Clinical analysis of the "small plateau" sign on the flow-volume curve followed by deep learning automated recognition.

BACKGROUND: Small plateau (SP) on the flow-volume curve was found in parts of patients with suspected asthma or upper airway abnormalities, but it lacks clear scientific proof. Therefore, we aimed to characterize its clinical features. METHODS: We involved patients by reviewing the bronchoprovocation test (BPT) and bronchodilator test (BDT) completed between October 2017 and October 2020 to assess the characteristics of the sign. Patients who underwent laryngoscopy were assigned to perform spirometry to analyze the relationship of the sign and upper airway abnormalities. SP-Network was developed to recognition of the sign using flow-volume curves. RESULTS: Of 13,661 BPTs and 8,168 BDTs completed, we labeled 2,123 (15.5%) and 219 (2.7%) patients with the sign, respectively. Among them, there were 1,782 (83.9%) with the negative-BPT and 194 (88.6%) with the negative-BDT. Patients with SP sign had higher median FVC and FEV1% predicted (both P < .0001). Of 48 patients (16 with and 32 without the sign) who performed laryngoscopy and spirometry, the rate of laryngoscopy-diagnosis upper airway abnormalities in patients with the sign (63%) was higher than those without the sign (31%) (P = 0.038). SP-Network achieved an accuracy of 95.2% in the task of automatic recognition of the sign. CONCLUSIONS: SP sign is featured on the flow-volume curve and recognized by the SP-Network model. Patients with the sign are less likely to have airway hyperresponsiveness, automatic visualizing of this sign is helpful for primary care centers where BPT cannot available.

[Recommendations for performing specific inhalation challenge tests: Polish experience in relation to the European Respiratory Society guideliness]. / Wytyczne do przeprowadzania swoistych wziewnych testów prowokacyjnych: stanowisko Europejskiego Towarzystwa Chorób Ukladu Oddechowego (ERS) w kontekscie polskich doswiadczen.

A diagnosis of occupational diseases implicates some medical and legal consequences; therefore, the most specific and objective methods are needed in the diagnostic process. Specific inhalation challenge (SIC) tests currently play an irreplaceable role in diagnosing allergic airway diseases (e.g., allergic rhinitis, asthma) as well as allergic conjunctivitis and systemic reactions, also the occupational ones. In 2014, a team of the European Respiratory Society experts published a statement that provides practical recommendations for performing SIC tests in diagnosing occupational asthma. In the current publication, the authors discuss the European guidelines in the context of Polish experience of the reference center - the Department of Occupational Diseases and Environmental Health, the Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine in Lódz. The article describes the procedures and diagnostic criteria employed during SIC tests in diagnosing occupational asthma. Med Pr. 2020;71(3):381-97.

Measurement of bronchial hyperreactivity: comparison of three Nordic dosimetric methods.

Clinical testing of bronchial hyperreactivity (BHR) provides valuable information in asthma diagnostics. Nevertheless, the test results depend to a great extent on the testing procedure: test substance, apparatus and protocol. In Nordic countries, three protocols predominate in the testing field: Per Malmberg, Nieminen and Sovijärvi methods. However, knowledge of their equivalence is limited. We aimed to find equivalent provocative doses (PD) to obtain similar bronchoconstrictive responses for the three protocols. We recruited 31 patients with suspected asthma and health care workers and performed BHR testing with methacholine according to Malmberg and Nieminen methods, and with histamine according to Sovijärvi. We obtained the individual response-dose slopes for each method and predicted equivalent PD values. Applying a mixed-model, we found significant differences in the mean (standard error of mean) response-dose (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1)%/mg): Sovijärvi 7.2 (1.5), Nieminen 13.8 (4.2) and Malmberg 26 (7.3). We found that the earlier reported cut-point values for moderate BHR and marked BHR between the Sovijärvi (PD15) and Nieminen (PD20) methods were similar, but with the Malmberg method a significant bronchoconstrictive reaction was measured with lower PD20 values. We obtained a relationship between slope values and PD (mg) between different methods, useful in epidemiological research and clinical practice.

