Skip Navigation LinksHome > February 2011 - Volume 11 - Issue 1 > Bronchial provocation testing: the future
Current Opinion in Allergy & Clinical Immunology:
doi: 10.1097/ACI.0b013e3283423183
Mechanisms of allergy and adult asthma: Edited by Stephen T. Holgate and J. Andrew Grant

Bronchial provocation testing: the future

Anderson, Sandra D; Brannan, John D

Collapse Box

Abstract

Purpose of review: Performing a bronchial provocation test (BPT) using a direct or indirect stimulus to identify bronchial hyper-responsiveness (BHR) reduces the possibility of over and under-diagnosis of asthma based on history and symptoms. This review discusses some long-held beliefs of BPTs to include or exclude a diagnosis of asthma or exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB).

Recent findings: A high frequency of negative methacholine tests has been reported in 240 patients given a diagnosis of asthma at the end of the study, many of whom had documented EIB. This suggests that a negative methacholine test should not be relied upon to rule out asthma. Further, a positive methacholine test alone should be interpreted with caution as it may reflect airway injury rather than asthma or EIB. Mannitol, an indirect stimulus, identified a similar prevalence of BHR to methacholine and identified more patients than a single exercise test in three studies. However, neither mannitol nor methacholine identified all patients with EIB. Mannitol has a higher specificity for a physician diagnosis of asthma than methacholine.

Summary: It is likely that both a direct test and an indirect test result may be required in some patients in order to confirm or exclude a diagnosis of asthma with certainty.

Copyright © 2011 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Login

Article Tools

Share

Article Level Metrics

Search for Similar Articles
You may search for similar articles that contain these same keywords or you may modify the keyword list to augment your search.