Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Sandra D Anderson

Publications and source records attributed to Sandra D Anderson.

27 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

Methods for "indirect" challenge tests including exercise, eucapnic voluntary hyperpnea, and hypertonic aerosols.

Bronchial provocation tests that use stimuli that act indirectly to cause airway narrowing have a high specificity for identifying people with active asthma who have the potential to respond to treatment with antiinflammatory drugs. The first test to be developed was exercise and it was used to assess the efficacy of drugs such as sodium cromoglycate. Eucapnic voluntary hyperpnea was developed later, as a surrogate test for exercise. Hypertonic aerosols were introduced to mimic the dehydrating effects of evaporative water loss that occurs during hyperpnea. A wet aerosol of 4.5% saline or a dry powder formulation of mannitol is used. At present the indirect challenge tests are becoming increasingly recognised as appropriate for monitoring treatment with inhaled steroids. Indirect tests identify those with potential for exercise-induced bronchoconstriction, an important problem for some occupations, such as the defence forces, fire fighters and the police force and for some athletic activities. The advantage in using an indirect challenges, over a direct challenge with a single pharmacological agonist, is that a positive response indicates that inflammatory cells and their mediators (prostaglandins, leukotrienes and histamine) are present in the airways in sufficient numbers and concentration to indicate that asthma is active at the time of testing. The corollary to this is that a negative test in a known asthmatic indicates good control or mild disease. Another advantage is that healthy subjects do not have significant airway narrowing to indirect challenge tests. The protocols used for challenge with indirectly acting stimuli are presented in detail.

Adult↗

Mannitol as a challenge test to identify exercise-induced bronchoconstriction in elite athletes.

Bronchial provocation tests provide objective criteria for asthma and exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) and were recommended to justify the use of inhaled beta2-agonists by athletes at the Winter Olympics 2002. Eucapnic voluntary hyperpnea (EVH) was one test recommended to identify EIB. Provocation with EVH requires a special dry gas mixture limiting its availability. Provocation tests with osmotic aerosols require less expensive equipment that is easily portable. We assessed the sensitivity of a challenge with mannitol to identify responsiveness to EVH in 50 elite summer sport athletes who were unselected if they had respiratory symptoms. Asthma was previously diagnosed by a doctor in 27 subjects, and 21 subjects were currently under treatment for EIB or asthma. The mean predicted FEV1 was 103.6 +/- 10.8%, FVC was 99 +/- 13.3%, and mean forced expiratory flow during the middle half of the FVC was 104 +/- 22.7%. A total of 25 subjects were positive to EVH challenge (mean percentage of fall in FEV1 was 25.4 +/- 15% SD), and 26 subjects had a positive mannitol challenge (geometric mean [95% confidence interval] provoking dose causing a 10% fall in forced expiratory volume in one second [PD10] was 202 mg [134, 300], with 24 of the subjects positive to both challenges). Mannitol had a sensitivity of 96% and specificity of 92% to identify a positive response to EVH and, as such, could be used as an alternative to EVH to identify EIB.

Adolescent↗

Exercise-induced asthma in children: a marker of airway inflammation.

What we know: Exercise-induced asthma (EIA) occurs in up to 23% of schoolchildren. In 40% of children with demonstrable EIA, no clinical diagnosis of asthma has been made. Children with asthma and EIA have eosinophils in their sputum, consistent with active asthma. EIA is well controlled in 50%-65% of children with moderate to severe asthma, so that only a minority will need prophylactic therapy immediately before exercise. Beta(2)-agonists are not the most suitable therapy for preventing EIA if they need to be used on a daily basis. The severity of EIA appears to be an indirect index of the severity of airway inflammation. What we need to know: Do non-symptomatic children with EIA require treatment for asthma? Does failure to identify and treat children unaware of their airways narrowing after exercise lead to airflow limitation in the long term, particularly in the small airways? Can exercise, or surrogate tests used to identify EIA, also be used to assess children with asthma? What is the minimum dose of steroid required to inhibit EIA, as high doses of steroids may be inappropriate in children? What is the best prophylactic treatment for EIA in children whose asthma is otherwise well controlled by inhaled steroids? What is the best prophylactic treatment for EIA in children with frequent episodic asthma or mild persistent asthma? Are leukotriene antagonists alone better than beta(2)-agonists alone in preventing EIA throughout the day? How many children taking long-acting beta(2)-agonists twice daily, either alone or in combination with an inhaled steroid, experience breakthrough EIA during school and require rescue medication?

Anti-Asthmatic Agents↗

Bronchial provocation tests: the rationale for using inhaled mannitol as a test for airway hyperresponsiveness.

