Direct and indirect bronchoprovocation tests in dose-response studies of inhaled corticosteroids: Past, present, and future directions.

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are a mainstay of treatment in eosinophilic asthma. Many studies have explored the dose-response effect of different formulations of ICS through direct or indirect bronchoprovocation testing. Such studies are important for investigating efficacy and identifying the relative potency between formulations. However, lack of consistency in methods and designs has hindered the comparability of study findings. This review discusses current knowledge of the dose-response, or lack thereof, of different formulations of ICS through direct and indirect bronchoprovocation testing. The strengths and weaknesses of past studies inform recommendations for future methodological considerations in this field, such as utilizing a randomized double-blind crossover design, enrolling participants likely to respond to ICS therapy, and carefully selecting treatment durations and washout periods to assess incremental improvement in airway hyperresponsiveness while reducing the likelihood of a carryover effect.

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

BACKGROUND: Direct inhalation challenges (e.g. methacholine) are stated to be more sensitive and less specific for a diagnosis of asthma than are indirect challenges (e.g. exercise, non-isotonic aerosols, mannitol, etc.). However, data surrounding comparative sensitivity and specificity for methacholine compared to mannitol challenges are conflicting. When methacholine is inhaled by deep total lung capacity (TLC) inhalations, deep inhalation inhibition of bronchoconstriction leads to a marked loss of diagnostic sensitivity when compared to tidal breathing (TB) inhalation methods. We hypothesized that deep inhalation methacholine methods with resulting bronchoprotection may be the explanation for conflicting sensitivity/specificity data. METHODS: We reviewed 27 studies in which methacholine and mannitol challenges were performed in largely the same individuals. Methacholine was inhaled by dosimeter TLC methods in 13 studies and by tidal breathing in 14 studies. We compared the rates of positive methacholine (stratified by inhalation method) and mannitol challenges in both asthmatics and non-asthmatics. RESULTS: When methacholine was inhaled by TLC inhalations the prevalence of positive tests in asthmatics, 60.2% (548/910), was similar to mannitol, 58.9% (537/912). By contrast, when methacholine was inhaled by tidal breathing the prevalence of positive tests in asthmatics 83.1% (343/413) was more than double that of mannitol, 41.5% (146/351). In non-asthmatics, the two methacholine methods resulted in positive tests in 18.8% (142/756) and 16.2% (27/166) by TLC and TB inhalations respectively. This compares to an overall 8.3% (n = 76) positive rate for mannitol in 913 non-asthmatics. CONCLUSION: These data support the hypothesis that the conflicting data comparing methacholine and mannitol sensitivity and specificity are due to the method of methacholine inhalation. Tidal breathing methacholine methods have a substantially greater sensitivity for a diagnosis of asthma than either TLC dosimeter methacholine challenge methods or mannitol challenge. Methacholine challenges should be performed by tidal breathing as per recent guideline recommendations. Methacholine (more sensitive) and mannitol (more specific) will thus have complementary diagnostic features.

Respiratory Duty Cycles in Individuals With and Without Airway Hyperresponsiveness.

BACKGROUND: The respiratory duty cycle (Ti/Ttot) can influence bronchoprovocation test results and nebulized drug delivery. The Ti/Ttot has not yet been examined in individuals with airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) in typical bronchoprovocation test conditions. This study investigated the mean Ti/Ttot in participants with and without AHR and whether the Ti/Ttot changes with increasing bronchoconstriction. METHODS: Fifteen participants with AHR and fifteen participants without AHR completed this randomized crossover study. An ultrasonic spirometer was used for continuous measurement of the Ti/Ttot as participants inhaled room air or aerosolized solution. Each participant completed two methacholine challenges, one using a continuous-output vibrating mesh nebulizer/ultrasonic spirometer and one with the nebulizer only. Prior to each methacholine challenge, participants inhaled room air and aerosolized saline through the nebulizer/spirometer setup to record baseline Ti/Ttot data. RESULTS: The mean Ti/Ttot findings [95% CIs] during room air inhalation were 0.392 [0.378-0.406] and 0.447 [0.426-0.468] in participants with and without AHR, respectively (P < .001). The mean Ti/Ttot during saline inhalation were 0.389 [0.373-0.405] and 0.424 [0.398-0.450] in participants with and without AHR (P = .040). The Ti/Ttot showed a nonsignificant downward trend with progressive methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction. CONCLUSIONS: The mean Ti/Ttot in participants with AHR closely resembles the assumed Ti/Ttot of 0.40 recommended for standard use when calculating methacholine challenge results. Since the Ti/Ttot did not change significantly over the course of a methacholine challenge, the same Ti/Ttot can be used to calculate the dose of methacholine inhaled, regardless of the level of bronchoconstriction. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03505489; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

The effect of deep inhalation on mannitol responsiveness.

