Effect of inhaled prostaglandin E2 on bronchial reactivity to sodium metabisulphite and methacholine in patients with asthma.

Inhaled frusemide protects against the bronchoconstrictor response to a wide range of stimuli that cause bronchoconstriction by indirect mechanisms. One possible explanation for this protection relates to the known ability of frusemide to enhance synthesis of prostaglandin E2 (PGE2). Studies in vitro suggest that PGE2 might protect against indirectly acting bronchoconstrictor challenges rather than those that act directly on airway smooth muscle, though little is known about the effects of PGE2 in vivo. The effect of inhaled PGE2 on the bronchoconstrictor response to inhaled sodium metabisulphite (a stimulus with an indirect action) and methacholine (which acts directly on airway smooth muscle) was studied in nine patients with asthma. Subjects were studied on four days, inhaling PGE2 (100 micrograms) or placebo in a double blind fashion followed immediately by a cumulative dose challenge with sodium metabisulphite or methacholine. The response to the constrictor stimuli was measured as the provocative dose causing a 20% fall in FEV1 (PD20). There was no significant change in FEV1 after inhaled PGE2 compared with placebo, nor any significant change in the response to methacholine; the geometric mean methacholine PD20 was 0.9 mumol after PGE2 and 0.56 mumol after placebo (mean difference 0.7 (95% confidence limits--0.1, 1.5) doubling doses). PGE2, however, protected against sodium metabisulphite, the geometric mean sodium metabisulphite PD20 being 11.8 mumol after PGE2 and 1.8 mumol after placebo (mean difference 2.5 (95% CL 1.9, 3.1) doubling doses). PGE2 conferred significantly greater protection against sodium metabisulphite than methacholine (mean difference 1.8 (95% CL 0.8, 2.8) doubling doses). This suggests that PGE2, like frusemide, has an inhibitory effect on pathways relevant to the bronchoconstriction induced by sodium metabisulphite, with little or no effect on those relevant to methacholine.     

Effect of acetazolamide and amiloride against sodium metabisulphite-induced bronchoconstriction in mild asthma.

BACKGROUND--Inhaled frusemide but not bumetanide, another loop diuretic, reduces bronchial responsiveness to sodium metabisulphite (MBS). To investigate whether the effect of frusemide could be mediated through mechanisms other than Na+/K+/Cl- cotransporter inhibition, the effects of amiloride--an inhibitor of sodium channels in the airway epithelium--and of acetazolamide--a specific inhibitor of carbonic anhydrase--against MBS challenge were studied. METHODS--In two separate randomised double blind placebo controlled studies, 10 subjects with mild asthma attended on four separate occasions to inhale 7.5 mg amiloride or matched placebo, and 500 mg acetazolamide or placebo, immediately before MBS challenge. The concentration of MBS required to cause a 20% fall in baseline FEV1 (PC20) was measured. RESULTS--Amiloride and acetazolamide had no effect on baseline FEV1. Amiloride had no effect against MBS challenge, but acetazolamide increased -log PC20 from a mean (SE) of 0.75 (0.09) to 0.98 (0.06) representing a 0.77 (0.24) doubling dose increase. CONCLUSIONS--These results suggest that carbonic anhydrase activity in the airways, but not sodium flux, modulates bronchial responsiveness to MBS challenge. The action of frusemide is not likely to involve inhibition of carbonic anhydrase activity.     

