Why the study?
Does bronchial challenge with methacholine and AMP differentiate post-infectious bronchiolitis obliterans from asthma in preschool children?
Does bronchial challenge with methacholine and AMP differentiate post-infectious bronchiolitis obliterans from asthma in preschool children?
Bronchial hyperresponsiveness to methacholine is common in young children with post-infectious bronchiolitis obliterans, but unlike asthma, it is usually not accompanied by hyperresponsiveness to AMP.
Differential AMP nonresponse despite methacholine positivity may aid BO diagnosis in preschoolers; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before use.
Aim: Bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR) is a characteristic feature of asthma, but it is also frequently demonstrated by children and adults with chronic obstructive lung diseases. BHR is usually measured by bronchial challenges using direct or indirect stimuli. The aim of this study was to compare these two types of bronchial challenge in young children with post‐infectious bronchiolitis obliterans (BO). Methods: Methacholine and adenosine 5′‐monophosphate (AMP) bronchial challenges were performed on preschool children with post‐infectious BO ( n =18), those with asthma ( n =23) and in controls ( n =20), using a modified auscultation method. The endpoint was defined as the appearance of wheezing and/or oxygen desaturation. Results: A positive response to methacholine (an endpoint concentration ≤8 mg/ml) was observed in 88.9% (16/18) of the patients with post‐infectious BO, but a positive response to AMP (an endpoint concentration ≤200 mg/ml) was observed in only 22.2% (4/18). All patients with asthma responded positively to methacholine, and most (21/23, 91.3%) of them also responded positively to AMP. The majority of the controls were insensitive to both challenges. Conclusion: BHR to methacholine is a frequent, but by no means universal, finding in young children with post‐infectious BO, but is usually not accompanied by BHR to AMP.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: