ASTRALogy: Unrealistic Expectations?

Revascularization versus medical therapy for renal-arter

Comparison of mannitol and methacholine to predict exercise-induced bronchoconstriction and a clinical diagnosis of asthma

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Asthma can be difficult to diagnose, but bronchial provocation with methacholine, exercise or mannitol is helpful when used to identify bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR), a key feature of the disease. The utility of these tests in subjects with signs and symptoms of asthma but without a clear diagnosis has not been investigated. We investigated the sensitivity and specificity of mannitol to identify exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) as a manifestation of BHR; compared this with methacholine; and compared the sensitivity and specificity of mannitol and methacholine for a clinician diagnosis of asthma.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>509 people (6–50 yr) were enrolled, 78% were atopic, median FEV₁92.5% predicted, and a low NAEPPII asthma score of 1.2. Subjects with symptoms of seasonal allergy were excluded. BHR to exercise was defined as a ≥ 10% fall in FEV₁on at least one of two tests, to methacholine a PC₂₀≤ 16 mg/ml and to mannitol a 15% fall in FEV₁at ≤ 635 mg or a 10% fall between doses. The clinician diagnosis of asthma was made on examination, history, skin tests, questionnaire and response to exercise but they were blind to the mannitol and methacholine results.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Mannitol and methacholine were therapeutically equivalent to identify EIB, a clinician diagnosis of asthma, and prevalence of BHR. The sensitivity/specificity of mannitol to identify EIB was 59%/65% and for methacholine it was 56%/69%. The BHR was mild. Mean EIB % fall in FEV₁in subjects positive to exercise was 19%, (SD 9.2), mannitol PD₁₅158 (CI:129,193) mg, and methacholine PC₂₀2.1(CI:1.7, 2.6)mg/ml. The prevalence of BHR was the same: for exercise (43.5%), mannitol (44.8%), and methacholine (41.6%) with a test agreement between 62 & 69%. The sensitivity and specificity for a clinician diagnosis of asthma was 56%/73% for mannitol and 51%/75% for methacholine. The sensitivity increased to 73% and 72% for mannitol and methacholine when two exercise tests were positive.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In this group with normal FEV₁, mild symptoms, and mild BHR, the sensitivity and specificity for both mannitol and methacholine to identify EIB and a clinician diagnosis of asthma were equivalent, but lower than previously documented in well-defined populations.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>This was a multi-center trial comprising 25 sites across the United States of America. (NCT0025229).</p

Airway resistance at maximum inhalation as a marker of asthma and airway hyperresponsiveness

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Asthmatics exhibit reduced airway dilation at maximal inspiration, likely due to structural differences in airway walls and/or functional differences in airway smooth muscle, factors that may also increase airway responsiveness to bronchoconstricting stimuli. The goal of this study was to test the hypothesis that the minimal airway resistance achievable during a maximal inspiration (R_min) is abnormally elevated in subjects with airway hyperresponsiveness.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The R_minwas measured in 34 nonasthmatic and 35 asthmatic subjects using forced oscillations at 8 Hz. R_minand spirometric indices were measured before and after bronchodilation (albuterol) and bronchoconstriction (methacholine). A preliminary study of 84 healthy subjects first established height dependence of baseline R_minvalues.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Asthmatics had a higher baseline R_min% predicted than nonasthmatic subjects (134 ± 33 vs. 109 ± 19 % predicted, p = 0.0004). Sensitivity-specificity analysis using receiver operating characteristic curves indicated that baseline R_minwas able to identify subjects with airway hyperresponsiveness (PC₂₀< 16 mg/mL) better than most spirometric indices (Area under curve = 0.85, 0.78, and 0.87 for R_min% predicted, FEV₁% predicted, and FEF_25-75% predicted, respectively). Also, 80% of the subjects with baseline R_min< 100% predicted did not have airway hyperresponsiveness while 100% of subjects with R_min> 145% predicted had hyperresponsive airways, regardless of clinical classification as asthmatic or nonasthmatic.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>These findings suggest that baseline R_min, a measurement that is easier to perform than spirometry, performs as well as or better than standard spirometric indices in distinguishing subjects with airway hyperresponsiveness from those without hyperresponsive airways. The relationship of baseline R_minto asthma and airway hyperresponsiveness likely reflects a causal relation between conditions that stiffen airway walls and hyperresponsiveness. In conjunction with symptom history, R_mincould provide a clinically useful tool for assessing asthma and monitoring response to treatment.</p

Reference values for methacholine reactivity (SAPALDIA study)