The sensitivity and specificity of the mannitol bronchial challenge test to identify asthma in different populations: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Asthma is associated with bronchial hyperresponsiveness, assessed by bronchial provocation tests such as the mannitol test. We aimed to assess the data on sensitivity and specificity of the mannitol test in diagnosing asthma. DATA SOURCES: We searched electronically the Medline, Embase and Central databases from 1997 to 2019. STUDY SELECTION: Inclusion criteria were the assessment of the validity of the mannitol test. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2). Data were extracted according to a prespecified list and analysed qualitatively. RESULTS: A total of 27 studies (4589 individuals, age 6–85 years, cross-sectional [n = 18] and case-controlled [n = 9] study design) were included. Overall sensitivity and specificity ranged from 8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1–27) to 100% (95% CI 93–100) and 75% (95% CI 67–82) to 100% (95% CI 85–100). Excluding case-controlled design, studies conducted in a clinical setting showed a range from 19% (95% CI 14–27) to 91% (95% CI 59–100) for sensitivity and from 75% (95% CI 67–82) to 100% (95% CI 80–100) for specificity. Heterogeneity was high owing to differences in the populations examined and the methods used. CONCLUSIONS: Studies on the accuracy of the mannitol test were heterogeneous. Overall specificity was higher than sensitivity and therefore the mannitol test seems to be a suitable diagnostic tool to confirm asthma. However, the high level of heterogeneity among the included studies makes a conclusive statement on the accuracy of the mannitol test difficult and further research is needed. As bronchial provocation tests can be especially useful in patients with an intermediate probability of asthma diagnosis, further studies are needed that include subjects with asthma symptoms but intermediate probability of asthma diagnosis.

Hypersensitivity pneumonitis: A new strategy for serodiagnosis and environmental surveys.

We propose a strategy for serodiagnosis of hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP): 1) question patients about their private or occupational activity, or visit him on site; 2) select panels of six somatic specific antigens appropriate for each type of exposure; 3) and use ELISA to test concomitantly two recombinant antigens highly specific to Farmer's lung, Metalworking-fluid HP, and for Bird fancier's lung. The serodiagnosis provides an immunological argument that may complete radiological, functional lung exploration and clinical features; 4) If the serodiagnosis is negative but the suspicion of HP is strong, a microbial analysis of the patient's specific exposure is conducted; 5) "A la carte" antigens are produced from the microorganisms isolated in the patient's environment sample and tested; 6) Finally, the patient may be asked to undergo a specific inhalation challenge with the offending antigens in a safety cabin, or to avoid his usual environment for a few days.

ERS technical standard on bronchial challenge testing: pathophysiology and methodology of indirect airway challenge testing.

Recently, this international task force reported the general considerations for bronchial challenge testing and the performance of the methacholine challenge test, a "direct" airway challenge test. Here, the task force provides an updated description of the pathophysiology and the methods to conduct indirect challenge tests. Because indirect challenge tests trigger airway narrowing through the activation of endogenous pathways that are involved in asthma, indirect challenge tests tend to be specific for asthma and reveal much about the biology of asthma, but may be less sensitive than direct tests for the detection of airway hyperresponsiveness. We provide recommendations for the conduct and interpretation of hyperpnoea challenge tests such as dry air exercise challenge and eucapnic voluntary hyperpnoea that provide a single strong stimulus for airway narrowing. This technical standard expands the recommendations to additional indirect tests such as hypertonic saline, mannitol and adenosine challenge that are incremental tests, but still retain characteristics of other indirect challenges. Assessment of airway hyperresponsiveness, with direct and indirect tests, are valuable tools to understand and to monitor airway function and to characterise the underlying asthma phenotype to guide therapy. The tests should be interpreted within the context of the clinical features of asthma.

[Guidelines for methacholine provocation testing]. / Recommandations pour le test de provocation bronchique à la méthacholine en pratique clinique, à partir de l'âge scolaire.

Bronchial challenge with the direct bronchoconstrictor agent methacholine is commonly used for the diagnosis of asthma. The "Lung Function" thematic group of the French Pulmonology Society (SPLF) elaborated a series of guidelines for the performance and the interpretation of methacholine challenge testing, based on French clinical guideline methodology. Specifically, guidelines are provided with regard to the choice of judgment criteria, the management of deep inspirations, and the role of methacholine bronchial challenge in the care of asthma, exercise-induced asthma, and professional asthma.

Standardizing dose in dosimetric bronchial challenge tests.

