsiveness in asthmatic subjects so this hypothesis was tested. METHODS--Methacholine provocation was performed on three occasions: (1) after pretreatment with oral placebo and inhaled saline (P-S day), (2) after placebo and inhaled acetaldehyde (P-A day), and (3) after a potent histamine H1 receptor antagonist terfenadine and acetaldehyde (T-A day) in a double blind, randomised, crossover fashion. Nine asthmatic subjects inhaled 0.8 mg/ml acetaldehyde or saline for four minutes. After each inhalation a methacholine provocation test was performed. RESULTS--Methacholine concentrations producing a 20% fall in FEV1 (PC20-MCh) on the P-A day (0.48 mg/ml, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.08) and T-A day (0.41 mg/ml, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.77) were lower than those on the P-S day (0.85 mg/ml, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.54). There was no change in the PC20-MCh between the P-A and T-A days. A correlation was observed between the logarithmic values of PC20-MCh (log PC20-MCh) on the P-S day and the potentiating effect of acetaldehyde on the methacholine responsiveness [(log PC20-MCh on P-A day)-(log PC20-MCh on P-S day)] (rho = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS--Acetaldehyde induces bronchial hyperresponsiveness in patients with asthma by mechanisms other than histamine release.     

Effect of cetirizine on exercise induced asthma.

The effect of oral and inhaled cetirizine, a potent and specific H1 receptor antagonist, was studied in patients with exercise induced asthma. Twelve patients (five male; mean age 35.2 years) were given oral placebo or cetirizine 10 mg twice daily for one week, double blind and in randomised order, and exercised on a treadmill for six to eight minutes at a submaximal work load two hours after the final dose. There was no significant change in baseline FEV1 after treatment and cetirizine failed to inhibit exercise induced bronchoconstriction (maximum falls in FEV1 28% and 27% of baseline). In a further eight patients (four male; mean age 40.8 years) the effect of 1 ml cetirizine (5 and 10 mg/ml) given through a Wright nebuliser was compared with that of placebo in a double blind trial. The fall in FEV1 after exercise was reduced after both concentrations of cetirizine by 15.2% of baseline after 5 mg/ml and by 10.2% after 10 mg/ml, compared with 23.7% after placebo. In two patients cetirizine had no effect. In a further study cetirizine (10 mg/ml) given by inhalation displaced the geometric mean PC20 histamine 13.1 fold to the right by comparison with placebo. The reason for the difference between the effects of oral and of inhaled cetirizine on exercise asthma is not clear but may be related to differences in local concentration in the airway.     

Attenuation of propranolol-induced bronchoconstriction by frusemide

BACKGROUND: Inhaled propranolol causes bronchoconstriction in asthmatic subjects by an indirect mechanism which remains unclear. Inhaled frusemide has been shown to attenuate a number of indirectly acting bronchoconstrictor challenges. The aim of this study was to investigate whether frusemide could protect against propranolol-induced bronchoconstriction in patients with stable mild asthma. METHODS: Twelve asthmatic subjects were studied on three separate days. At the first visit subjects inhaled increasing doubling concentrations of propranolol (0.25-32 mg/ml), breathing tidally from a jet nebuliser. The provocative concentration of propranolol causing a 20% reduction in FEV1 (PC20FEV1 propranolol) was determined from the log concentration- response curve for each subject. At the following visits nebulised frusemide (4 ml x 10 mg/ml) or placebo (isotonic saline) was administered in a randomised, double blind, crossover fashion. FEV1 was measured immediately before and five minutes after drug administration. Individual PC20FEV1 propranolol was then administered and FEV1 was recorded at five minute intervals for 15 minutes. Residual bronchoconstriction was reversed with nebulised salbutamol. RESULTS: Frusemide had no acute bronchodilator effect but significantly reduced the maximum fall in FEV1 due to propranolol: mean fall 18.2% after placebo and 11.8% after frusemide. The median difference in maximum % fall in FEV1 within individuals between study days was 3.6% (95% CI 1.2 to 11.7). CONCLUSIONS: Frusemide attenuates propranolol-induced bronchoconstriction, a property shared with sodium cromoglycate. Both drugs block other indirect challenges and the present study lends further support to the suggestion that frusemide and cromoglycate share a similar mechanism of action in the airways.


