Document Detail

Airway responsiveness to inhaled aspirin is influenced by airway hyperresponsiveness in asthmatic patients.
Jump to Full Text
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  20830229     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Many patients with aspirin-induced asthma have severe methacholine airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR), suggesting a relationship between aspirin and methacholine in airway response. This study was performed to determine whether methacholine AHR affects the response of asthmatics to inhaled aspirin.
METHODS: The clinical records of 207 asthmatic patients who underwent inhalation challenges with both aspirin and methacholine were reviewed retrospectively. An oral aspirin challenge was performed in patients with a negative inhalation response. The bronchial reactivity index (BRindex) was calculated from the percent decrease in lung function divided by the last dose of the stimulus.
RESULTS: Forty-one (20.9%) and 14 (7.1%) patients showed a positive response to aspirin following an inhalation and oral challenge, respectively. Only 24.3 and 14.3% of the responders had a history of aspirin intolerance, respectively. The methacholine BRindex was significantly higher in the inhalation responders (1.46 ± 0.02) than in the oral responders (1.36 ± 0.03, p < 0.01) and in non-responders (n = 141, 1.37 ± 0.01, p < 0.001). The aspirin BRindex was significantly correlated with the methacholine BRindex (r = 0.270, p < 0.001). Three of four patients who received the oral challenge, despite a positive inhalation test, showed negative responses to the oral challenge. Two of these patients had severe AHR.
CONCLUSIONS: A considerable number of asthmatic patients with no history of aspirin intolerance responded to the inhalation aspirin challenge. The airway response to aspirin was significantly correlated with methacholine-AHR, and a false-positive response to aspirin inhalation test seemed to occur primarily in patients with severe AHR.
Authors:
Sungsoo Kim; Inseon S Choi; Yeon-Joo Kim; Chang-Seong Kim; Eui-Ryoung Han; Dong-Jin Park; Dae-Eun Kim
Related Documents :
11953279 - Influence of mucolytic therapy on respiratory mechanics in patients with chronic obstru...
7606989 - Forced oscillation technique vs spirometry to assess bronchodilatation in patients with...
22143319 - The role of sonoelastography in acute, subacute and chronic thyroiditis - a novel appli...
10680939 - Postoperative airway findings after maxillomandibular advancement for obstructive sleep...
2376249 - The pattern of resting breathing in patients with upper airway obstruction.
21700499 - Structural abnormalities of the thalamus in juvenile myoclonic epilepsy.
7137829 - An assessment of ultrasound scanning in the recognition of colorectal liver metastases.
19776529 - Serum amyloid-a rather than c-reactive protein is a better predictor of mortality in he...
3379029 - Eeg evidence of epileptiform paroxysms in rapid cycling bipolar patients.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article     Date:  2010-08-31
Journal Detail:
Title:  The Korean journal of internal medicine     Volume:  25     ISSN:  1226-3303     ISO Abbreviation:  Korean J. Intern. Med.     Publication Date:  2010 Sep 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2010-09-10     Completed Date:  2010-11-05     Revised Date:  2013-05-29    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  8712418     Medline TA:  Korean J Intern Med     Country:  Korea (South)    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  309-16     Citation Subset:  IM    
Affiliation:
Department of Allergy, Chonnam National University Medical School and Research Institute of Medical Sciences, Gwangju, Korea.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Administration, Inhalation
Adolescent
Adult
Aspirin / administration & dosage*,  adverse effects*
Asthma / physiopathology*
Asthma, Aspirin-Induced / etiology,  physiopathology
Bronchial Hyperreactivity / physiopathology
Bronchial Provocation Tests
Drug Hypersensitivity / etiology,  physiopathology
Female
Humans
Male
Methacholine Chloride / administration & dosage*
Retrospective Studies
Young Adult
Chemical
Reg. No./Substance:
50-78-2/Aspirin; 62-51-1/Methacholine Chloride
Comments/Corrections

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Full Text
Journal Information
Journal ID (nlm-ta): Korean J Intern Med
Journal ID (publisher-id): KJIM
ISSN: 1226-3303
ISSN: 2005-6648
Publisher: The Korean Association of Internal Medicine
Article Information
Download PDF
Copyright © 2010 The Korean Association of Internal Medicine
Received Day: 20 Month: 1 Year: 2010
Revision Received Day: 25 Month: 2 Year: 2010
Accepted Day: 07 Month: 4 Year: 2010
Print publication date: Month: 9 Year: 2010
Electronic publication date: Day: 31 Month: 8 Year: 2010
Volume: 25 Issue: 3
First Page: 309 Last Page: 316
ID: 2932945
PubMed Id: 20830229
DOI: 10.3904/kjim.2010.25.3.309

Airway Responsiveness to Inhaled Aspirin is Influenced by Airway Hyperresponsiveness in Asthmatic Patients
Sungsoo KimA1
Inseon S. ChoiA1
Yeon-Joo KimA1
Chang-Seong KimA1
Eui-Ryoung HanA1
Dong-Jin ParkA1
Dae-Eun KimA1
Department of Allergy, Chonnam National University Medical School and Research Institute of Medical Sciences, Gwangju, Korea.
Correspondence: Correspondence to Inseon S. Choi, M.D. Department of Allergy, Chonnam National University Medical School, Hak-dong, Dong-gu, Gwangju 501-757, Korea. Tel: 82-62-220-6571, Fax: 82-62-225-8578, ischoi@chonnam.ac.kr

INTRODUCTION

Asthmatic symptoms in approximately 14 to 29% of adult asthmatics are exaggerated after the ingestion of aspirin [1]. Aspirin-induced asthma (AIA) usually develops as persistent rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis, followed by asthma and aspirin hypersensitivity [2]. The syndrome is increasingly being referred to as aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease, as exposure to aspirin does not initiate the disease, but does provoke strong asthmatic attacks in the later stages of the disease.