Recent technical recommendations on bronchial challenge testing aim at standardized assessment of provocative dose of causing 20% decrease in FEV1 (PD20). The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of mode of nebulization on the output of a computerized dosimeter (APS) and to compare PD20 obtained by two different dosimetric systems in vivo. The output of the APS system was tested during continuous nebulization, and using simulated breaths, for intermittent actuations with four different durations. Using output data, a modified methacholine challenge protocol was applied for APS and compared with a standard set-up using Spira dosimeter in 14 asthmatic patients attending duplicate methacholine challenges using both systems, within median (range) 3 (1-6) days apart. The calculated output (mg min-1 ) with all the intermittent mode settings was significantly higher (P<0·001) than in the continuous mode, and in the intermittent mode, the output was dependent of the pulse duration. The PD20 values assessed with the APS and Spira systems were significantly correlated (r = 0·69; P<0·007), without systematic difference in the geometric means (P = 0·10). A moderate to good agreement was found for assessment of significant hyperresponsiveness. The results suggest that in dosimetric systems for bronchial challenge tests, the output of the nebulizer is dependent on the mode of nebulization, and this should be considered when standardizing the dose between devices and protocols. As long as the delivered dose is determined for the specified nebulization mode of the protocol, it may be possible to obtain comparable results between different devices.

Pro and Contra: Provocation Tests in Drug Hypersensitivity.

Drug provocation test (DPT) is the controlled administration of a drug to diagnose immune- or non-immune-mediated drug hypersensitivity and the last step for accurate recognition of drug hypersensitivity reactions when the previous diagnostic evaluations are negative or unavailable. A DPT is performed only if other conventional tests fail to yield conclusive results. In each clinical presentation, "to provoke or not to provoke" a patient should be decided after careful assessment of the risk-benefit ratio. Well-defined benefits of DPT include confirmative exclusion of diagnoses of drug hypersensitivity and provision of safe alternatives. However, disadvantages such as safety, difficulty in interpretations of results, lack of objective biomarkers, risks of resensitization, efficiency in daily practice, and lack of standardized protocols, are poorly debated. This review summarizes the current published research concerning DPT, with particular emphasis on the advantages and disadvantages of DPT in an evidence-based manner.

ERS technical standard on bronchial challenge testing: general considerations and performance of methacholine challenge tests.

This international task force report updates general considerations for bronchial challenge testing and the performance of the methacholine challenge test. There are notable changes from prior recommendations in order to accommodate newer delivery devices. Rather than basing the test result upon a methacholine concentration (provocative concentration (PC20) causing a 20% fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)), the new recommendations base the result upon the delivered dose of methacholine causing a 20% fall in FEV1 (provocative dose (PD20)). This end-point allows comparable results from different devices or protocols, thus any suitable nebuliser or dosimeter may be used, so long as the delivery characteristics are known. Inhalation may be by tidal breathing using a breath-actuated or continuous nebuliser for 1 min (or more), or by a dosimeter with a suitable breath count. Tests requiring maximal inhalations to total lung capacity are not recommended because the bronchoprotective effect of a deep breath reduces the sensitivity of the test.

Minimal impact of extensive heating of hen's egg and cow's milk in a food matrix on threshold dose-distribution curves.

We analyzed reaction threshold data from 352 children undergoing open food challenges to hen's egg or cow's milk, either fresh or extensively heated into a muffin. There was no significant shift in dose-distribution curves due to the baking process, implying that existing threshold data for these allergens can be applied to allergen risk management, even when these allergens are heat-processed into baked foods.

Specific inhalation challenge in the diagnosis of occupational asthma: consensus statement.

This consensus statement provides practical recommendations for specific inhalation challenge (SIC) in the diagnosis of occupational asthma. They are derived from a systematic literature search, a census of active European centres, a Delphi conference and expert consensus. This article details each step of a SIC, including safety requirements, techniques for delivering agents, and methods for assessing and interpreting bronchial responses. The limitations of the procedure are also discussed. Testing should only be carried out in hospitals where physicians and healthcare professionals have appropriate expertise. Tests should always include a control challenge, a gradual increase of exposure to the suspected agent, and close monitoring of the patient during the challenge and for at least 6 h afterwards. In expert centres, excessive reactions provoked by SIC are rare. A positive response is defined by a fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 s ≥ 15% from baseline. Equivocal reactions can sometimes be clarified by finding changes in nonspecific bronchial responsiveness, sputum eosinophils or exhaled nitric oxide. The sensitivity and specificity of SIC are high but not easily quantified, as the method is usually used as the reference standard for the diagnosis of occupational asthma.

Fractional exhaled nitric oxide in the interpretation of specific inhalational challenge tests for occupational asthma.

