ARTICLE

Volume 10,Issue 3

Cite this article
2
Download
56
Citations
114
Views
22 August 2023

Analysis of PC20-FEF25%-75% and ΔFVC in the Methacholine Bronchial Provocation Test

Hyeon A Kim1 Jung Eun Kwon1 Ji Young Ahn2 Jae Young Choe3 Dong Sub Kim1 Sook Hyun Park1 Myung Chul Hyun1 Bong Seok Choi1*
Show Less
1 Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea
2 Department of Pediatrics, Yeungnam University College of Medicine, Daegu, Korea
3 Department of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea
© 2023 by the Author(s). Licensee Whioce Publishing, Singapore. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution -Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ )
Abstract

Purpose: Forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% (FEF25%–75%) is known to sensitively reflect bronchial obstruction. Methacholine challenge test (MCT) has shown varying reduction levels of forced vital capacity (FVC) with the reduction in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) in asthma. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical implication of provocative concentration causing a 20% fall in FEF25%–75% (PC20-FEF25%–75%) and the percentage fall in FVC at the PC20 dose of methacholine (ΔFVC). Methods: A total of 194 children who visited the hospital due to respiratory symptoms and underwent MCT were analyzed retrospectively. The patients were divided into 3 groups. Group I had both PC20-FEV1 and PC20-FEF25%–75% above 16 mg/mL; group II had a PC20-FEF25%–75% that fell below 16 mg/mL but PC20-FEV1 was 16 mg/mL or above; group III had a PC20-FEV1 and a PC20-FEF25%–75% that both fell below 16 mg/mL. Results: In group II, PC20-FEV1 was lower (P = 0.026), and the rate of change in FEV1 and FEF25%–75% from baseline to 16 mg/mL of methacholine concentration was greater than in group I (both P < 0.001). Levels of PC20-FEF25%–75% were higher in group II compared to group III (P < 0.001). ΔFVC showed a correlation with PC20-FEV1 (P < 0.001) only in the whole group. Conclusion: In asthmatic children, PC20-FEF25%–75% may be associated with bronchial hyperresponsiveness. ΔFVC was not associated with other parameters in either group. For subjects with a positive finding of PC20-FEF25%–75% and a negative finding of MCT, the progression of asthma can be suspected.

Keywords
Methacholine challenge test
Asthma
Child
Vital capacity
Forced expiratory flow
References