BACKGROUND: Mannitol inhalation testing is specific for asthmatics with eosinophilic airway inflammation, a factor that has been negatively correlated with the development of deep inhalation bronchoprotection. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of deep inhalations on responsiveness to inhaled mannitol in correlation with the degree of airway inflammation. METHODS: Twenty participants with stable asthma completed this randomized, crossover study. A screening visit assessed responsiveness to methacholine and airway inflammation through fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) measures and sputum induction. Participants next completed two mannitol challenges, one with deep inhalations (standard method) and one with inhalations to half of total lung capacity, and two methacholine challenges, one with tidal breathing (standard method) and one with deep inhalations. Only the inhalation technique for dose administration differed between repeat mannitol or methacholine challenges. RESULTS: Deep inhalations did not significantly influence the provocative dose of mannitol causing a 15% fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 second ((P = .73; n = 7) or the mannitol dose-response slope (P = .26; n = 20). Deep inhalations produced significant bronchoprotection against methacholine (P = .03; n = 20). FeNO levels were significantly correlated to sputum eosinophilia (P = .02; n = 15), responsiveness to deep inhalation methacholine (P = .005; n = 20), the dose-response slopes from deep inhalation mannitol (P = .01; n = 20), and the dose-response slope from non-deep inhalation mannitol (P = .005; n = 20). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Deep inhalations did not produce significant bronchoprotection against inhaled mannitol. This result is in agreement with past findings linking airway inflammation with loss of deep inhalation bronchoprotection. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was prospectively registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03505489).

Use of a vibrating mesh nebulizer for allergen challenge.

BACKGROUND: Allergen inhalation tests are a valuable research tool. The allergen dose producing an early asthmatic response (EAR) can be predicted from methacholine responsiveness and allergen skin test endpoint (STE). The Wright® jet nebulizer, which is both inefficient and increasingly difficult to obtain, has been used historically. We assessed the Solo® vibrating mesh nebulizer as an alternative for allergen and methacholine challenges. METHODS: Eighteen mild atopic asthmatics completed the study. Doubling concentration allergen prick skin tests were performed to determine the STE in allergen units/mL. The Wright® protocol was used to measure the methacholine provocation dose causing a 20% forced expired volume in one second (FEV1) fall (PD20) (µg) and the allergen PD20 (units). The Solo® protocol (0.5 mL nebulized to completion, tidal breathing inhalation) was used to determine both methacholine PD20 and allergen PD20. The nebulizer order was randomized and separated by ≥ 2 weeks. RESULTS: All data were log transformed. The allergen PD20, predicted from the methacholine PD20 and the STE, was within 2 doubling doses of the PD20 measured with the Wright® and 2.64 doubling doses of that measured with Solo®. The Wright® allergen PD20 correlated with the Wright® methacholine PD20 (r = 0.74) and the STE (r = 0.78) and more strongly with the product of the two (Wright® methacholine PD20 × STE, r = 0.91, p < 0.00001). The Solo® allergen PD20 showed similar relationships with the Solo® methacholine PD20 (r = 0.61), the STE (r = 0.75) and the product of the two (Solo® methacholine PD20 × STE, r = 0.83, p < 0.00002). The Wright® and the Solo® methacholine geometric mean PD20s were not significantly different (49.3 and 54.5 µg respectively, p = 0.62). The Wright® allergen PD20 was slightly but significantly lower than the Solo® allergen PD20 (geometric means 6.7 and 10.5 units respectively, p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: The Solo® allergen PD20 showed the same relationship with methacholine responsiveness and STE as did the Wright®. The Solo® allergen PD20 was slightly but significantly higher than the Wright® allergen PD20. The Solo® vibrating mesh nebulizer was well tolerated and is an acceptable alternative for allergen challenge.Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03491358.