     

Comparison of the efficacy of preservative free ipratropium bromide and Atrovent nebuliser solution.

The paradoxical bronchoconstriction observed with commercially available isotonic ipratropium bromide nebuliser solution (Atrovent) in patients with asthma results from an adverse reaction to the preservatives, benzalkonium chloride and ethylenediaminetetra-acetic acid (EDTA). The airway response to inhaled Atrovent and preservative free ipratropium bromide nebuliser solutions has been examined in a double blind study. On separate occasions 30 asthmatic subjects inhaled 2 ml of the solutions and airway calibre was measured in terms of FEV1 for 45 minutes. Atrovent nebuliser solution provoked a greater than 20% fall in FEV1 in five of the 30 subjects, whereas this did not occur after preservative free ipratropium bromide. Inhalation of the preservative free solution resulted in more rapid and greater overall bronchodilatation than Atrovent, with mean maximum increases in FEV1 of 29.2% and 18.5% respectively. It is concluded that the risk of paradoxical bronchoconstriction with ipratropium bromide is considerably reduced by removal of benzalkonium chloride and EDTA and that preservative free ipratropium bromide is a more potent bronchodilator than the currently available Atrovent solution.     

Effect of inhaled steroids on airway hyperresponsiveness, sputum eosinophils, and exhaled nitric oxide levels in patients with asthma

BACKGROUND: Airway hyperresponsiveness, induced sputum eosinophils, and exhaled nitric oxide (NO) levels have all been proposed as non-invasive markers for monitoring airway inflammation in patients with asthma. The aim of this study was to compare the changes in each of these markers following treatment with inhaled glucocorticosteroids in a single study. METHODS: In a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled, parallel study 25 patients with mild asthma (19-34 years, forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) >75% predicted, concentration of histamine provoking a fall in FEV1 of 20% or more (PC20) <4 mg/ml) inhaled fluticasone propionate (500 microg twice daily) for four weeks. PC20 to histamine, sputum eosinophil numbers, and exhaled NO levels were determined at weeks 0, 2, and 4, and two weeks after completing treatment. Sputum was induced by inhalation of hypertonic (4.5%) saline and eosinophil counts were expressed as percentage non-squamous cells. Exhaled NO levels (ppb) were measured by chemiluminescence. RESULTS: In the steroid treated group there was a significant increase in PC20, decrease in sputum eosinophils, and decrease in exhaled NO levels compared with baseline at weeks 2 and 4 of treatment. Subsequently, each of these variables showed significant worsening during the two week washout period compared with week 4. These changes were significantly different from those in the placebo group, except for the changes in sputum eosinophils and exhaled NO levels during the washout period. There were no significant correlations between the changes in the three markers in either group at any time. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of asthmatic subjects with inhaled steroids for four weeks leads to improvements in airway hyperresponsiveness to histamine, eosinophil counts in induced sputum, and exhaled nitric oxide levels. The results suggest that these markers may provide different information when monitoring anti-inflammatory treatment in asthma.     

The effect of inhaled frusemide on airway sensitivity to inhaled 4.5% sodium chloride aerosol in asthmatic subjects.

BACKGROUND: Frusemide inhaled by asthmatic subjects before a variety of indirect bronchial challenges inhibits the airway response to these challenges. Since inhalation of hyperosmolar saline is an indirect bronchial challenge, the effect of inhaled frusemide and its vehicle on airway sensitivity to a 4.5% sodium chloride (NaCl) aerosol challenge was investigated. METHODS: Eleven asthmatic subjects (five females, six males) who had a 20% fall in forced expiratory volume in one second after 4.5% NaCl challenge were enrolled in this double blind controlled crossover trial. Sensitivity was measured as the dose of aerosol required to provoke a 20% fall in FEV1. Frusemide (33.2 mg) or its vehicle was delivered through a Fisoneb ultrasonic nebuliser and inhaled 10 minutes before challenge with 4.5% NaCl. A Mistogen ultrasonic nebuliser was used to generate the 4.5% NaCl aerosol and FEV1 was measured before and one minute after each challenge period of 0.5, one, two, four, eight, eight and eight minutes. The doubling dose difference for PD20 was calculated. RESULTS: Frusemide or vehicle had no effect on baseline lung function. The geometric mean PD20 after vehicle was 1.3 ml with a 95% confidence interval of 0.7-2.3 and after frusemide was 8.2 ml with a 95% confidence interval of 4.7-14.1. This represented a 2.6 doubling dose increase in PD20 after frusemide inhalation. In five of the 11 subjects an increase from baseline FEV1 occurred after exposure to 4.5% NaCl challenge in the presence of frusemide. This transient bronchodilatation may be caused by the release of prostaglandin E2. CONCLUSION: Inhalation of frusemide is very effective in delaying airway narrowing induced by an aerosol of 4.5% NaCl in asthmatic subjects.     

Airway calibre as a confounder in interpreting bronchial responsiveness in asthma.

BACKGROUND: The relation between airway responsiveness to constrictor agents and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) is important when interpreting change in airway responsiveness after an intervention. The aim of the study was to analyse the relation between FEV1 as a percentage of predicted values (% predicted) and airway responsiveness between and within asthmatic subjects. METHODS: Results of non-specific bronchial challenge tests were pooled from two randomised crossover studies comparing the effect of a non-sedative antihistamine with placebo in 35 patients with moderate asthma. The design of the two studies was similar: the provocative concentration of either histamine (first study) or methacholine (second study) resulting in a 20% decrease in ventilatory capacity (PC20) was repeated at two week intervals while patients were treated with the antihistamine or placebo. The dose of inhaled corticosteroid was gradually reduced during the study. Data were analysed with PC20 as the dependent variable in a general linear model so that the influence on PC20 of inhaled corticosteroid dose, antihistamine, and choice of bronchoconstricting agent could be separated from the influence of FEV1% predicted. RESULTS: The correlation coefficient between mean PC20 and mean prechallenge FEV1 for each patient was 0.45. In the general linear model two thirds (65%) of the variation in PC20 was due to variation between subjects. One third of the within subject variation in PC20 could be explained by variation in prechallenge FEV1% predicted (a change in FEV1 of 27% predicted was associated with one doubling or halving of PC20). Treatment with the antihistamine had no influence on PC20, except when histamine was used as the bronchoconstricting agent. The dose of inhaled corticosteroid had a small but significant effect. CONCLUSIONS: The variation in a patient's PC20 over time (several months) is related to changes in FEV1% predicted. Variation in FEV1% predicted explains less of the variation in bronchial responsiveness between subjects where a patient specific factor, which is probably related to the pathogenesis of bronchial asthma, seems to dominate.     

Effect of inhaled formyl-methionyl-leucyl-phenylalanine on airway function.

Formyl-methionyl-leucyl-phenylalanine (FMLP), a synthetic, acylated tripeptide analogous to bacterial chemotactic factors, has been shown to cause bronchoconstriction in guinea pig, rabbit, and human airways in vitro. To determine whether FMLP causes bronchoconstriction in man in vivo, a preliminary study was undertaken in which five non-smokers (mean age 35 years, FEV1 94% (SEM 5%) predicted) and five smokers (mean age 34 years, FEV1 93% (6%) predicted) inhaled aerosols of FMLP. None of the subjects showed airway hyperresponsiveness to histamine (the provocative concentrations of histamine causing a fall of greater than or equal to 20% in FEV1 (PC20) were over 8 mg/ml). FMLP dissolved in 50% dimethylsulphoxide and 50% saline in concentrations of 0, 0.06, 0.12, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 mg/ml was administered to the subjects by means of a French-Rosenthal dosimeter, FEV1 being recorded after inhalation of each concentration. Dose dependent falls in FEV1 occurred in five non-smokers (geometric mean 1.76, 95% confidence limits 0.87-3.53 mg/ml) and three smokers (0.23, 0.07-0.78 mg/ml), with two smokers not responding by 20% to the highest concentration of FMLP. On a separate day the FMLP dose-response curves were repeated after nebulisation of 500 micrograms of ipratropium bromide. The PC20 FMLP in the responders more than doubled. In six additional normal subjects a histamine inhalation test was performed before and four and 24 hours after inhalation of FMLP. All subjects remained unresponsive to histamine. These results show that FMLP is a potent bronchoconstrictor in some non-asthmatic individuals in vivo and this may be important in bronchoconstriction related to infection in patients with chronic obstructive lung disease.     

Effect of oral L-arginine on airway hyperresponsiveness to histamine in asthma

BACKGROUND: Nitric oxide (NO) may exert protective properties within the airways of asthmatic patients. It was postulated that airways obstruction in asthma may be associated with endogenous NO deficiency caused by limited availability of NO synthase substrate. METHODS: In a double blind, crossover study 14 asthmatic patients received pretreatment with oral L-arginine (50 mg/kg body weight) or placebo prior to histamine challenge. Histamine challenge was performed until a 50% fall in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)) occurred and the response was expressed as the provocative concentration causing a 20% fall in FEV(1) (PC(20)) and as the dose-response slope (maximal % fall in FEV(1)/cumulative dose (micromol)). RESULTS: Pretreatment with L-arginine did not affect PC(20) histamine (mean change in doubling dose 0.18 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.36 to 0.71), p = 0.5) but the dose-response slope to histamine was slightly reduced (mean change: 0.7 (95% CI 0.6 to 0. 9), p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Oral L-arginine does not influence airway hyperresponsiveness to histamine as reflected by PC(20), although the dose-response slope is slightly reduced in patients with asthma. This indicates only marginal, clinically unimportant limitation of NO synthase substrate in asthma.     

Changes in bronchial responsiveness to histamine at intervals after allergen challenge.

Bronchial responsiveness to inhaled histamine was measured two, seven, and 30 hours after allergen inhalation challenge in 19 atopic subjects. The provocative histamine concentrations causing a 20% fall in FEV1 (PC20) at these three times were compared with the baseline value, with values obtained two and seven hours after diluent inhalation, and with those obtained five to seven days after allergen challenge in the 12 late responders. Seven subjects had allergen induced isolated early asthmatic responses (delta FEV1 22.6% (SD 6.6%)) with less than a 5% late fall in FEV1. There was no change in the six histamine PC20 values measured in these seven subjects; the geometric mean PC20 was 1.0-1.3 mg/ml on all six occasions. Twelve subjects had an allergen induced early asthmatic response (delta FEV1 26.3% (9.8%)) followed by a definite (greater than 15% delta FEV1, n = 7) or equivocal (5-15% delta FEV1, n = 5) late asthmatic response. The geometric mean histamine PC20 was not significantly different two hours after allergen inhalation either from baseline (0.67 v 0.78 mg/ml) or from that seen two hours after diluent (0.67 v 0.95). It was significantly reduced at seven (0.24 mg/ml) and at 30 hours (0.44 mg/ml) but had returned to baseline when repeated five to seven days later (0.74 mg/ml). In 10 subjects with a dual response who had a repeat antigen challenge the mean early and late response and delta PC20 at seven and 30 hours were similar. These data show that bronchial responsiveness to a non-allergic stimulus has not increased two hours after allergen inhalation following spontaneous recovery of the early asthmatic response but before the start of the late asthmatic response.     

Effect of oral terfenadine on the bronchoconstrictor response to inhaled histamine and adenosine 5'-monophosphate in non-atopic asthma.

Inhaled adenosine 5'-monophosphate (AMP) causes bronchoconstriction in atopic asthma, probably after in vivo conversion to adenosine. It has been suggested that adenosine potentiates preformed mediator release from mast cells on the mucosal surface of the airways by interacting with specific purinoceptors, without affecting the release of newly generated mediators. The airway response of nine non-atopic subjects with "intrinsic" asthma to inhaled AMP and the influence of the oral, selective H1 histamine receptor antagonist terfenadine on this response was investigated. The geometric mean provocation concentrations of histamine and AMP required to produce a 20% fall in FEV1 (PC20) were 1.82 and 13 mmol/l. In subsequent placebo controlled time course studies the FEV1 response to a single inhalation of the PC20 histamine was ablated after pretreatment with oral terfenadine 180 mg. This dose of terfenadine caused an 80% inhibition of the bronchoconstrictor response to the PC20 AMP when measured as the area under the time course-response curve and compared with the response to PC20 AMP preceded by placebo. Terfenadine 600 mg failed to increase protection against AMP further, but both doses of terfenadine delayed the time at which the mean maximum fall in FEV1 after AMP was achieved. Terfenadine 180 mg had no effect on methacholine induced bronchoconstriction in the same subjects. These data suggest that inhaled AMP may potentiate the release of preformed mediators from preactivated mast cells in the bronchial mucosa of patients with intrinsic asthma.     