PURPOSE: Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) measurements are recommended for the assessment of eosinophilic airway inflammation in asthma. Clinically relevant increases in FENO have been reported 24 h after positive specific inhalational challenge (SIC) tests in occupational asthma. We aimed to determine whether positive SICs could be discriminated from control tests, on the basis of change in FENO. METHODS: We reviewed all positive SICs to a variety of agents performed at our institution 2008-2012 and gathered data on age, sex, asthmatic response (immediate/dual/late), smoking status, inhaled corticosteroid usage, and FENO pre- and 24-h postcontrol and positive SIC from each worker. Changes in FENO after positive SICs were compared with control SICs from each worker, by using paired Student's t tests. RESULTS: In 16 workers, negative control challenges were associated with mean changes in FENO of 9 % (95 % CI -1.14 to 19.01) or 1.1 ppb (95 % CI -3.59 to 5.84); 2 of 16 (13 %) workers tested showed increases in FENO that were clinically relevant based on recent guidelines. Subsequent positive SICs were associated with mean changes in FENO of 7 % (95 % CI −15.73 to 29.6) or 2.1 ppb (95 % CI -6.07 to 10.19), which were not significantly different to controls; only 2 of 16 (13 %) workers had FENO changes that were clinically relevant. CONCLUSIONS: FENO changes above the upper confidence limits of ≥20 % or ≥6 ppb may be considered to be outside the range of normality. However, the majority of workers who had clearly positive SICs to common low molecular weight agents also had no statistically or clinically relevant increase in FENO. Therefore, change in FENO does not predict a positive SIC in this group.

Methacholine challenge testing: improved patient comfort with a 2-tiered protocol.

BACKGROUND: The methacholine challenge test (MCT) is a test of bronchial hyperreactivity used as an aid in the diagnosis of asthma. MCT results are reported as the provocation concentration at which the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) decreases 20% (PC20). The requirement for a 20% or greater decrease in FEV1 results in precipitous decreases in FEV1 in some patients. OBJECTIVE: To improve MCT safety without compromising accuracy. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 879 consecutive MCTs (derivation cohort). A novel protocol for MCT was developed and validated in a cohort of 564 MCTs performed in a second institution. RESULTS: In comparison with a PC20 cutoff of less than 8 mg/mL, a provocation concentration at which the FEV1 decreases 10% (PC10) cutoff of 1 mg/mL or less has a sensitivity of 86%, a specificity of 98%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 97%, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 91%. We propose a novel 2-tiered protocol for MCT. If the PC10 is 1 mg/mL or less, bronchial hyperreactivity is present; if the PC10 is greater than 1 mg/mL, the test is continued until the provocative concentration is 8 mg/mL or a 20% decrease in FEV1 is achieved. Compared with the standard protocol, the proposed protocol has a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and overall accuracy of 100%, 98%, 97.6%, 100%, and 99%, respectively. The modified protocol would have enabled us to avoid 26 of 42 cases (62%) in which a 40% or greater decrease in FEV1 occurred and would save 0.65 dose for every MCT performed. The 2-tiered protocol performed well in the validation cohort; sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and overall accuracy were 100%, 98%, 87%, 100%, and 98%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The proposed 2-tiered protocol is accurate, saves time, and avoids precipitous decreases in FEV1.

The interest of FEF(25-75) in evaluating bronchial hyperresponsiveness with the methacholine test.

BACKGROUND: Bronchial hyperresponsiveness is the pathogenic basis of asthma, and measurement of its intensity is investigated using the methacholine provocation test, which not only and particularly evaluates the reduction in FEV1 (PD20) but also takes forced mid-expiratory flow or FEF(25-75) (PD40) into account. The present study aims to evaluate the usefulness of both parameters. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Provocation testing was carried out in 151 patients between 7 and 22 years of age diagnosed with asthma, tracheobronchitis and/or rhinitis, using a short method that allows quantification of the methacholine administered. The subjects were divided into three groups according to the amount of methacholine needed to obtain the mentioned parameters (group 1: ≤1000µg; group 2: 1001-2000µg; group 3: ≥2001µg). RESULTS: Greater variability was recorded for FEF(25-75) than for FEV1. Paired comparison among the three groups for FEV1 proved significant, in the same way as for FEF(25-75) between groups 2 and 3, and 1 and 3, but not between groups 1 and 2. Calculation was made of the amount of methacholine required to obtain PD20 and PD40 from the same dose. Only the significant differences corresponded to the comparison of group 1 versus the rest, with no differences between the means of the total mean values. CONCLUSIONS: The utility of PD20 is more evident, considering the variability of PD40; the latter may be useful in patients with rhinitis or tracheobronchitis when PD20 proves scantly demonstrative.