Short-term effect of once-daily fluticasone furoate on methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction in mild asthmatics.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) decrease airway inflammation and airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR). Previous studies have generally investigated the effect of ICS on methacholine-induced AHR following weeks or months of medium to high dose treatment. PURPOSE: The short-term effects of once-daily fluticasone furoate (FF) 100 mcg on methacholine-induced AHR and airway inflammation were examined over the course of one week. METHODS: Eleven mild asthmatics completed this randomized, double-blind crossover study. Once-daily FF (100 mcg) and identical appearing placebo Ellipta® inhalers were given for 7 days with a 2-week washout. Methacholine challenges were performed before and 24 h after the first, third and seventh doses. Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) was measured initially and at 7 days. RESULTS: FF significantly (p = 0.0009-0.0078) increased methacholine PD20 (provocative dose causing 20% fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 s) at all times. Doubling dose shifts (95% CI) were 1.23 (0.60-1.86), 1.17 (0.68-1.67) and 1.44 (0.93-1.94) after the first, third and seventh dose respectively. FeNO (geometric mean, 95% CI) decreased significantly (p = 0.0049) following FF treatment from 37.9 ppb (23.7-60.5) initially to 22.9 ppb (14.8-35.5) at 7 days. Placebo did not affect methacholine PD20 or FeNO. CONCLUSION: Single-dose FF 100 mcg decreased methacholine AHR at 24 h without significant further improvement with continued daily use over 7 days. The inhibition in AHR after one week of daily dosing coincided with a significant decrease in FeNO at 7 days. Contrary to past assumptions, the ICS FF appears to rapidly reduce AHR to methacholine.

Direct bronchoprovocation test methods: history 1945-2018.

INTRODUCTION: Bronchoprovocation inhalation challenge tests with direct acting stimuli (e.g. methacholine) are widely used clinically to aid in the diagnosis of asthma. Areas covered: The history of direct challenges with histamine and muscarinic agonists is reviewed. This began with parenteral administration of stimuli with responses monitored clinically and by VC, progressing to inhalation dose-response challenges monitored by FEV1 and FEV1/VC ratio, both (the challenge method and the technology to measure FEV1) developed by Robert Tiffeneau in the mid-1940s. Careful standardization of methods has become appreciated albeit after-the-fact. Recent guidelines recommend standardizing the methacholine PD20 at 400 µg above which a methacholine challenge is considered negative. CONCLUSIONS: The methacholine inhalation test is highly sensitive for a diagnosis of current asthma when symptoms under evaluation are clinically current and when methacholine is inhaled without deep inhalations. Under these circumstances, a methacholine PD20 > 400 µg excludes current asthma with reasonable certainty. PD20 values >25 µg and ≤400 µg will have a variable specificity and positive predictive value for asthma which increases the lower the PD20 and the higher the pre-test probability for a diagnosis of asthma. A PD20 ≤25 µg has high specificity and low sensitivity for asthma.

Bronchoprotective effect of vilanterol against methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction in mild asthmatics: A randomized three-way crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Ultra-long-acting ß2 agonists (uLABA) are relatively new anti-asthma medications of which there are three different formulations currently available: olodaterol, indacaterol, and vilanterol. The first 2 formulations have been shown to exert bronchoprotective effects; they are able to prevent airway smooth muscle contraction on exposure to constricting stimuli. However, studies have found that these 2 drugs produce different degrees and durations of bronchoprotection against methacholine. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate the degree of bronchoprotection provided by vilanterol against methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction. METHODS: Fourteen patients with mild-to-moderate asthma (8 male; baseline percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] > 65%; provocative concentration of methacholine causing a 20% reduction in FEV1 [PC20] ≤ 8 mg/mL) completed this randomized, double-blind, 3-way crossover study. Methacholine challenges were performed before treatment administration (placebo, 100 µg fluticasone furoate, or 25 µg vilanterol + 100 µg fluticasone furoate) and at 0.5 and 24 hours posttreatment. Each treatment arm was separated by a minimum 7-day washout period. A combination therapy of vilanterol+fluticasone furoate was used, because vilanterol is not available as a monotherapy. RESULTS: Significant bronchoprotection was evident after the combination treatment at both 0.5 and 24 hours with doubling dose shifts in methacholine PC20 of 2.0 (P = .0004) and 1.6 (P = .0001), respectively. Clinically significant bronchodilation was only recorded at 24 hours after combination treatment (P < .05). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that vilanterol (in combination with fluticasone furoate) provides significant bronchoprotection against methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction for at least 24 hours in patients with mild-to-moderate asthma. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03315000).