The use of histamine and methacholine is well established for identifying airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) but the AHR to these agents is not specific for asthma diagnosis. Further, these agents do not identify or exclude exercise-induced asthma (EIA) so they are inappropriate for some occupational and sporting assessments. Measurement of AHR by pharmacological agents has other limitations in that a positive response does not necessarily identify a person who will respond to inhaled steroids and responses do not differentiate between doses of steroids. As most asthmatics remain hyperresponsive to these agents after treatment they have not been useful for guiding steroid dose reduction. Bronchial provocation tests (BPTs) with physical stimuli such as exercise, eucapnic voluntary hyperpnea and hypertonic saline have provided useful information on presence and severity of asthma and EIA. These tests however, can be time consuming and require more resources compared with the pharmacological tests. To simplify testing, a challenge has been developed that uses a dry powder of mannitol administered from a simple hand-held device. The mannitol is given in increasing doses from capsules containing from 5 mg to 40 mg. Mannitol responsiveness identifies people with EIA and those who will respond to inhaled steroids. Mannitol responsiveness is reduced following treatment with inhaled steroids, and some subjects become unresponsive within 6 to 8 weeks. Responsiveness to mannitol can be used to predict risk of exacerbation during back titration of steroids. Should this BPT become more readily available it would be the first to provide a common operating standard for use in the laboratory, office, or field.

Asthma↗

Budesonide reduces sensitivity and reactivity to inhaled mannitol in asthmatic subjects.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to investigate whether treatment using inhaled corticosteroids decreases airway responsiveness to inhaled mannitol in asthmatic subjects. METHODOLOGY: Before treatment or a change in treatment with inhaled corticosteroids, 18 asthmatic subjects had measurements of lung function and airway sensitivity to mannitol taken and they completed a self-administered questionnaire on asthma symptoms. The procedure was repeated 6-9 weeks after taking 800-2400 microg/day of budesonide. RESULTS: There were significant reductions in airway sensitivity (provoking dose to induce a 15% fall in FEV1 (PD15)) and airway reactivity measured by the response dose ratio (RDR; final percentage fall FEV1/total dose of mannitol administered). The PD15 (Gmean (95%CI)) increased from 78 mg (51, 117) before treatment to 289 mg (202, 414) following treatment (P < 0.001). All subjects had a significant increase beyond the repeatability of 0.9 doubling doses with seven subjects becoming unresponsive. There was a 4.2 (3.4, 4.9)-fold improvement in the RDR with the value before the treatment period 0.18 (0.12, 0.28) decreasing to 0.04 (0.03, 0.08) following treatment (P < 0.001). These improvements were associated with significant improvements in lung function and symptom severity. CONCLUSION: Treatment with the inhaled corticosteroid budesonide caused a decrease in airway sensitivity and reactivity to inhaled mannitol and this was associated with expected improvements in lung function and symptoms.

Administration, Inhalation↗

Exercise in elite summer athletes: Challenges for diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: There is a high prevalence of asthma and exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) in elite athletes when the diagnosis is based on symptoms and medication use. Objective measurements are now required by some sporting bodies to support a diagnosis of asthma or EIB to justify use of beta-agonists. Such measurements could include bronchial provocation with methacholine, with eucapnic voluntary hyperpnea (EVH) of dry air (a surrogate for exercise), or both. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to investigate the relationship between asthma symptoms and responses to methacholine and the EVH challenge in a group of unselected elite summer-sport athletes. The outcome would be to inform practitioners of a suitable objective approach to identifying those with asthma and EIB. METHODS: Fifty elite summer-sport athletes with or without asthma were recruited from sporting teams and sports medicine centers throughout Melbourne, Australia. All subjects completed a respiratory questionnaire and, on separate days, underwent a bronchoprovocation challenge test with methacholine and EVH. RESULTS: Forty-two subjects reported one or more respiratory symptoms in the past year, 9 had positive methacholine challenge results (mean PD(20) of 1.69 +/- 2.05 micromol), and 25 had positive EVH challenge results (mean fall in FEV(1) of 25.4% +/- 15%). Although all subjects with positive methacholine challenge results had positive EVH challenge results, methacholine had a negative predictive value of only 61% and a sensitivity of 36% for identifying those responsive to EVH. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that the pathogenesis of EIB in elite athletes might be different from that of asthma, and as such, neither symptoms nor the methacholine challenge test should be used exclusively for identifying EIB.

Adolescent↗

Osmotic stimuli increase clearance of mucus in patients with mucociliary dysfunction.

