Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions

Methacholine inhalation challenge: a shorter, cheaper and safe approach

G. Izbicki, E. Bar-Yishay
European Respiratory Journal 2001 17: 46-51; DOI:
G. Izbicki
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
E. Bar-Yishay
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Figures

  • Tables
  • Fig. 1.—
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 1.—

    Suggested abbreviated protocol. Patients with baseline ratio (BR) ≥80% of predicted, are separated for the initial inhalation step, beyond which the protocol is identical for both groups. *: the next step can follow if the change from baseline forced expiratory volume in one second (ΔFEV1)<10%. ×: Methacholine Challenge Test (MCT) not performed; ✓: MCT performed; IPP: Initial patient population; BR: baseline ratio of forced expiratory volume in one second to forced vital capacity (FEV1/FVCbl).

Tables

  • Figures
  • Table 1—

    Patient anthropometric data and baseline values

    FEV1/FVCblTotal
    ≥0.8<0.8
    Subjects n280169449
    Male153 (55)94 (56)247 (55)
    Age yrs19 (6–72)26 (7–84)19 (6–84)
    FEV1 % pred94.3±11.388.9±12.792.2±11.9
    FEF50 % pred94.3±18.466.2±12.983.7±21.3
    Positive responders155 (55.4)113 (66.7)268 (59.7)
    PD20 µmol1.50 (0.14–17.05)0.94 (0.05–17.31)1.24 (0.08–17.82)
    • Data presented as mean±sd, n (%) or mean (range), except where stated. FEV1: forced expiratory volume in one second; FEV1/FVCbl: baseline ratio of FEV1 to forced vital capacity; % pred: percentage of the predicted value; FEF50: forced expiratory flow at 50% of vital capacity; PD20: provocative dose causing a 20% fall in FEV1

    • data presented as geometric mean (95% confidence interval)

  • Table 2—

    Outcome of the simulated methacholine three-fold dose protocol

    Cumulative dose µmolTotal responders i.e. ΔFEV1>20%Moderate responders i.e. <ΔFEV1 30–40%Severe responders i.e. ΔFEV1>40%
    0.0735 (3.0)1 (0.2)2 (0.4)
    0.126*1 (0.6)*0*0*
    0.21912 (2.7)00
    0.379*17 (3.8)*1 (0.2)*0*
    0.65718 (4.0)6 (1.3)2 (0.4)
    1.137*35 (7.8)*8 (1.8)*1 (0.2)*
    1.97034 (7.6)5 (1.1)4 (0.8)
    3.412*30 (6.7)*7 (1.6)*0*
    5.91042 (9.4)16 (3.6)4 (0.8)
    10.237*32 (7.1)*5 (1.1)*1 (0.2)*
    17.73142 (9.4)3 (0.7)1 (0.2)
    Total268 (59.7)52 (11.6)15 (3.3)
    • Data are presented as number of subjects (percentage of subjects participating at that dose) at each inhalation step, including intermediate steps (indicated by *)

    • since only 169 subjects would have participated in these steps, percentages are out of 169

    • ΔFEV1: the percentage change in forced expiratory volume in one second from baseline

  • Table 3—

    Outcomes of the simulated methacholine three-fold dose protocol for separate groups during early protocol steps

    Cumulative dose µmolFEV1/FVCbl <0.8 (n=169)FEV1/FVCbl ≥0.8 (n=280)
    ΔFEV1 30–40%ΔFEV1 >40%ΔFEV1 30–40%ΔFEV1 >40%
    0.0731 (0.6)2 (1.2)ndnd
    0.126*0*0*ndnd
    0.2190000
    • Data are presented as number of subjects (percentage of subjects participating at that dose) at each inhalation step, including intermediate steps (indicated by *). ΔFEV1: the percentage change in forced expiratory volume in one second from baseline; FEV1/FVCbl: baseline ratio of forced expiratory volume to forced vital capacity; nd: not determined.

PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 17 Issue 1 Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Methacholine inhalation challenge: a shorter, cheaper and safe approach
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
Methacholine inhalation challenge: a shorter, cheaper and safe approach
G. Izbicki, E. Bar-Yishay
European Respiratory Journal Jan 2001, 17 (1) 46-51;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Methacholine inhalation challenge: a shorter, cheaper and safe approach
G. Izbicki, E. Bar-Yishay
European Respiratory Journal Jan 2001, 17 (1) 46-51;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Subjects and methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • Chlamydia pneumoniae immunoglobulin A reactivation and airway inflammation in acute asthma
  • Increased alveolar nitric oxide concentration in asthmatic patients with nocturnal symptoms
  • Efficacy of acupuncture in asthma: systematic review and meta-analysis of published data from 11 randomised controlled trials
Show more Original Articles: Asthma/Allergy

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Reviewers
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • Podcasts
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN:  0903-1936
Online ISSN: 1399-3003

Copyright © 2022 by the European Respiratory Society