Inhaled frusemide and exercise induced asthma: evidence of a role for inhibitory prostanoids.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled frusemide protects subjects with asthma against a wide range of bronchoconstrictor challenges, including allergen, exercise and inhaled sodium metabisulphite. An investigation was designed to determine whether this protection is related to the production of inhibitory prostaglandins, such as prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), by studying the effect of the cyclooxygenase inhibitor indomethacin on the protection afforded by inhaled frusemide against exercise induced asthma. METHODS: In a double blind crossover study 10 subjects with mild asthma were pretreated with indomethacin (50 mg thrice daily) or placebo capsules for three days; they then inhaled frusemide (40 mg) or placebo 10 minutes before an exercise test previously shown to cause a 20-30% fall in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1). RESULTS: After inhalation of placebo exercise caused a similar maximum fall in FEV1 whether pretreatment was with placebo (26%) or indomethacin (25.2%). After inhalation of frusemide the maximum fall in FEV1 was reduced to 14.3% after placebo pretreatment and to 21.8% after indomethacin pretreatment; the difference between placebo and indomethacin pretreatment was significant (mean difference 7.5%, 95% limits 0.6%, 14.4%). The inhibitory effect of frusemide on the response to exercise, assessed as change in FEV1 over 30 minutes, was significantly greater with placebo (62%) than indomethacin (13%) pretreatment. CONCLUSION: These findings support a role for inhibitory prostanoids, such as PGE2, in the beneficial effects of frusemide as a protection against exercise induced asthma.     

Effect of allergen challenge on airway responsiveness to histamine and sodium metabisulphite in mild asthma.

BACKGROUND: Airway responsiveness to histamine and methacholine, direct smooth muscle spasmogens, is increased following inhalation of allergen. Although the aetiology of this phenomenon is unclear, increased cellular or neural activity may be involved since allergen also induces increases in airway responsiveness to the mast cell stimulus adenosine-5'-monophosphate (AMP) and the neural stimulus bradykinin. METHODS: To explore this further, the airway responsiveness to sodium metabisulphite (MBS), an indirect neural stimulus with similar characteristics to bradykinin, was compared in 18 mild steroid-naive asthmatic subjects with the airway responsiveness to histamine before and after allergen challenge with extracts of house dust mite, grass pollen, or cat. All subjects inhaled doubling increments of histamine and MBS until the concentration provoking a 20% fall in forced expiratory volume in one second (PC20) was reached before and three hours after allergen challenge. Twelve of the subjects had additional challenges at 24 hours after the allergen. RESULTS: Following allergen challenge all subjects showed an early response and 14 also had a late asthmatic response. For histamine there was a significant increase in airway responsiveness at both three and 24 hours compared with values before the allergen (0.89 (0.25) and 1.53 (0.52) doubling dose changes, respectively). In contrast, airway responsiveness to MBS was unaltered by allergen challenge (0.29 (0.27) and -0.33 (0.28) doubling dose changes compared with pre-allergen values at three and 24 hours, respectively). CONCLUSION: These data suggest that activation of airway sensory nerves is unlikely to contribute to the increase in airway responsiveness following inhalation of allergen. The previously observed allergen induced increase in airway responsiveness to bradykinin and AMP may involve non-neural pathways.     

Characterisation of bronchoconstrictor responses to sodium metabisulphite aerosol in atopic subjects with and without asthma.

Inhalation of sodium metabisulphite is thought to induce bronchoconstriction by release of sulphur dioxide. We sought to establish the reproducibility of the airway response to inhaled sodium metabisulphite given in increasing doubling concentrations (0.3 to 160 mg/ml) to 13 asthmatic and five atopic non-asthmatic subjects and the contribution of cholinergic mechanisms to this response. In 15 of the 18 subjects bronchoconstriction was sufficient to allow calculation of the dose of metabisulphite causing a 20% reduction in the forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) from baseline values (PD20 metabisulphite). The 95% confidence limit for the difference between this and a second PD20 metabisulphite determined 2-14 days later was 2.5 doubling doses. The difference between repeat PD20 metabisulphite measurements was unrelated to the number of days between challenges or change in baseline FEV1. Ten subjects returned for a third study 3-120 days after the second challenge; variability in PD20 metabisulphite did not differ from that seen between the first and second challenges. PD20 methacholine was determined between the two metabisulphite challenges and found to correlate with PD20 metabisulphite (r = 0.71). Inhaled ipratropium bromide 200 micrograms given in a randomised, placebo controlled, crossover study to 10 subjects increased PD20 methacholine 42 fold but had no significant effect on the response to metabisulphite. A single inhalation of the PD20 metabisulphite in five subjects induced maximal bronchoconstriction 2-3 minutes after inhalation, with a plateau in FEV1 lasting a further four minutes before recovery. A further single inhalation of the same PD20 dose 43 minutes later produced a 27% (SEM 4%) smaller fall in FEV1 than the first inhalation. These results show that metabisulphite PD20 values measured over days and weeks show similar reproducibility to those reported for histamine inhalation and that PD20 metabisulphite correlates with methacholine responsiveness. Most of the bronchoconstriction is not inhibited by antimuscarinic agents; the underlying mechanisms require further investigation.     

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.




     

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.     

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.     

Comparison of three inhaled non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on the airway response to sodium metabisulphite and adenosine 5'-monophosphate challenge in asthma.

BACKGROUND: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are used to assess the role of prostaglandins in asthma but their effects on bronchoconstrictor challenges have been inconsistent. The effects of three nebulised nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on the airway response to inhaled sodium metabisulphite (MBS) and adenosine 5'-monophosphate (AMP) were compared in the same asthmatic subjects to see whether contractile prostaglandins were involved in MBS or AMP induced bronchoconstriction. A possible protective effect of the osmolarity or pH of the inhaled solutions was also assessed. METHODS: Two double blind placebo controlled studies were carried out. In study 1, 15 non-aspirin sensitive patients with mild asthma attended on four occasions and inhaled 5 ml of lysine aspirin (L-aspirin) 900 mg, indomethacin 50 mg, sodium salicylate 800 mg, or saline 20 minutes before an inhaled MBS challenge. On four further occasions 14 of the patients inhaled the same solutions followed by an inhaled AMP challenge. In study 2, 10 of the patients attended on four additional occasions and inhaled 5 ml of 0.9%, 3%, 10%, or 9.5% saline with indomethacin 50 mg 20 minutes before an inhaled MBS challenge. RESULTS: In study 1 inhaled lysine aspirin had a similar effect on MBS and AMP induced bronchoconstriction, increasing the provocative dose causing a 20% fall in FEV1 (PD20) by 1.29 (95% CI 0.54 to 2.03) and 1.23 (95% CI 0.53 to 1.93) doubling doses, respectively. Indomethacin increased the MBS PD20 and AMP PD20 by 0.64 (95% CI -0.1 to 1.38) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.29 to 1.69) doubling doses, respectively. Sodium salicylate had no significant effect on either challenge. The two solutions causing most inhibition were the most acidic and the most alkaline. In study 2 inhaled 9.5% saline with indomethacin (osmolarity 3005 mOsm/kg) increased the MBS PD20 by 1.1 doubling doses (95% CI 0.2 to 2.0) compared with only 0.09 (95% CI -0.83 to 1.0) and 0.04 (95% CI -0.88 to 0.95) doubling doses with 3% saline (918 mOsm/kg) and 10% saline (2994 mOsm/ kg), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Inhaled L-aspirin and indomethacin have broadly similar protective effects against MBS and AMP induced bronchoconstriction in the doses given, although the effect of indomethacin on MBS was not quite statistically significant. The osmolarity and pH of the solutions did not appear to be important determinants of the response. The effect of L-aspirin and indomethacin is likely to be the result of cyclooxygenase inhibition reducing the production of contractile prostaglandins during MBS and AMP challenge.     

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.


     

Effect of inhaled frusemide on the early response to antigen and subsequent change in airway reactivity in atopic patients.

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether inhaled frusemide was able to inhibit the increase in nonspecific bronchial reactivity that occurs after the early response to allergen exposure in subjects with allergic rhinitis or asthma (or both). Ten symptom free patients initially underwent a challenge with methacholine, to determine the dose of methacholine that caused a 15% fall in FEV1 (PD15 FEV1 meth) and a challenge with a specific allergen, to determine the concentration of allergen that caused a fall in FEV1 of at least 15%. On two further occasions they inhaled allergen concentration that had caused the greater than or equal to 15% fall in FEV1 preceded by inhaled frusemide (40 mg frusemide in 4 ml buffered saline) or placebo (4 ml of diluent solution), according to a randomised, double blind, crossover design. All allergen studies were separated by at least seven days. A methacholine challenge was performed two hours after the allergen challenge, a time when the early response to allergen had completely resolved. Frusemide inhibited the early response to antigen, causing mean (95% confidence interval) protection of 87.6% (96-80%) for the maximum fall in FEV1. The increase in non-specific airway reactivity that occurred after antigen when this was preceded by placebo was reduced by frusemide. The mean (95% CI) difference in PD15 values between the placebo and the frusemide days was 1.73 (2.30-1.16) doubling doses of methacholine. These results confirm that frusemide is highly effective in preventing the early response to allergen, and show that it inhibits the increase in reactivity to methacholine that follows the early response.     

Assessment of food chemical intolerance in adult asthmatic subjects.

BACKGROUND: Identification of food chemical intolerance in asthmatic subjects can be reliably assessed by changes in the forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) in response to double blind, placebo controlled challenges on a strict elimination diet. However, this method is cumbersome and time consuming. A study was undertaken to determine whether changes in bronchial responsiveness to histamine following food chemical challenge without an elimination diet might be a faster, more convenient method. METHODS: Eleven adult asthmatic subjects were challenged twice with metabisulphite, aspirin, monosodium glutamate, artificial food colours, sodium nitrite/ nitrate, 0.5% citric acid solution (placebo), and sucrose (placebo) on separate days. During the first set of challenges subjects consumed a normal diet. Bronchial responsiveness to histamine was assessed 90 minutes after each challenge. A greater than twofold increase in bronchial responsiveness was considered positive. For one month prior to and during the second set of challenges subjects followed a strict elimination diet and FEV1 was monitored during and for two hours after each challenge. A fall in FEV1 of 20% or more was considered positive. RESULTS: Of the 77 food chemical challenges performed on an unmodified diet, 20 were positive (six placebo responses). In two subjects it was not possible to perform a histamine test after one of the chemical challenges because of poor spirometric function. Of the 77 food chemical challenges performed on an elimination diet, 11 were positive (no placebo responses). Excluding the two challenges in which there were no corresponding histamine tests, only on two occasions did the positive responses in both methods coincide, giving the unmodified diet method a sensitivity of 22%. CONCLUSIONS: Strict dietary elimination and measurement of FEV1 after double blind food chemical challenge remains the most reliable method for the detection of food chemical intolerance in asthmatic subjects.     

Effects of a cyclo-oxygenase inhibitor, flurbiprofen, and an H1 histamine receptor antagonist, terfenadine, alone and in combination on allergen induced immediate bronchoconstriction in man

The effect of flurbiprofen, a potent cyclo-oxygenase inhibitor, on histamine and methacholine reactivity was assessed in seven atopic subjects with asthma. Flurbiprofen 150 mg daily for three days displaced the histamine-FEV1 concentration-response curve to the right by 1.5 doubling doses, whereas no effect was observed on the response to methacholine. Subsequently the effects of flurbiprofen and terfenadine, a specific H1 histamine receptor antagonist, on allergen induced bronchoconstriction were studied in seven atopic but non-asthmatic subjects. The subjects inhaled the concentration of grass pollen allergen that had previously been shown to produce a 20% fall in FEV1 on separate occasions after prior treatment with placebo, flurbiprofen 150 mg daily for three days, terfenadine 180 mg three hours before challenge, and the combination of flurbiprofen and terfenadine. After placebo, allergen challenge caused a mean (SEM) maximum fall in FEV1 of 37.6% (2.6%) after 20 (3.7) minutes, followed by a gradual recovery to within 15% of baseline at 60 minutes. Terfenadine reduced the maximum allergen provoked fall in FEV1 to 21.5% (2.2%) and reduced the area under the time-response curve (AUC) by 50% (6%). Flurbiprofen alone reduced the mean maximum fall in FEV1 to 29.6% (3.2%) and reduced the AUC by 26%. The effect of the combination of flurbiprofen and terfenadine did not differ significantly from that of terfenadine alone. We conclude that histamine and prostaglandins contribute to immediate allergen induced bronchoconstriction and that a complex interaction occurs between the two classes of mediators.     

Comparison of sulphur dioxide and metabisulphite airway reactivity in subjects with asthma.

BACKGROUND--In asthmatic subjects bronchoconstriction is induced by inhalation of the common food preservatives sulphur dioxide (SO2) and metabisulphite (MBS). SO2 and MBS challenges share many similarities, but it is not known whether they are equivalent. In this study of subjects with mild clinical asthma equivalence was assessed by comparing SO2 and MBS reactivity by estimating the total dose of SO2 inhaled during SO2 and MBS challenges, and by calculating SO2 uptake during both challenges. In addition, as the MBS solutions inhaled were acidic and hyperosmolar, the effect of these factors on MBS responsiveness was investigated. METHODS--Fifteen subjects were challenged on separate days with doubling (0.5 to 8.0 ppm) concentrations of SO2 gas inhaled during three minute periods of isocapnic hyperventilation and MBS administered in doses ranging from 0.1 to 12.8 mumol using the Wright protocol. On two other days SO2 and MBS challenges were preceded by a challenge with phosphate buffered saline (PBS) solutions of pH and osmolarity similar to MBS solutions. Response was measured as the dose or concentration causing a 20% fall in FEV1 (PD20 or PC20). RESULTS--All subjects reacted to MBS and 14 responded to SO2. Geometric mean histamine PD20 was 1.61 mumol (95% confidence interval 0.72 to 3.60). MBS and SO2 airway responsiveness were not significantly related. Estimates of the mean concentration of SO2 inhaled during SO2 and MBS challenges differed, as did estimates of the mean SO2 uptake during both challenges. MBS and SO2 reactivity were not affected by prior challenge with PBS solutions. CONCLUSIONS--SO2 and MBS challenges are not comparable. MBS reactivity was not affected by the hyperosmolar, acidic nature of its solutions.     

Cross refractoriness between sodium metabisulphite and exercise induced asthma.

BACKGROUND--Exercise and inhaled sodium metabisulphite are thought to cause bronchoconstriction in asthma through different mechanisms. The response to both stimuli becomes refractory with repeat challenge. The mechanism of refractoriness is unclear, although depletion of mast cell derived mediators or neurotransmitters has been suggested. Recent studies suggest a common mechanism involving release of inhibitory prostaglandins. If this is true, exercise and sodium metabisulphite induced bronchoconstriction should show cross refractoriness. METHODS--Thirteen subjects with mild asthma and previously established exercise and sodium metabisulphite induced bronchoconstriction performed two sodium metabisulphite challenges (giving a single dose previously shown to cause a 20% fall in FEV1) on one study day, and two exercise tests on another. The second challenge proceeded after recovery (FEV1 > 95% baseline) from the first. Subjects then attended on two further occasions when an exercise test was performed after sodium metabisulphite and a sodium metabisulphite challenge after exercise. RESULTS--When expressed as the percentage reduction in the area under the change in percentage FEV1 curve over 20 minutes (AUC) the response to exercise was reduced by a mean 62.3% (95% CI 46.5% to 78.1%) following a first exercise challenge, and by 50.7% (95% CI 27.8% to 73.6%) following a sodium metabisulphite challenge. The response to a sodium metabisulphite challenge was reduced by a mean of 80.2% (95% CI 68.9% to 91.5%) when it followed a sodium metabisulphite challenge, and by 37.3% (95% CI 15.1% to 59.5%) following an exercise challenge. CONCLUSION--This study shows some cross refractoriness between exercise and sodium metabisulphite induced bronchoconstriction, in keeping with a partially shared mechanism of refractoriness.     

Evidence for opioid modulation and generation of prostaglandins in sulphur dioxide (SO)2-induced bronchoconstriction.

BACKGROUND: Inhalation of sulphur dioxide (SO2) provokes bronchoconstriction in asthmatic subjects. Cholinergic mechanisms contribute, but other mechanisms remain undefined. The effect of morphine, an opioid agonist, on the cholinergic component of SO2-induced bronchoconstriction was investigated, and the effect of indomethacin, a cyclooxygenase inhibitor, on SO2-induced bronchoconstriction and tachyphylaxis was studied. METHODS: In the first study 16 asthmatic subjects inhaled either ipratropium bromide or placebo 60 minutes before an SO2 challenge on days 1 and 2. On day 3 an SO2 challenge was performed immediately after intravenous morphine. In the second study 15 asthmatic subjects took either placebo or indomethacin for three days before each study day when two SO2 challenges were performed 30 minutes apart. The response was measured as the cumulative dose causing a 35% fall in specific airways conductance (sGaw; PDsGaw35). RESULTS: Ipratropium bromide significantly inhibited SO2 responsiveness, reducing PDsGaw35 by 0.89 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.31) doubling doses. This effect persisted after correction for bronchodilatation induced by ipratropium bromide. The effect of ipratropium bromide and morphine on SO2 responsiveness also correlated (r2 = 0.71). In the second study SO2 tachyphylaxis developed with PDsGaw35 on repeated testing, being reduced by 0.62 (95% CI 0.17 to 1.07) doubling doses. Indomethacin attenuated baseline SO2 responsiveness, increasing PDsGaw35 by 0.5 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.93) doubling doses. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that opioids modulate the cholinergic component of SO2 responsiveness and that cyclooxygenase products contribute to the immediate response to SO2.     

Effect of inhaled frusemide and oral indomethacin on the airway response to hypertonic saline challenge in asthmatic subjects

BACKGROUND: Inhaled frusemide inhibits airway narrowing and causes a transient increase in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) during hypertonic saline challenge. This inhibitory effect could be secondary to prostaglandin release during challenge. The involvement of prostaglandins in the inhibitory action of frusemide during challenge with 4.5% NaCl was investigated by premedicating with indomethacin, a prostaglandin synthetase inhibitor. METHODS: Fourteen asthmatic subjects (eight women) aged 26.6 (range 18-56) years participated in a double blind, placebo controlled, crossover study. The subjects attended five times and inhaled 4.5% NaCl for 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2, 4, 8, 8, and 8 minutes, or part thereof, or until a provocative dose causing a 20% fall in FEV1 (PD20 FEV1) was recorded. Indomethacin (100 mg/day) or placebo were taken three days before all visits, except control day. The FEV1 was measured and frusemide (38.0 (6.4) mg, pH = 9) or vehicle (0.9% NaCl, pH = 9) were inhaled 10 minutes before the challenge. Bronchodilation was calculated as the percentage rise in FEV1 from the prechallenge FEV1 to the highest FEV1 recorded during the challenge. RESULTS: Frusemide caused a fold increase in PD20 FEV1 compared with the vehicle which was similar in the presence of both indomethacin and placebo (3.7 (95% CI 2.0 to 7.3) versus 3.3 (2.0 to 5.4)). Frusemide, but not vehicle, also caused a transient percentage rise in FEV1 during challenge with 4.5% NaCl which was not blocked by indomethacin (3.6% (1.2 to 6.0)) or placebo (3.1% (1.0 to 5.2)). CONCLUSIONS: Inhaled frusemide inhibited airway narrowing and caused a transient increase in FEV1 during challenge with 4.5% NaCl. These effects were not blocked by indomethacin, which suggests that the inhibitory action of frusemide is not secondary to prostaglandin release.


     

Comparative bronchial responses to hyperosmolar saline and methacholine in asthma.

Airway responsiveness to inhaled methacholine and to ultrasonically nebulised hyperosmolar saline was compared in 20 asthmatic subjects. Each subject had two hyperosmolar inhalation tests and a methacholine challenge in random order at least 48 hours apart over a period of two weeks. Hyperosmolar challenge, carried out with doubling concentrations of saline from 0.9% to 14.4% to obtain a dose-response curve, was well tolerated by all subjects. The response to hyperosmolar saline--expressed as the PO20, the osmolarity inducing a 20% fall in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) was obtained in 16 of the 20 subjects and in each was repeatable to within one doubling concentration of saline. The peak bronchoconstrictor effect of hyperosmolar saline inhalation occurred at 3 minutes and its mean total duration (FEV1 less than 90% of baseline) was 50 minutes. There was no significant correlation between the PO20 and the PC20 methacholine (the concentration inducing a 20% fall in FEV1). Thus by using a new method to obtain a quantitative airway response to inhaled hyperosmolar saline we found that the airway response to hyperosmolar inhalation differs from the airway response to methacholine.     