BACKGROUND: The distribution of airway responsiveness in a general population of non-smokers without respiratory symptoms has not been established, limiting its use in clinical and epidemiological practice. We derived reference equations depending on individual characteristics (i.e., sex, age, baseline lung function) for relevant percentiles of the methacholine two-point dose-response slope. METHODS: In a reference sample of 1567 adults of the SAPALDIA cross-sectional survey (1991), defined by excluding subjects with respiratory conditions, responsiveness during methacholine challenge was quantified by calculating the two-point dose-response slope (O'Connor). Weighted L1-regression was used to estimate reference equations for the 95(th ), 90(th ), 75(th )and 50(th )percentiles of the two-point slope. RESULTS: Reference equations for the 95(th ), 90(th ), 75(th )and 50(th )percentiles of the two-point slope were estimated using a model of the form a + b* Age + c* FEV(1 )+ d* (FEV(1))(2 ), where FEV(1 )corresponds to the pre-test (or baseline) level of FEV(1). For the central half of the FEV(1 )distribution, we used a quadratic model to describe the dependence of methacholine slope on baseline FEV(1). For the first and last quartiles of FEV(1), a linear relation with FEV(1 )was assumed (i.e., d was set to 0). Sex was not a predictor term in this model. A negative linear association with slope was found for age. We provide an Excel file allowing calculation of the percentile of methacholine slope of a subject after introducing age – pre-test FEV(1 )– and results of methacholine challenge of the subject. CONCLUSION: The present study provides equations for four relevant percentiles of methacholine two-point slope depending on age and baseline FEV(1 )as basic predictors in an adult reference population of non-obstructive and non-atopic persons. These equations may help clinicians and epidemiologists to better characterize individual or population airway responsiveness

52-week efficacy and safety of telbivudine with conditional tenofovir intensification at week 24 in HBeAg-positive chronic Hepatitis B

Background and Aims: The Roadmap concept is a therapeutic framework in chronic hepatitis B for the intensification of nucleoside analogue monotherapy based on early virologic response. The efficacy and safety of this approach applied to telbivudine treatment has not been investigated. Methods: A multinational, phase IV, single-arm open-label study (ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT00651209) was undertaken in HBeAg-positive, nucleoside-naive adult patients with chronic hepatitis B. Patients received telbivudine (600 mg once-daily) for 24 weeks, after which those with undetectable serum HBV DNA (<300 copies/mL) continued to receive telbivudine alone while those with detectable DNA received telbivudine plus tenofovir (300 mg once-daily). Outcomes were assessed at Week 52. Results: 105 patients commenced telbivudine monotherapy, of whom 100 were included in the efficacy analysis. Fifty-five (55%) had undetectable HBV DNA at Week 24 and continued telbivudine monotherapy; 45 (45%) received tenofovir intensification. At Week 52, the overall proportion of undetectable HBV DNA was 93% (93/100) by last-observation-carried-forward analysis (100% monotherapy group, 84% intensification group) and no virologic breakthroughs had occurred. ALT normalization occurred in 77% (87% monotherapy, 64% intensification), HBeAg clearance in 43% (65% monotherapy, 16% intensification), and HBeAg seroconversion in 39% (62% monotherapy, 11% intensification). Six patients had HBsAg clearance. Myalgia was more common in the monotherapy group (19% versus 7%). No decrease in the mean glomerular filtration rate occurred in either treatment group at Week 52. Conclusions: Telbivudine therapy with tenofovir intensification at Week 24, where indicated by the Roadmap strategy, appears effective and well tolerated for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT0065120

Inhalation of the Rho-kinase inhibitor Y-27632 reverses allergen-induced airway hyperresponsiveness after the early and late asthmatic reaction

BACKGROUND: In guinea pigs, we have previously demonstrated that the contribution of Rho-kinase to airway responsiveness in vivo and ex vivo is enhanced after active sensitization with ovalbumin (OA). Using conscious, unrestrained OA-sensitized guina pigs, we now investigated the role of Rho-kinase in the development of airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) after the allergen-induced early (EAR) and late asthmatic reaction (LAR) in vivo. METHODS: Histamine and PGF(2α )PC(100)-values (provocation concentrations causing 100% increase in pleural pressure) were assessed before OA-challenge (basal airway responsiveness) and after the OA-induced EAR (5 h after challenge) and LAR (23 h after challenge). Thirty minutes later, saline or the specific Rho-kinase inhibitor Y-27632 (5 mM, nebulizer concentration) were nebulized, after which PC(100)-values were reassessed. RESULTS: In contrast to saline, Y-27632 inhalation significantly decreased the basal responsiveness toward histamine and PGF(2α )before OA-challenge, as indicated by increased PC(100 )-values. Both after the allergen-induced EAR and LAR, AHR to histamine and PGF(2α )was present, which was reversed by Y-27632 inhalation. Moreover, there was an increased effectiveness of Y-27632 to reduce airway responsiveness to histamine and PGF(2α )after the EAR and LAR as compared to pre-challenge conditions. Saline inhalations did not affect histamine or PGF(2α )PC(100)-values at all. Interestingly, under all conditions Y-27632 was significantly more effective in reducing airway responsiveness to PGF(2α )as compared to histamine. Also, there was a clear tendency (P = 0.08) to a more pronounced degree of AHR after the EAR for PGF(2α )than for histamine. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that inhalation of the Rho-kinase inhibitor Y-27632 causes a considerable bronchoprotection to both histamine and PGF(2α). Moreover, the results are indicative of a differential involvement of Rho-kinase in the agonist-induced airway obstruction in vivo. Increased Rho-kinase activity contributes to the allergen-induced AHR to histamine and PGF(2α )after both the EAR and the LAR, which is effectively reversed by inhalation of Y-27632. Therefore, Rho-kinase can be considered as a potential pharmacotherapeutical target in allergic asthma