Journal
JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY-IN PRACTICE
Volume 8, Issue 7, Pages 2156-2164Publisher
ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.03.034
Keywords
Exercise-induced bronchoconstriction; Asthma; Bronchial provocation test; Eucapnic voluntary hyperpnea; Mannitol; Methacholine
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) occurs in patients with asthma, children, and otherwise healthy athletes. Poor diagnostic accuracy of respiratory symptoms during exercise requires objective assessment of EIB. The standardized tests currently available are based on the assumption that the provoking stimulus to EIB is dehydration of the airway surface fluid due to conditioning large volumes of inhaled air. Indirect bronchial provocation tests that use stimuli to cause endogenous release of bronchoconstricting mediators from airway inflammatory cells include dry air hyperpnea (eg, exercise and eucapnic voluntary hyperpnea) and osmotic aerosols (eg, inhaled mannitol). The airway response to different indirect tests is generally similar in patients with asthma and healthy athletes with EIB. Furthermore, the airway sensitivity to these tests is modified by the same pharmacotherapy used to treat asthma. In contrast, pharmacological agents such as methacholine, given by inhalation, act directly on smooth muscle to cause contraction. These direct tests have been used traditionally to identify airway hyperresponsiveness in clinical asthma but are less useful to diagnose EIB. The mechanistic differences between indirect and direct tests have helped to elucidate the events leading to airway narrowing in patients with asthma and elite athletes, while improving the clinical utility of these tests to diagnose and manage EIB. (C) 2020 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available