Methacholine challenge testing: comparative pharmacology.

Standardization of the methacholine inhalation challenge, the most common direct bronchoprovocation test, is important. One aspect of standardization is the appropriate washout period for pharmacologic agents which affect the response. This review summarizes the available data on pharmacologic inhibition of the methacholine response. Specific (anti-muscarinic) agents demonstrate marked bronchoprotection (up to 7 days for the long-acting drugs) which lasts longer than the duration of bronchodilation. The functional antagonist (beta 2 agonist class of medications) shows marked, but less, bronchoprotection which is relatively short lived and is similar to the duration of bronchodilator efficacy. Tolerance develops quickly, especially to the long-acting agents. Single doses of controller medications, such as inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and leukotriene receptor antagonists, have no effect on the methacholine test, while regular use, at least for ICS, has a modest protective effect whose duration is uncertain and likely variable. Theophylline has a small effect and H1 blockers (all generations) have a negligible effect.

Methacholine Challenge: Comparison of Airway Responsiveness Produced by a Vibrating Mesh Nebulizer Versus a Jet Nebulizer.

BACKGROUND: The latest methacholine challenge testing (MCT) guidelines published by the European Respiratory Society recommend the characterization of nebulizers before their use in clinics and research. Such investigations are necessary for accurately determining the provocative dose of methacholine causing a 20% fall in FEV1 (PD20) delivered by a given device. The standard English Wright (Wright) jet nebulizer recommended in the 1999 guidelines by the American Thoracic Society has become difficult to obtain and possesses some characteristics that complicate the calculation of dose delivery from this device (e.g. evaporation). Our objective was to determine if the Aerogen® Solo (Solo) vibrating mesh nebulizer provides similar methacholine challenge test results compared to the currently used Wright jet nebulizer. METHODS: Sixty mild-to-moderate asthmatics were studied across three research sites in a randomized crossover study. Both methacholine challenges were completed at least 24 hours apart within a 2-week period. Testing with the Wright device was performed as per the 2-minute tidal breathing protocol. The Solo study arm followed the same procedure except for a shorter inhalation time of 1 minute. The provocative concentration of methacholine causing a 20% fall in FEV1 (PC20) and the methacholine PD20 were calculated following each methacholine challenge. RESULTS: The geometric mean methacholine PC20 values for the Solo and the Wright differed statistically (0.65 mg/mL vs. 2.58 mg/mL, respectively, p < 0.00001) and clinically. Between-nebulizer geometric mean methacholine PD20 results are comparable by clinical standards [81.7 µg (Solo) vs. 64.7 µg (Wright)], although the slight difference in dose was statistically significant (p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: The comparability of PD20 values between the Solo and the Wright validates the importance of reporting airway responsiveness to methacholine in terms of dose and not concentration, as stressed in the latest testing guidelines. This finding along with several benefits associated with the Solo make it a promising nebulizer for performing MCT.

Methacholine Challenge Testing: A Novel Method for Measuring PD20.

BACKGROUND: New guidelines for methacholine challenge testing recommend reporting the test outcome as dose rather than concentration. Jet nebulizers have historically been used for methacholine challenge testing, but much of the weight loss, often (incorrectly) referred to as aerosol output, is actually evaporation. The Wright nebulizer is well characterized and still widely used, but its availability is unclear, and it is nondisposable. We developed a novel method using a vibrating mesh nebulizer (Solo). This method was compared with the standard 2-min tidal breathing method using the Wright nebulizer. Repeatability within and between nebulizers was also tested. METHODS: Fifteen patients with mild asthma completed four methacholine challenges (two with the Solo vibrating mesh nebulizer and two with the Wright jet nebulizer). Challenges with the same nebulizer were 24 h apart, and challenges between nebulizers were separated by 1 week. Standard 2-min tidal breathing methods were used with the Wright nebulizer. For the Solo nebulizer, the tidal breathing method was modified by nebulizing to completion 0.5 mL of doubling concentrations of methacholine at 5-min intervals. RESULTS: Geometric mean methacholine doses required to cause a 20% fall in FEV1 were similar (96 vs 110 µg; P > .05); methacholine concentrations that caused a 20% fall in FEV1 were significantly lower with the vibrating mesh nebulizer (0.48 vs 4.4 mg/mL; P < .001). Repeatability of methacholine doses required to cause a 20% fall in FEV1 within and between nebulizers was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.92). CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a novel, simple, repeatable method for conducting methacholine challenges using new nebulizer technology. Importantly, the method meets recommendations set out in the new guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: 02965482; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

