0
Clinical Investigations: PULMONARY FUNCTION TESTS |

Methacholine Challenge Testing* : Comparison of the Two American Thoracic Society-Recommended Methods

Catherine Wubbel; Michael J. Asmus; Gary Stevens; Sarah E. Chesrown; Leslie Hendeles
Author and Funding Information

From the Pulmonary Division, Department of Pediatrics (Drs. Wubbel, Chesrown, and Hendeles), College of Medicine; the Asthma Research Laboratory, College of Pharmacy (Dr. Asmus); and the Department of Statistics (Dr. Stevens), University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Correspondence to: Catherine Wubbel, MD, DeVos Children’s Hospital, 330 Barclay, Suite 200, Grand Rapids, MI 49503; e-mail: Catherine.wubbel@spectrum-health.org



Chest. 2004;125(2):453-458. doi:10.1378/chest.125.2.453
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Study objectives: Recent American Thoracic Society guidelines recommend two different methods of methacholine challenge testing: the 2-min tidal breathing method with twofold increases in concentration, and the five-breath dosimeter method with fourfold increases. Since the tidal breathing method delivers more methacholine to the mouthpiece, we hypothesized that the provocative concentration of methacholine required to decrease FEV1 by 20% (PC20) would be lower than with the dosimeter method.

Design: Twelve subjects 18 to 45 years old with stable asthma were selected on the basis of a screening PC20 (by tidal breathing) of < 1 mg/mL, 1 to 4 mg/mL, or 4 to 16 mg/mL (4 subjects in each concentration range). On subsequent visits within a 7-day period, methacholine challenge testing with tidal breathing or dosimeter were performed on separate days, in a randomized crossover manner.

Results: The geometric mean PC20 was 1.8 mg/mL (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7 to 4.3) after tidal breathing and 1.6 mg/mL (95% CI, 0.7 to 3.7) after dosimeter (p = 0.2). There was no significant difference between the screening PC20 and the PC20 obtained by either method on randomized study days. The maximum decrease in FEV1 from diluent baseline after the last concentration was 27.8% (range, 20 to 50%) during tidal breathing and 27.9% (range, 16 to 47%) during the dosimeter method (p = 0.35).

Conclusions: Both methods give similar results. Fourfold increases in methacholine concentration with the dosimeter method are as safe as twofold increases with the tidal breathing method.

Figures in this Article

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Figures

Tables

References

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Find Similar Articles
CHEST Journal Articles
Methacholine Challenge*: Comparison of Two Methods
Difference Between Dosimeter and Tidal Breathing Methacholine Challenge*: Contributions of Dose and Deep Inspiration Bronchoprotection
PubMed Articles
  • CHEST Journal
    Print ISSN: 0012-3692
    Online ISSN: 1931-3543