Mucociliary dysfunction results in mucus accumulation, airway obstruction, bacterial colonization, recurrent infective exacerbations, and an increase in morbidity and mortality. Studies in patients with cystic fibrosis, established that inhalation of hypertonic saline (HS) increases clearance of mucus acutely in a dose-dependent manner. Clearance over 90 min was 23.8 +/- 4.0% and 26.0 +/- 3.1% in response to 7% and 12% saline, which was significantly enhanced compared to 12.7 +/- 1.4% and 19.7 +/- 3.1% in response to 0.9% and 3% saline. Mannitol (approximately 300 mg) inhaled as a dry powder had a marked acute effect in patients with bronchiectasis. Clearance over 75 min was 34.0 +/- 5.0% with mannitol, 17.4 +/- 3.8% with control, and 11.7 +/- 4.4% at baseline. Further studies in patients with bronchiectasis showed that mannitol reduces the 24-h retention of radiolabeled mucus, suggesting that the effect of mannitol extends beyond the acute phase. Mannitol helped patients to clear mucus within 2 h that would have taken 24 h to clear without mannitol. A further study in CF patients showed that mannitol was equally effective as 6% HS at improving ciliary and cough clearance. The total clearance over 120 min with mannitol (27.6 +/- 3.7%) and with HS (31.0 +/- 5.5%) was significantly increased compared to their respective controls (18.6 +/- 3.8% and 20.9 +/- 3.6%). These preliminary results suggest that long-term treatment with HS or mannitol may benefit patients with mucociliary dysfunction.

Bronchiectasis↗

Questionnaire responses that predict airway response to hypertonic saline.

BACKGROUND: Airway hyperresponsiveness to hypertonic saline (HS) is associated with airway inflammation. We investigated if responsiveness to HS was predicted by asthma symptoms in the last 3 months. OBJECTIVES: To investigate if responsiveness to HS can be estimated by questionnaire items investigating asthma symptoms of the last 3 months. METHODS: Six hundred and four patients with physician-diagnosed asthma being assessed for asthma severity were studied. Bronchial provocation with 4.5% saline was performed, and a questionnaire was administered. The response to 4.5% saline was reported as the provoking dose to cause a 15% fall in the forced expiratory volume in 1 s FEV(1) (PD(15)) and the response-dose ratio (RDR). RESULTS: Based on the GINA guidelines, asthma severity was intermittent in 497 patients, mild in 107 patients, moderate in 3 patients and severe in 1 patient. A PD(15) to 4.5% saline was recorded in 234 of the 604. Questions on self-recognition of asthma, dust as a trigger, food as a trigger, and frequency of bronchodilator use were significant predictors for a PD(15), and currently taking steroids decreased the likelihood of a positive response to 4.5% saline. Using a multiple-linear regression model, a difference in the RDR could be calculated between those who answered positively compared with the reference group, who answered negatively. This difference could be used as a guide for predicting abnormal reactivity. An increase in RDR in response to 4.5% saline, compared with the reference group, was demonstrated in the presence of self-recognition of asthma severity, dust and cats as a trigger or use of bronchodilator during sleep hours. CONCLUSIONS: Because of the high positive predictive value of HS for identifying patients with asthma it might be that the need for bronchodilator use at night not only predicts airway hyperresponsiveness to HS, it also could reflect the severity of asthma.

Adolescent↗

Beta2-agonists and exercise-induced asthma.

Beta2-agonists taken immediately before exercise provide significant protection against exercise- induced asthma (EIA) in most patients. However, when they are taken daily, there are some negative aspects regarding severity, control, and recovery from EIA. First, there is a significant minority (15-20%) of asthmatics whose EIA is not prevented by beta2-agonists, even when inhaled corticosteroids are used concomitantly. Second, with daily use, there is a decline in duration of the protective effect of long-acting beta2-agonists. Third, if breakthrough EIA occurs, recovery of lung function is slower in response to a beta2-agonist, and additional doses are often required to achieve pre-exercise values. If a person who takes a beta2-agonist daily experiences problems with exercise, then the physician should consider changing the treatment regimen to achieve better control of EIA. These problems likely result from desensitization of the beta2-receptor on the mast cell, which enhances mediator release, and on the bronchial smooth muscle, which enhances the bronchoconstrictor response and delays recovery from EIA. These effects are reversed within 72 h after cessation of a beta2-agonists. The important clinical question is: Are we actually compromising the beneficial effects of beta2-agonists on the prevention and recovery from EIA by prescribing them daily? Patients with EIA need to ensure that their doses of inhaled corticosteroid or other anti-inflammatory therapy are optimized so that, if necessary, a beta2-agonist can be used intermittently as prophylactic medication with greater confidence in the outcome.

Adrenergic beta-Agonists↗