Effect of an oral potassium channel activator, BRL 38227, on airway function and responsiveness in asthmatic patients: comparison with oral salbutamol.

BACKGROUND: Potassium (K+) channel activators, such as cromakalim, open ATP sensitive K+ channels and relax airway smooth muscle in vitro and inhibit induced bronchoconstriction in vivo in animals. The prolonged half life of cromakalim gives it potential as an oral bronchodilator. The effect of orally administered BRL 38227 (the active enantiomer of cromakalim), at doses of 0.125, 0.25, and 0.5 mg, on airway function and airway responsiveness to histamine and methacholine has been investigated in asthmatic patients. METHODS: Seventeen patients with asthma were studied in three separate randomised double blind, placebo controlled studies. In the first study eight patients with moderately severe asthma were given 0.125, 0.25, and 0.5 mg of BRL 38227 or placebo, and responses to histamine were assessed before and five hours after treatment. In the second study responses to methacholine were measured before and five hours after 0.125 and 0.5 mg of BRL 38227 or placebo were given to nine patients with mild asthma. In the third study the effect of 0.5 mg of BRL 38227 or placebo was assessed in eight patients with mild asthma. Responses to histamine were measured before treatment and two and five hours after treatment. To provide a positive control study eight subjects who had taken part in studies 1 and 3 were also given oral salbutamol (8 mg) in a placebo controlled, double blind study. Responses to histamine were assessed before and two hours after treatment. RESULTS: BRL 38227 did not cause significant bronchodilatation or changes in airway responsiveness in any of the studies. Headache was reported in 19 of 25 of patients receiving (in some cases twice) 0.5 mg of BRL 38227. By contrast, oral salbutamol gave significant protection against histamine challenge (geometric mean 2.23 doubling dilutions). CONCLUSIONS: After a single oral dose of BRL 38227 no beneficial effect on airway function was detected, despite a high incidence of side effects, which indicates that the orally administered K+ channel activator BRL 38227 may not be useful in the management of asthma.     

Effects of propranolol inhalation on the diurnal increase in FEV1 and on propranolol airways responsiveness in atopic subjects with asthma.

BACKGROUND--Propranolol inhalation provocation tests are used to measure indirect airways responsiveness in the investigation of asthma. In this study the effects of repeated propranolol inhalation provocation tests within the same day on normal diurnal variation in the forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and subsequent propranolol airways responsiveness were investigated. METHODS--Fifteen atopic asthmatic subjects were challenged with doubling concentrations of propranolol at 08.00 and 16.00 hours on the same study day and at 16.00 hours on a control day to exclude changes related to normal diurnal variation. RESULTS--Mean (SD) baseline FEV1 at 16.00 hours on the study day was 3.38 (0.23) 1, significantly lower than the value at 16.00 hours on the control day of 3.70 (0.24) 1 (p = 0.001). No differences were found between the geometric mean provocative concentration of propranolol causing a 20% fall in FEV1 (PC20) measured on the study day (08.00 hours, 9.3 mg/ml; 16.00 hours, 11.3 mg/ml) and on the control day (16.00 hours 9.3 mg/ml). CONCLUSIONS--The results suggest that propranolol provocation at 08.00 hours has a long lasting effect on FEV1, thereby counteracting the normal diurnal increase in diameter of the airways. This makes propranolol challenge tests less suitable for studying indirect airways responsiveness in the course of one day. Because the FEV1 does not return to control values, it is not possible to determine whether tachyphylaxis to repeated propranolol challenge with a time interval of up to eight hours occurs.