1. Brannan JD, Lougheed MD. Airway Hyperresponsiveness in Asthma: Mechanisms, Clinical Significance, and Treatment. Front Physiol. 2012;3:460.
2. Lim KH, Kim MH, Yang MS, et al. The KAAACI Standardization Committee Report on the Procedure and Application of the Bronchial Provocation Tests. Allergy Asthma Respir Dis. 2018;6(1):14–25.
3. Josephs LK, Gregg I, Mullee MA, et al. Nonspecific Bronchial Reactivity and Its Relationship to the Clinical Expression of Asthma. A Longitudinal Study. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1989;140(2):350–357.
4. Rabbat A, Laaban JP, Orvoën-Frija E, et al. Bronchial Hyperresponsiveness Following Acute Severe Asthma. Intensive Care Med. 1996;22(6):530–538.
5. Macklem PT. The Physiology of Small Airways. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1998;157(5 Pt 2):S181–S183.
6. Gibbons WJ, Sharma A, Lougheed D, et al. Detection of Excessive Bronchoconstriction in Asthma. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1996;153(2):582–589.
7. Lee P, Abisheganaden J, Chee CB, et al. A New Asthma Severity Index: A Predictor of Near-Fatal Asthma? Eur Respir J. 2001;18(2):272–278.
8. McGrath KW, Fahy JV. Negative Methacholine Challenge Tests in Subjects who Report Physician-Diagnosed Asthma. Clin Exp Allergy. 2011;41(1):46–51.
9. Cockcroft DW. Direct Challenge Tests: Airway Hyperresponsiveness in Asthma: Its Measurement and Clinical Significance. Chest. 2010;138(2 Suppl):18S–24S.
10. Cockcroft DW, Davis BE, Todd DC, et al. Methacholine Challenge: Comparison of Two Methods. Chest. 2005;127(3):839–844.
11. Sposato B, Scalese M, Migliorini MG, et al. Small Airway Impairment and Bronchial Hyperresponsiveness in Asthma Onset. Allergy Asthma Immunol Res. 2014;6(3):242–251.
12. Marseglia GL, Cirillo I, Vizzaccaro A, et al. Role of Forced Expiratory Flow at 25-75% as an Early Marker of Small Airways Impairment in Subjects With Allergic Rhinitis. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2007;28(1):74–78.
13. Son KM, Jang SH, Kang HR, et al. Role of Methacholine PC20 in FEF25-75% for the Diagnosis of Bronchial Asthma. Tuberc Respir Dis. 2009;67:311–317.
14. Simon MR, Chinchilli VM, Phillips BR, et al. Forced Expiratory Flow Between 25% and 75% of Vital Capacity and FEV1/Forced Vital Capacity Ratio in Relation to Clinical and Physiological Parameters in Asthmatic Children with Normal FEV1 Values. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;126(3):527–534.
15. Rhee KH, Kim JK, Kim JH, et al. Usefulness of FEF25-75% in Methacholine Bronchial Provocation Test in Children With Asthma. Pediatr Allergy Respir Dis. 2005;15(4):408–414.
16. American Thoracic Society. Standardization of Spirometry, 1994 Update. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995;152(3):1107–1136.
17. Gonlugur U, Gonlugur TE. Eosinophilic Bronchitis Without Asthma. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2008;147(1):1–5.
18. Crapo RO, Casaburi R, Coates AL, et al. Guidelines for Methacholine and Exercise Challenge Testing-1999. This Official Statement of the American Thoracic Society was Adopted by the ATS Board of Directors, July 1999. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000;161(1):309–329.
19. Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention, Global Initiative for Asthma, Fontana, 2020. Viewed 21 Apr 2020, https://ginasthma.org/
20. Heinzerling L, Mari A, Bergmann KC, et al. The Skin Prick Test – European Standards. Clin Transl Allergy. 2013;3(1):3.
21. Kim MH, Kim MY, Lim KH, et al. KAAACI Standardization Committee report on the Procedure and Application of Induced Sputum Examination. Allergy Asthma Respir Dis. 2017;5(6):307–311.
22. Anderson SD, Brannan JD. Bronchial Provocation Testing: the Future. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;11(1):46–52.
23. Anderson SD, Charlton B, Weiler JM, et al. Comparison of Mannitol and Methacholine to Predict Exercise-Induced Bronchoconstriction and a Clinical Diagnosis of Asthma. Respir Res. 2009;10(1):4.
24. Kim CW. Bronchial Asthma With Negative Methacholine Challenge Test. Korean J Asthma Allergy Clin Immunol. 2012;32:150–151.
25. Ban GY, Park HL, Hwang EK, et al. Clinical Characteristics of Asthmatics Having Negative Results to Methacholine Bronchial Challenge Test. Korean J Asthma Allergy Clin Immunol. 2012;32(3):152–158.
26. Simon MR, Havstad S, Cotronei C, et al. Assessment of Mid Flow Rate Measurements in Patients Undergoing Methacholine Challenge. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2006;27(4):404–410.
27. Lebecque P, Kiakulanda P, Coates AL. Spirometry in the Asthmatic Child: is FEF25-75 a More Sensitive Test than FEV1/FVC? Pediatr Pulmonol. 1993;16(1):19–22.
28. Park HB, Kim YH, Kim MJ, et al. Forced Expiratory Flow between 25% and 75% of Vital Capacity as a Predictor for Bronchial Hyperresponsiveness in Children With Allergic Rhinitis. Allergy Asthma Respir Dis. 2013;1(1):60–66.
29. Abisheganaden J, Chan CC, Chee CB, et al. Methacholine-Induced Fall in Forced Vital Capacity as a Marker of Asthma Severity. Respir Med. 1999;93(4):277–282.
30. Yu J, Yoo Y, Kim D, et al. Relationship between Duration of Disease and Bronchial Responsiveness in 6-8 Year Old Children With Asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2005;115(2 Suppl):S217.
31. Yoo Y, Yu J, Kim DK, et al. Percentage Fall in FVC at the Provocative Concentration of Methacholine Causing a 20% Fall in FEV1 in Symptomatic Asthma and Clinical Remission During Adolescence. Chest. 2006;129(2):272–277.
32. Yoo Y, Yu J, Lee SH, et al. Comparison of Delta FVC (% Decrease in FVC at the PC(20)) Between Cough-Variant Asthma and Classic Asthma. J Asthma. 2007;44(1):35–38.
33. Suh DI, Yu J, Yoo Y, et al. Relationship between ΔFVC (% Fall in FVC at the PC20 Dose of Methacholine) and Serum Eosinophil Cationic Protein (ECP) in 6-8 Year Old Children With Asthma. Korean J Pediatr. 2005;48(10):1126–1131.

Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Share
Back to top