Plasma histamine concentration during propranolol induced bronchoconstriction.

The mechanism of propranolol induced bronchoconstriction in asthma is uncertain, as airway beta adrenoceptors are not innervated by sympathetic nerves and circulating adrenaline concentrations are not raised. Propranolol 10 mg was infused over 27 minutes in 14 subjects with mild asthma. Peak expiratory flow (PEF) decreased by 80-235 l/min (17-51% of baseline) in nine subjects, who were called "responders," and by less than 50 l/min (12% of baseline) in five "non-responders". These two groups did not differ in baseline ventilatory function or in any clinical characteristic. In "responders" mean PEF had decreased significantly from 440 to 390 l/min after infusion of propranolol 2.1 mg, though the maximum fall in PEF occurred during or within five minutes of the end of the infusion. In nine of the subjects (six "responders" and three "non-responders") the possibility that propranolol induced bronchoconstriction is due to blockade of mast cell beta receptors leading to increased mediator release was examined by measurement of plasma histamine concentration as an index of mast cell degranulation. There was no consistent change in plasma histamine concentration in either group. No evidence of increased mast cell mediator release has been found in association with propranolol induced bronchoconstriction.     

Inspiratory muscle strength and endurance during hyperinflation and histamine induced bronchoconstriction.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated whether the inspiratory muscles are susceptible to fatigue during acute airway narrowing because of increased airway resistance and hyperinflation. METHODS: Asthmatic subjects performed up to four series (on separate days) of 18 maximal static inspiratory efforts of 10 seconds' duration with 10 second rest intervals (50% duty cycle; total duration six minutes): at functional residual capacity (FRC) (control); after histamine induced bronchoconstriction, which decreased forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) to a mean of 55% (SD 11%) of the initial value; at a voluntarily increased lung volume (initial volume held at 140% control); and after inhalation of histamine at a voluntarily increased lung volume. RESULTS: For the group of subjects the mean (SD) maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP) in the control experiments was 114 (22) cmH2O and the initial volume was 3.5 (1.2) 1. After histamine inhalation the initial lung volume for contractions increased to 118% (5%) of the control volume. In the high lung volume experiments initial volumes were 140% (12%) of the control (volume without histamine) and 140% (15%) (with histamine). The relation between MIP and initial absolute lung volume was determined for each subject before fatigue developed. When the inspiratory pressures for each contraction in the endurance test were normalised to the pressure expected for that lung volume, no significant differences were found between the four experimental conditions for MIP, or between pressures sustained over the 18 contractions. CONCLUSIONS: Histamine induced bronchoconstriction and hyperinflation had no detectable effect on inspiratory muscle strength or endurance in these asthmatic subjects.     

Influence of diltiazem on bronchoconstriction induced by cold air breathing during exercise.

Since the calcium antagonists nifedipine and verapamil have been shown to diminish exercise induced asthma, the effect of oral diltiazem, a calcium channel blocker not previously investigated in this context, was studied. Ten patients with bronchial asthma were given 60 mg diltiazem or placebo four hours before the challenge in a double blind, randomised, crossover fashion. Exercise was performed on a cycle ergometer while the subjects were breathing cold air, resulting in a respiratory heat exchange which was similar at the two study sessions. FEV1 and specific conductance (sGaw) were recorded before and three, 10, 15, and 30 minutes after the challenge. No significant differences were found between placebo and diltiazem days in the fall of FEV1 or sGaw after exercise. Thus unlike other calcium antagonists diltiazem, in a dose of 60 mg given orally four hours before exercise, failed to protect against exercise induced asthma.     

Decrease of histamine induced bronchoconstriction by caffeine in mild asthma.