Effects of corticosteroids on bronchodilator action in chronic obstructive lung disease.

BACKGROUND: Short term treatment with corticosteroids does not usually reduce airflow limitation and airway responsiveness in patients with chronic obstructive lung disease. We investigated whether corticosteroids modulate the effects of inhaled salbutamol and ipratropium bromide. METHODS: Ten non-allergic subjects with stable disease were investigated; eight completed the randomised, double blind, three period cross over study. Treatment regimens consisted of 1.6 mg inhaled budesonide a day for three weeks, 40 mg oral prednisone a day for eight days, and placebo. After each period cumulative doubling doses of salbutamol, ipratropium, a combination of salbutamol and ipratropium, and placebo were administered on separate days until a plateau in FEV1 was reached. A histamine challenge was then performed. RESULTS: At the end of placebo treatment mean FEV1 was 55.5% predicted after inhaled placebo, 67.9% predicted after salbutamol and 64.0% predicted after ipratropium. Compared with the results after the placebo period the FEV1 with salbutamol increased by 0.7% predicted after treatment with budesonide and by 0.7% predicted after treatment with prednisone; the FEV1 with ipratropium increased by 0.7% predicted after budesonide and by 4.8% predicted after prednisone; none of these changes was significant. After placebo treatment the geometric mean PC20 was 0.55 mg/ml after placebo, 1.71 mg/ml after salbutamol and 0.97 mg/ml after ipratropium. Compared with the placebo period the PC20 with salbutamol was increased by 0.86 doubling concentrations after treatment with budesonide, and by 0.67 doubling concentrations after prednisone; the PC20 with ipratropium increased by 0.03 and 0.34 doubling concentrations after budesonide and after prednisone respectively compared with placebo; none of these changes was significant. CONCLUSIONS: In non-allergic subjects with chronic obstructive lung disease short term treatment with high doses of inhaled or oral corticosteroids does not modify the bronchodilator response to salbutamol or ipratropium or the protection provided by either drug against histamine. Salbutamol produces greater protection from histamine induced bronchoconstriction than ipratropium.     

Effect of inhaled piriprost (U-60, 257) a novel leukotriene inhibitor, on allergen and exercise induced bronchoconstriction in asthma.

The leukotrienes, a group of oxidative metabolites of arachidonic acid, have potent pharmacological actions on human airways. We have investigated the effects of a leukotriene synthesis inhibitor, piriprost (U-60, 257) administered by inhalation on allergen and exercise induced bronchoconstriction in 12 subjects with allergic asthma. Subjects underwent diagnostic challenges with allergen and treadmill exercise to define the strengths of the stimuli required to reduce the FEV1 to about 25% of baseline (PS25). On separate study days subjects inhaled either piriprost 1 mg or vehicle placebo, followed 15 minutes later by the PS25 allergen or exercise. The FEV1 was measured at regular intervals before and after challenge up to 60 minutes. After allergen challenge in six subjects peak expiratory flow (PEF) was measured for the following 20 hours. When compared with placebo, inhalation of piriprost had no significant protective effect on the fall in FEV1 at any time point within 60 minutes of allergen or exercise challenge. In the four subjects with a documented late asthmatic reaction 2-12 hours after allergen challenge piriprost had no protective effect when compared with placebo. In the subjects who recorded PEF over 20 hours after allergen challenge there was no significant difference between piriprost and placebo. Piriprost was appreciably more irritant to the respiratory tract than was placebo. On the assumption that inhaled piriprost was bioavailable in the airways, this study casts doubt on any theory of a pivotal role for leukotrienes in the pathogenesis of acute exercise and allergen induced airway bronchoconstriction in asthma.     

Combined Intravenous Lidocaine and Inhaled Salbutamol Protect against Bronchial Hyperreactivity More Effectively than Lidocaine or Salbutamol Alone

Background: Airway instrumentation in persons with asthma is linked to the risk of life-threatening bronchospasm. To attenuate the response to airway irritation, intravenous lidocaine is recommended (based on animal experiments) and mitigates the response to histamine inhalation in asthmatic volunteers. However, the effects of lidocaine have not been compared with standard prophylaxis with [Greek small letter beta]-sympathomimetic aerosols. Therefore, the effect of lidocaine, salbutamol, combined treatment, and placebo control were tested in awake volunteers with bronchial hyperreactivity.

