ERJ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Order Full text via Infotrieve
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dahlen, B
Right arrow Articles by Zetterstrom, O
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Dahlen, B
Right arrow Articles by Zetterstrom, O
Eur Respir J 1990; 3: 527-534
Copyright © ERS Journals Ltd 1990


Original Articles

Comparison of bronchial and per oral provocation with aspirin in aspirin-sensitive asthmatics

B Dahlen and O Zetterstrom

Oral challenge with acetylsalicylic acid was compared with inhalation of Lysine acetylsalicylic acid (L-ASA) as a means to diagnose aspirin-idiosyncrasy in the airways. On the basis of history and/or clinical findings (asthma, rhinorrhea, nasal polyposis) 22 consecutive patients were challenged by both routes. Ten of these developed significant bronchoconstriction (greater than or equal to 20% drop in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1)) during either challenge, with the same absolute sensitivity for both tests (9/10). During the bronchial provocations, the reactions developed more promptly (20 min vs 1 h after provocation dose) and were limited to the airways. In contrast, the reactions evoked by the oral provocations were often more pronounced, longer lasting and occurrence of generalized symptoms was more common. Accordingly, the oral tests required more extensive drug treatment for reversal, whereas the bronchial provocations always were reversed by inhalation of bronchodilators. The bronchial method thus resulted in considerably shorter test sessions (4 h vs 8 h). The specificity of the bronchial test was indicated by the observation that a control group of 19 asthmatics with comparable severity of disease failed to bronchoconstrict in response to L-ASA. In conclusion, we have found the bronchial provocation method to be easy to interpret and to control, even in severely asthmatic patients. Consequently, bronchial provocation with L-ASA appears particularly useful in the out-patient office or for research on airway responses to ASA in ASA-sensitive asthmatics.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Eur Respir JHome page
G.F. Joos and B. O'Connor
Indirect airway challenges
Eur. Respir. J., June 1, 2003; 21(6): 1050 - 1068.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ThoraxHome page
J Casadevall, P-J Ventura, J Mullol, and C Picado
Intranasal challenge with aspirin in the diagnosis of aspirin intolerant asthma: evaluation of nasal response by acoustic rhinometry
Thorax, November 1, 2000; 55(11): 921 - 924.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Home page
ThoraxHome page
A. Szczeklik and E. Nizankowska
Clinical features and diagnosis of aspirin induced asthma
Thorax, October 1, 2000; 55(90002): 42S - 44.
[Full Text]


Home page
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.Home page
B. DAHLEN
Treatment of Aspirin-intolerant Asthma with Antileukotrienes
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., February 1, 2000; 161(2): S137 - 141.
[Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1990 by the European Respiratory Society.