We have located links that may give you full text access.
Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Airway responsiveness to acetaldehyde in patients with asthma: relationship to methacholine responsiveness and peak expiratory flow variation.
Clinical and Experimental Allergy 2000 January
BACKGROUND: Although airway hyperresponsiveness to inhaled acetaldehyde has been documented in Japanese patients with asthma, the response to this bronchoconstrictor agent has never been studied in Caucasians.
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of the study were to determine differences in airway responsiveness to acetaldehyde between asthmatic and healthy subjects, and to examine the relationship between acetaldehyde responsiveness and the variability of peak expiratory flow (PEF).
METHODS: The response to methacholine and acetaldehyde challenges was measured in 81 non-smoking adults (61 asthmatics and 20 normal controls). Subjects recorded PEF morning and evening for 14 days. The response to both bronchoconstrictor agents was measured by the PC20 (provocative concentration required to produce a 20% fall in FEV1). PEF variation was expressed as amplitude percentage mean, and as low percentage best (lowest PEF expressed as a percentage of the best PEF recorded).
RESULTS: The two types of challenge yielded a similarly high level of sensitivity (100% for methacholine and 92% for acetaldehyde) and specificity (90 and 100%, respectively) to distinguish between asthma and controls. Asthmatic subjects were on average 265-fold less sensitive to acetaldehyde than to methacholine. PC20 acetaldehyde correlated weakly but significantly with both indices of PEF variation (amplitude percentage mean: rho = - 0.36, P = 0. 004; low percentage best: rho = 0.42, P = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that airway hyperresponsiveness to acetaldehyde is a sensitive and specific indicator for separating asthmatic and normal subjects. Airway responsiveness to methacholine or acetaldehyde and PEF variation are not reflecting the same pathophysiological process in the airways.
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of the study were to determine differences in airway responsiveness to acetaldehyde between asthmatic and healthy subjects, and to examine the relationship between acetaldehyde responsiveness and the variability of peak expiratory flow (PEF).
METHODS: The response to methacholine and acetaldehyde challenges was measured in 81 non-smoking adults (61 asthmatics and 20 normal controls). Subjects recorded PEF morning and evening for 14 days. The response to both bronchoconstrictor agents was measured by the PC20 (provocative concentration required to produce a 20% fall in FEV1). PEF variation was expressed as amplitude percentage mean, and as low percentage best (lowest PEF expressed as a percentage of the best PEF recorded).
RESULTS: The two types of challenge yielded a similarly high level of sensitivity (100% for methacholine and 92% for acetaldehyde) and specificity (90 and 100%, respectively) to distinguish between asthma and controls. Asthmatic subjects were on average 265-fold less sensitive to acetaldehyde than to methacholine. PC20 acetaldehyde correlated weakly but significantly with both indices of PEF variation (amplitude percentage mean: rho = - 0.36, P = 0. 004; low percentage best: rho = 0.42, P = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that airway hyperresponsiveness to acetaldehyde is a sensitive and specific indicator for separating asthmatic and normal subjects. Airway responsiveness to methacholine or acetaldehyde and PEF variation are not reflecting the same pathophysiological process in the airways.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app