Methods: After approval from the local ethics committee, 15 persons, who were selected because they showed a decrease in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) more than 20% of baseline in response to inhaled histamine in a concentration less than 18 mg/ml (PC20), were enrolled in a placebo-controlled, double-blind, and randomized study. The challenge was repeated on four different days and the volunteers were pretreated with either intravenous lidocaine, inhalation of salbutamol, inhalation of salbutamol plus intravenous lidocaine, or placebo. Lidocaine plasma concentrations were also measured. Statistical analyses included the Friedman test and Wilcoxon's rank sum.

Results: The baseline PC20 was 6.4 +/- 4.3 mg/ml. Intravenous lidocaine and salbutamol aerosol both significantly increased the histamine threshold to 14.2 +/- 9.5 mg/ml and 16.8 +/- 10.9 mg/ml, respectively (mean +/- SD). However, the combination of lidocaine and salbutamol significantly increased the PC20 even further to 30.7 +/- 15.7 mg/ml than did salbutamol or lidocaine alone.     

Evaluation of ultrasonically nebulised solutions for provocation testing in patients with asthma.

The airway response to the inhalation of ultrasonically nebulised distilled water was determined in 55 asthmatic patients and 16 normal subjects. We calculated the dose of water required to induce a 20% reduction (PD20) in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) by measuring the output of the nebuliser and the volume ventilated by each subject. Forty-eight of the asthmatic patients had a PD20 of 9 ml or less but three patients required as much as 24 ml. A PD20 was not recorded in the normal subjects and the challenge was stopped after 33 ml. In 12 patients the challenge was repeated within six months and the airway response was shown to be reproducible at equivalent doses of water. In a separate group of 11 patients there was, however, a highly significant reduction in the percentage fall in FEV1 when equivalent doses of water were given on two occasions 40 minutes apart. When the temperature of the inhaled water was increased from 22 degrees C to 36 degrees C eight of 10 patients had a similar change in FEV1 with equivalent doses of water. The airways obstruction induced by the inhalation of water was readily reversed with salbutamol administered by aerosol. In some patients a challenge with water or 3.6% saline was repeated after pretreatment with sodium cromoglycate, atropine methonitrate, and verapamil hydrochloride, all given as aerosols. The airway response to the equivalent dose of water or saline was significantly reduced after treatment with sodium cromoglycate but not atropine or verapamil.     

Sustained reduction in bronchial hyperresponsiveness with inhaled fluticasone propionate within three days in mild asthma: time course after onset and cessation of treatment

BACKGROUND: Bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR) is characteristic of asthmatic airways, is induced by airway inflammation, and is reduced by inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). The time course for the onset and cessation of the effect of ICS on BHR is unclear. The effect of inhaled fluticasone propionate (FP) on BHR in patients with mild persistent asthma was assessed using time intervals of hours, days and weeks. METHODS: Twenty six asthmatic patients aged 21-59 years were selected for this randomised, double blind, parallel group study. The effect of 250 micro g inhaled FP (MDI) administered twice daily was compared with that of placebo on BHR assessed using a dosimetric histamine challenge method. The dose of histamine inducing a decrease in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) by 15% (PD(15)FEV(1)) was measured before and 6, 12, 24 and 72 hours, and 2, 4 and 6 weeks after starting treatment, and 48 hours, 1 week and 2 weeks after cessation of treatment. Doubling doses of changes in PD(15)FEV(1) were calculated and area under the curve (AUC) statistics were used to summarise the information from individual response curves. RESULTS: The increase in PD(15)FEV(1) from baseline was greater in the FP group than in the placebo group; the difference achieved significance within 72 hours and remained significant until the end of treatment. In the FP group PD(15)FEV(1) was 1.85-2.07 doubling doses above baseline between 72 hours and 6 weeks after starting treatment. BHR increased significantly within 2 weeks after cessation of FP treatment. CONCLUSIONS: A sustained reduction in BHR to histamine in patients with mild asthma was achieved within 3 days of starting treatment with FP at a daily dose of 500 micro g. The effect tapered within 2 weeks of cessation of treatment.