BACKGROUND--While high doses of caffeine may affect pulmonary function and bronchial challenge tests in patients with mild asthma, the effects of lower doses (< or = 5 mg/kg) are less well documented. Specific recommendations exist for withholding theophylline, but not caffeine, before bronchoprovocation and pulmonary function testing. METHODS--To assess the effect of a single oral dose of caffeine (5 mg/kg) on FEV1 and bronchial responsiveness to histamine a double blind, placebo controlled study was performed in eight patients with mild stable asthma. RESULTS--While caffeine had no effect on FEV1, mean (95% confidence interval) log PC20 histamine was significantly higher 150 minutes [caffeine = 0.99 (0.2) mg/ml, placebo = 0.53 (0.29)] and 240 minutes [caffeine = 0.89 (0.24), placebo = 0.44 (0.26)] after administration of caffeine than after placebo. CONCLUSIONS--Caffeine should be excluded from the diet for a period of more than four hours before bronchial provocation testing. The exact length of time for which it must be excluded requires further study.     

Role of histamine release in hypertonic saline induced bronchoconstriction.

In a study designed to determine the protective effect of the specific histamine H1 antagonist terfenadine on hypertonic saline induced bronchoconstriction, 10 asthmatic subjects underwent hypertonic saline challenge (3.6%) after premedication with placebo or terfenadine (120 mg) 12 and two hours before the challenge. Hypertonic saline was administered in a dose dependent manner and the response determined as the dose of hypertonic saline that induced a 20% fall in FEV1 (PD20 FEV1). FEV1 was on average 11% greater with terfenadine than with placebo given before the challenge with hypertonic saline. PD20 FEV1 was attenuated by a mean of 2.5 fold after terfenadine (geometric mean PD20 FEV1 was 22 litres after placebo and 56 l after terfenadine). There was substantial intersubject variation in the inhibitory effect of terfenadine on hypertonic saline induced bronchoconstriction: the ratio of the PD20 hypertonic saline after terfenadine to that after placebo ranged from 0.9 to 10.0. Terfenadine inhibited histamine induced bronchoconstriction in the eight subjects in whom it was tested, by 13 to 160 fold compared with placebo in four subjects and by greater than 2 to greater than 9 fold in the four who showed no response to the highest dose of histamine given (16 mg/ml). These results suggest that histamine release has a role in hypertonic saline induced bronchoconstriction in some individuals; other mediators or mechanisms may have a more prominent role in others.     

Effect of salbutamol on histamine induced bronchoconstriction in healthy infants.

BACKGROUND--The effect of inhaled beta 2 adrenergic drugs on infants with wheezing disorders remains controversial. Salbutamol inhibits the bronchial responsiveness of infants to histamine and nebulised water but whether or not it acts as a bronchodilator in this age group is unclear. The aim of the present study was to determine whether salbutamol can hasten the reversal of histamine induced bronchoconstriction in infants. METHODS--Bronchial challenge with histamine was performed in 40 infants aged 12 months or less with no previous history of respiratory symptoms. Response to histamine was assessed by forced partial expiratory flow/volume curves to measure maximal flow at functional residual capacity (VmaxFRC). After a fall of 40% or more from baseline VmaxFRC, each infant was randomly assigned to receive either salbutamol 0.5% or saline 0.9% solution by nebuliser. The rate of recovery of VmaxFRC and the time to reach baseline VmaxFRC were derived by linear regression. RESULTS--Infants who received salbutamol had a significantly faster rate of recovery (geometric mean 8.5 ml/s/min) than those who received saline (4.1 ml/s/min). Considerable interindividual variation was observed in the time from maximum bronchoconstriction to recovery of baseline VmaxFRC in both groups of subjects. CONCLUSIONS--Salbutamol significantly speeds the reversal of histamine induced bronchoconstriction in infants during the first 12 months of life. This observation provides further evidence to support the presence of functional beta adrenergic receptors in the airways of infants.     

Adenosine monophosphate and histamine induced bronchoconstriction: repeatability and protection by terbutaline

BACKGROUND: Inhaled adenosine monophosphate (AMP) is thought to cause bronchoconstriction in asthmatic patients indirectly through mast cell mediator release. It may therefore be a more sensitive marker of airway inflammation in asthma and hence more specific for epidemiological surveys of asthma than challenges that act directly on airway smooth muscle such as histamine. There is some uncertainty as to how repeatable the measurement is and this is important if it is to be used for epidemiological studies. METHODS: The response to histamine and AMP challenges and the protection afforded by terbutaline (500 micrograms) against these two challenges was measured on two occasions two weeks apart in 20 subjects with asthma (19 completed the study). The response to histamine and AMP was measured as the provocative dose causing a 20% fall in forced expiratory volume in one second (PD20) and the protection afforded by terbutaline in doubling doses (DD). Repeatability was assessed as the limits of agreement. RESULTS: Although terbutaline had a slightly greater protective effect against AMP than histamine on both the first (delta PD20 = 2.66 versus 2.11 DD) and second occasion (2.56 and 2.15 DD), the differences were not statistically significant. The limits of agreement for the two histamine and two AMP challenges after placebo were from 3.06 to -3.5 and from 3.78 to -4.54 DD respectively, and these values did not differ significantly. The agreement limits between the first PD20 histamine and PD20 AMP values after placebo were similar, being from 3.73 to - 3.72 DD after allowing for the 17.8-fold higher PD20 values for AMP compared with histamine. CONCLUSIONS: Terbutaline caused a slightly greater inhibition of the bronchoconstrictor response to AMP than histamine but the differences were small and non-significant. Any differences in repeatability between AMP and histamine challenges are small and in this study were not significant. The fact that the agreement between histamine and AMP PD20 values was similar to the agreement between repeat histamine or repeat AMP PD20 values suggests that, within an asthmatic population, PD20 AMP may not be providing different information from that provided by PD20 histamine.


     

Abolition of methacholine induced bronchoconstriction by the hyperventilation of exercise or volition.

Total pulmonary resistance was measured from continuous records of flow and oesophageal pressure in five normal subjects on three separate days before and after inhalation of methacholine. The dose of methacholine produced, on average, a fivefold increase in airway resistance. Immediately after methacholine inhalation the subjects underwent a progressive exercise test on a cycle ergometer (day 1) or voluntary hyperventilation (day 2) or remained resting (day 3). On the first day during exercise pulmonary resistance fell rapidly to baseline levels within two to three minutes and remained there for the 10 minute duration of the exercise. On day 2 voluntary reproduction of the same level and pattern of ventilation as during exercise resulted in a similar fall of resistance. On the third day, when the subjects remained at rest, pulmonary resistance remained raised for 10 minutes. It is concluded that the bronchodilator effects of exercise can be explained by the increased ventilation rather than the exercise itself, but with much smaller tidal volumes than have previously been thought necessary to reduce drug induced bronchoconstriction.     

The nasal response to exercise and exercise induced bronchoconstriction in normal and asthmatic subjects.

Two studies were carried out to test the hypothesis that the fall and recovery of nasal resistance after exercise in asthmatic and non-asthmatic subjects are related to the development of bronchoconstriction after exercise. In study 1 nasal resistance (posterior rhinomanometry) and specific airway resistance (sRaw) were measured before challenge and one, five, 10 and 30 minutes after four minutes of exhausting legwork exercise in nine asthmatic subjects and nine age matched healthy subjects. One minute after exercise there was a reduction in nasal resistance of 49% (SD 15%) from baseline in the healthy subjects and of 66% (17%) in the asthmatic subjects. This response and the subsequent return of nasal resistance to baseline values did not differ significantly between the two groups despite a substantial difference in the change in sRaw, an increase of 74% (45%) in the asthmatic subjects 10 minutes after exercise, and no change in the non-asthmatic subjects. In study 2, nasal and specific airway resistances were monitored according to the same measurement protocol in six subjects with increased airway reactivity. Subjects exercised on two occasions, wearing a noseclip, once while breathing cold, dry air and once while breathing warm, humid air. The fall in nasal resistance was similar under both conditions (to 47% and 39% of baseline), through sRaw rose only after cold air inhalation (to 172% of baseline). The results indicate that the nasal response to exercise is not related to bronchial obstruction in asthmatic subjects after exercise or to the temperature or humidity of the air inspired through the mouth during exercise.     

Assessment of variability of exercise tolerance limited by breathlessness.

A sequence of questions was designed to quantify the within subject variation of exercise tolerance limited by breathlessness, to serve as a guide to variation in airflow limitation for epidemiological purposes. The questions seek answers about breathlessness in relation to various levels of attempted activity when the subjects are at their best and at their worst. The difference between exercise tolerance at best and exercise tolerance at worst (variation in exercise tolerance) was expressed on a scale ranging from 0 (no variation) to 6 (greatest variation). The effectiveness of these questions has been assessed in 68 patients with airflow limitation attending a chest clinic, by comparing the results with variation in peak expiratory flow rate (PEF). Variation in PEF was expressed as the standard deviation of the first 24 PEF recordings from each patient (equivalent to four days' recordings). There was a highly significant relation between the measure of variation in exercise tolerance obtained from the questionnaire and PEF variation, though each point on the scale of variation in exercise tolerance covered a wide range of variation in PEF. The questions give some guide to the variation in airflow limitation and in combination with other questions may be helpful in epidemiological studies.     

Effects of calcium channel blockade on histamine induced bronchoconstriction in mild asthma.

Inhalation histamine dose-response curves were constructed 15 minutes after inhalation of saline placebo or verapamil (4 mg) for eight patients with mild atopic asthma in a double blind, random manner. No significant change in baseline specific airways conductance occurred after inhalation of verapamil, though there was a significant decrease in sensitivity to histamine (increase in threshold of response) (p less than 0.01). There was, however, an associated significant increase (p less than 0.01) in the slopes of the subsequent histamine dose-response curves.     

Effect of azelastine on bronchoconstriction induced by histamine and leukotriene C4 in patients with extrinsic asthma.

Azelastine, a new oral agent with antiallergic and antihistamine properties, has been shown to inhibit the effect of histamine and leukotriene (LT) in vitro, though not a specific leukotriene receptor antagonist. The effect of both a single dose (8.8 mg) and 14 days' treatment (8.8 mg twice daily) with azelastine on bronchoconstriction induced by LTC4 and histamine has been examined in 10 patients with mild asthma in a placebo controlled, double blind, crossover study. LTC4 and histamine were inhaled in doubling concentrations from a dosimeter and the results expressed as the cumulative dose (PD) producing a 20% fall in FEV1 (PD20FEV1) and 35% fall in specific airways conductance (PD35sGaw). The single dose of azelastine produced a significantly greater FEV1 and sGaw values than placebo at 3 hours, but this bronchodilator effect was not present after 14 days of treatment. Azelastine was an effective H1 antagonist; after a single dose and 14 days' treatment with placebo the geometric mean PD20FEV1 histamine values (mumol) were 0.52 (95% confidence interval 0.14-1.83) and 0.54 (0.12-2.38), compared with 22.9 (11.5-38.3) and 15.2 (6.47-35.6) after azelastine (p less than 0.01 for both). LTC4 was on average 1000 times more potent than histamine in inducing bronchoconstriction. Azelastine did not inhibit the effect of inhaled LTC4; the geometric mean PD20FEV1 LTC4 (nmol) after a single dose and 14 days' treatment was 0.60 and 0.59 with placebo compared with 0.65 and 0.75 with azelastine. The PD35sGaw LTC4 was also unchanged at 0.66 and 0.73 for placebo compared with 0.83 and 0.74 for azelastine. Thus prolonged blockade of H1 receptors did not attenuate the response to LTC4, suggesting that histamine and LTC4 act on bronchial smooth muscle through different receptors. Four patients complained of drowsiness while taking azelastine but only one who was taking placebo and three patients complained of a bitter, metallic taste while taking azelastine.     

Refractory period following bronchoconstriction provoked by histamine in asthmatic subjects.

To determine whether refractoriness to histamine induced bronchoconstriction occurs, 20 asthmatic subjects aged 19-50 years were tested. Subjects underwent two histamine challenge tests (1 and 2) on the same day, the second one being given 45-60 minutes after the first, once the FEV1 after test 1 had returned spontaneously to within 90% of baseline. A further "control" histamine challenge test was carried out on a different day at the same time (+/- 2 hours) as test 1. Bronchial responsiveness was recorded as the cumulative dose (microgram) of histamine provoking a 20% fall in FEV1 (PD20), and the ratio PD20 test 2:PD20 test 1 was used to assess refractoriness. The median value of this ratio (2.20) was significantly greater than 1 (p = 0.003), indicating refractoriness at the time of test 2. By contrast the median ratio PD20 control:PD20 test 1 of 1.03 was not significantly different from 1. Refractoriness could not be accounted for by failure to regain the initial baseline FEV1, though such failure may have exaggerated the effect. An increase in PD20 with the second test was observed uniformly in subjects with moderate or high initial PD20 values but not in those with low values. This suggests that there may be a PD20 threshold of the order 25-100 micrograms for refractoriness to occur. Refractoriness could exert an important confounding effect in investigations in which repeated histamine tests are carried out at short intervals.     

Effect of GR32191, a potent thromboxane receptor antagonist, on exercise induced bronchoconstriction in asthma.

Previous work suggests a role for mast cell derived mediators in exercise induced asthma. The contribution of newly generated contractile prostaglandins to exercise induced asthma was assessed by using a potent and orally active thromboxane (TP1) receptor antagonist, GR32191. The effect of 120 mg GR32191 on exercise induced asthma was observed in 12 asthmatic subjects. For the exercise challenge the subjects performed six minutes of treadmill exercise, breathing dry air at a work load that had previously been shown to induce a fall in FEV1 of 25% or more from the pre-exercise baseline. No effect of GR32191 on pre-exercise baseline airway calibre was evident. There was no significant difference in the mean maximum percentage fall in FEV1 from baseline after exercise between drug and placebo (placebo 30.2%, GR32191 day 31.6%). It is concluded that the thromboxane antagonist GR32191 has no effect on exercise induced asthma. This suggests that prostaglandins, including PGD2, that act via the thromboxane receptor do not have an important role in exercise induced asthma.     

Ether does not antagonize bronchoconstriction caused by acetylcholine, histamine, or phenylephrine

The effect of ether as a possible antagonist of mediator-effected bronchoconstriction was tested in eight anesthetized, paralyzed, and mechanically ventilated baboons. Ether administered intravenously had no effect on bronchoconstriction caused by acetylcholine, histamine, or phenylephrine administered by the same route, either alone or in combination with propranolol.     

Association of anxiety with perception of histamine induced bronchoconstriction in patients with asthma

BACKGROUND: The perception of bronchoconstriction varies among patients with asthma and this perception may be related to the covariation of sensory and affective aspects of dyspnoea. A study was performed to evaluate whether there are differences in the perception of histamine induced bronchoconstriction between anxious and non-anxious perceivers and whether anxious perception of bronchoconstriction can be predicted by higher levels of baseline anxiety. METHODS: Seventy eight asthmatic subjects referred for a histamine challenge test undertook baseline measures for anxiety symptomatology and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) followed by perceived breathlessness (Borg scale), anxiety (SUDS), and FEV1 measurement before and during induced bronchoconstriction. Based on the correlation between Borg and SUDS scores, the patients were divided into anxious and non-anxious perceivers. RESULTS: Forty one patients reported no anxiety during the challenge test. The anxious perceivers (n = 20) had higher levels of perceived breathlessness and anxiety at 20% fall in FEV1 and were more accurate in their perception of airways obstruction than non-anxious perceivers (n = 58). However, they did not report higher baseline levels of anxiety symptomatology. CONCLUSIONS: Anxiety experienced during bronchial challenge testing may result from the accurate perception of physiological changes and further direct attention to airways obstruction.


