4.6 Article

Use of continuous positive airway pressure reduces airway reactivity in adults with asthma

Journal

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
Volume 41, Issue 2, Pages 317-322

Publisher

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00059712

Keywords

Bronchial challenge; chronic mechanical strain; continuous positive airway pressure; lung function

Funding

  1. US National Institutes of Health [HL48522]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Asthma is characterised by airway hyperreactivity, which is primarily treated with beta-adrenergic bronchodilators and anti-inflammatory agents. However, mechanical strain during breathing is an important modulator of airway responsiveness and we have previously demonstrated in animal models that continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) resulted in lower in vivo airway reactivity. We now evaluated whether using nocturnal CPAP decreased airway reactivity in clinically-stable adults with asthma. Adults with stable asthma and normal spirometry used nocturnal CPAP (8-10 cmH(2)O) or sham treatment (0-2 cmH(2)O) for 7 days. Spirometry and bronchial challenges were obtained before and after treatment. The primary outcome was the provocative concentration of methacholine causing a 20% fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (PC20). The CPAP group (n=16) had a significant decrease in airway reactivity (change in (Delta)logPC20 0.406, p<0.0017) while the sham group (n=9) had no significant change in airway reactivity (Delta logPC20 0.003, p=0.9850). There was a significant difference in the change in airway reactivity for the CPAP versus the sham group (Delta logPC20 0.41, p<0.043). Our findings indicate that chronic mechanical strain of the lungs produced using nocturnal CPAP for 7 days reduced airway reactivity in clinically stable asthmatics. Future studies of longer duration are required to determine whether CPAP can also decrease asthma symptoms and/or medication usage.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available