The effect of glycopyrronium and indacaterol, as monotherapy and in combination, on the methacholine dose-response curve of mild asthmatics: a randomized three-way crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Methacholine dose-response curves illustrate pharmacologic bronchoprotection against methacholine-induced airway hyperresponsiveness and can be used to quantitate changes in airway sensitivity (position), reactivity (slope), and maximal responsiveness following drug administration. Our objective was to determine the influence of single-dose glycopyrronium (long-acting muscarinic antagonist) and indacaterol (ultra-long acting ß2 agonist), as monotherapy and in combination, on the methacholine dose-response curve of mild asthmatics and to compare these findings with a non-asthmatic control curve. METHODS: This was a randomized, double blind, double dummy, three-way crossover study. For asthmatic participants (n = 14), each treatment arm included a baseline methacholine challenge, drug administration, and repeat methacholine challenges at 1, 24, and 48 h. Non-asthmatic control participants (n = 15) underwent a single methacholine challenge and did not receive any study treatment. Methacholine dose-response curves were graphed as the percent fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) for each methacholine concentration administered. Best-fit curves were then generated. Differences in airway reactivity were calculated through linear regression. Changes in airway sensitivity were assessed as the shift in the provocative concentration of methacholine causing a 20% fall in FEV1. RESULTS: Compared to baseline, all treatments significantly reduced airway sensitivity to methacholine at 1 h post-dose (indacaterol ~1.5 doubling concentrations; glycopyrronium ~5 doubling concentrations; combination ~5 doubling concentrations). Bronchoprotection at 24 and 48 h remained significant with glycopyrronium and combination therapy only. Airway reactivity was not influenced by indacaterol whereas glycopyrronium significantly reduced airway reactivity at all time-points (p = 0.003-0.027). The combination significantly decreased slope at 1 (p = 0.021) and 24 (p = 0.039) hours only. The non-asthmatic control and 1-h glycopyrronium curves are nearly identical. Only the non-asthmatic control and 1-h post-combination therapy curves appeared to generate a true response plateau (three data points within 5%), which occurred at a 14% fall in FEV1. CONCLUSIONS: Methacholine dose-response curves differentiate the bronchoprotective mechanisms triggered by different classes of asthma medications. Assessment of bronchoprotection using methacholine dose-response curves may be useful during clinical development of respiratory medications when performing superiority, equivalence, or non-inferiority trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT02953041 ). Retrospectively registered on October 24th 2016.

Duration of bronchoprotection of the long-acting muscarinic antagonists tiotropium & glycopyrronium against methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction in mild asthmatics.

UNLABELLED: The duration of bronchoprotection against methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction by long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA's) in asthmatics and whether these drugs differ in their pharmacodynamic properties remain to be determined. The most recent published guidelines for methacholine challenge testing (MCT) suggest that LAMA's should be abstained from for 48 h prior to testing, perhaps one week in the case of tiotropium. The objectives were to determine and compare the duration of protection of a single dose of two different LAMA's, tiotropium and glycopyrronium, against methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction. Thirteen mild-to-moderate asthmatics [with a forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) > 65% of predicted and a baseline methacholine provocation concentration causing a 20% reduction in FEV1 (PC20) ≤ 8 mg/mL] completed this double-blind, double-dummy, crossover study. Methacholine challenges were performed before treatment (5 µg tiotropium or 50 µg glycopyrronium) and at 1, 24, 48, 72, 96 and 168 h post-treatment. The minimum duration between treatment administration was 11 days. Both drugs provided significant bronchoprotection, each producing greater than a 16-fold increase in mean PC20 by 1 h. Tiotropium still provided statistically significant protection at 7 days (p = 0.0282) while glycopyrronium provided bronchoprotection until day 7 (p = 0.0590). Tiotropium provided statistically superior bronchoprotection at 24 and 72 h compared to glycopyrronium. To minimize the occurrence of false negatives, MCT guidelines should be updated to recommend a minimum one-week abstinence period from all LAMA's. MCT was also able to statistically differentiate between tiotropium and glycopyrronium with respect to the degree and duration of bronchoprotection provided by each. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02622243.