     

A comparison of sevoflurane with halothane,enflurane, and isoflurane on bronchoconstriction caused by histamine

This study was conducted to assess the effect of sevoflurane on lung resistance and compliance, and its responsiveness to histamine. We studied eight dogs to compare the effect of sevoflurane, isoflurane, enflurane, and halothane on bronchoconstriction caused by histamine. Baseline values of pulmonary resistance (R_L) and dynamic pulmonary compliance (C_dyn) were measured prior to administration of histamine. Histamine (2, 4, and 8 μg · kg⁻¹) were administered iv, and the values of R_L and C_dyn at the time of peak effect were recorded. Under 1 or 2 MAC anaesthesia, sevoflurane as well as the other three anaesthetics had no bronchoactive effects. The four anaesthetics, including sevoflurane, demonstrated inhibitory effect on increases in R_L and decreases in C_dyn caused by histamine. At 1 MAC anaesthesia, % changes in R_L caused by 2, 4, or 8 μg · kg⁻¹ of histamine were 38 ± 11, 85 ± 21, or 132 ± 24% (mean ± SE) for halothane, and 65 ± 11, 132 ± 15, or 172 ± 19% for sevoflurane, respectively. Sevoflurane was less effective than halothane in preventing increases in R_L. In preventing decreases in C_dyn, sevoflurane was less effective than halothane only at 8 μg · kg⁻¹ of histamine under 1 and 2 MAC anaesthesia. There was no difference in attenuating effect on changes in R_L and C_dyn between sevoflurane and isoflurane or enflurane. We concluded that sevoflurane was less potent than halothane in attenuating changes in R_L and C_dyn in response to iv histamine. Cette étude a été réalisée dans le but d’évaluer les effets du sévoflurane sur la résistance et la compliance pulmonaires en réponse à l’histamine. Les effets du sévoflurane, de l’isoflurane, de l’enflurane et de l’halothane sur la bronchoconstriction induite par l’histamine sont comparés sur huit chiens. Avant l’administration d’histamine, on mesure les valeurs initiales de la résistance (R_L) et de la compliance dynamique (C_dyn) pulmonaires. L’histamine (2, 4, 8 μg · kg⁻¹) est administrée par la voie veineuse et les valeurs maximales de la R_L et de la C_dyn sont enregistrées. Les quatre anesthésiques, dont le sévoflurane inhibent l’augmentation de la R_L et la diminution de la C_dyn provoquées par l’histamine. A MAC 1 d’anesthésie, les pourcentages de changement de R_L produits par 2, 4, ou 8 μg · kg⁻¹ d’histamine sont respectivement de 38 ± 11, 85 ± 21, ou 132 ± 24% (moyenne + SD) pour l’halothane, et de 65 ± 11, 132 ± 15, ou 172 ± 19% pour le sévoflurane. Le sévoflurane est moins efficace que l’halothane pour prévenir les augmentations de R_L. Le sévoflurane est moins efficace pour prevenir la diminution de C_dyn mais seulement à 8 μg · kg⁻¹ d’histamine sous anesthésie à MAC 1 et 2. Le sévoflurane, l’halothane et l’isoflurane ne sont pas de différents pour amortir les changements de R_L et C_dyn. Nous concluons que le sévoflurane est moins puissant que l’halothane pour diminuer la réponse à l’histamine de la R_L et de la C_dyn.     

Effect of terbutaline on bronchoconstriction induced by nebulised pentamidine.

The severity, duration, and reversibility of pentamidine induced bronchial narrowing was studied with and without pretreatment with nebulised terbutaline 10 mg in an open study of 40 patients seropositive for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). All subjects received pentamidine 300 mg in 5 ml water via an Acorn System 22 jet nebuliser. The forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) fell in all 20 patients given pentamidine alone, the mean maximum fall being 20.6%. In the 20 patients given pentamidine preceded by nebulised terbutaline the mean maximum fall in FEV1 was 4%; three subjects had a fall in FEV1 of more than 10%.