Although a patient's clinical history may give rise to suspicion of AIA, the diagnosis can only be established with certainty by aspirin provocation testing. A controlled oral challenge with aspirin is regarded as the gold standard for diagnosing AIA; however, the widely used three-day challenge proposed by Manning and Stevenson [3] and even the recently advocated two-day challenge protocol [4] are time consuming and can produce severe asthmatic reactions [5]. Consequently, an inhalation challenge with lysine-aspirin is the preferred method.

The inhalation aspirin challenge was first introduced by Bianco et al. [6] in 1977. It has since been demonstrated that the inhalation challenge is less sensitive than oral challenges, although it is safer and takes less time to perform [2,7]. The oral challenge is regarded as positive when severe extra-bronchial symptoms, such as nasal blockade, appear even if the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) does not decrease > 20% [4]. An inhalation challenge rarely induces extra-bronchial symptoms. In addition, it is reasonable to speculate that results from an inhalation challenge are affected by the patient's underlying airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR). We have found that irritable airways constrict easily even in response to inhaled normal saline aerosols (unpublished data), and the bronchial response to an inhaled allergen is significantly related to methacholine AHR [8].

In previous sgudies [9-14] of 25 or fewer subjects, airway responses to inhaled aspirin did not correlate with AHR. Methacholine AHR was not significantly different between 23 patients with AIA and 23 aspirin-tolerant asthmatic subjects [10]. The degree of airway responsiveness to lysine-aspirin was not related to histamine AHR in 11 [11] and 9 [12] AIA patients, or to methacholine AHR in 10 [13] and 25 AIA patients [14]. As AIA does not occur simply as an epiphenomenon of severe asthma but develops in a small subset of patients with asthma who have a genetic predisposition [15], airway responsiveness to aspirin and to methacholine or histamine are unlikely to be closely related.

Approximately half of the patients with AIA are oral steroid-dependent, and thus, many of them have developed severe AHR [16,17]. Therefore, AIA is related to AHR in a broad sense, and a significant relationship could be confirmed if studied using large numbers of subjects. Moreover, inhalation rather than an oral challenge could induce bronchospasms more easily in irritable airways. It may also be possible for airways with severe AHR to respond non-specifically to aspirin. Nonetheless, there are no reports of a significant relationship between AIA and AHR or of the irritant effects of aspirin in spasmodic airways. Here, we report that airway responsiveness to inhaled aspirin is influenced by underlying AHR in asthmatic patients.


METHODS
Subjects

The clinical records of 207 asthmatic patients who underwent both inhalation aspirin and methacholine challenge testing at our hospital between 1997 and 2008 were reviewed retrospectively. Of these patients, 178 (86.0%) were adult men, 17 to 30 years old, seeking a medical certificate for exemption from obligatory military service. Thus, many of the subjects included in this study had no previous history of an adverse reaction to aspirin or other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The patients underwent several tests including an aspirin challenge to diagnose asthma. The subjects were instructed to refrain from using any medication for at least 7 days before the tests. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of our hospital (IRB No. I-2008-07-091).

Asthma was diagnosed if at least one of the following criteria was fulfilled: the provocative concentration of methacholine that resulted in a 20% fall in FEV1 (PC20) was ≤ 16 mg/mL; histamine-PC20 ≤ 16 mg/mL; a provocative dose of inhaled 4.5% hypertonic saline resulting in a 15% fall in FEV1 < 20 mL; a maximal % fall in FEV1 ≥ 15% to an exercise test; or a change in FEV1 ≥ 12% and ≥ 200 mL spontaneously or following treatment for asthma. Increased numbers of blood eosinophils and serum total IgE concentrations were defined as > 450/mm3 [18] and > 100 IU/mL, respectively. A positive serum level of house dust mite-specific IgE was defined as > 3.5 kU/L (≥ 3+) measured using UniCAP®100ε (Pharmacia Diagnostics, Uppsala, Sweden) for Dermatophagoides farinae and/or Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus. To diagnose aspirin intolerance, an aspirin challenge was performed according to the method proposed by Melillo et al. [13] with modifications. Briefly, the patients underwent an inhalation aspirin challenge and, if the test result was negative, received oral doses of 250 and 500 mg of aspirin at 2-hour intervals to exclude aspirin sensitivity not related to the inhalation challenge. The patients were classified into three groups based on their inhalation and oral aspirin challenge responses. Group I had a positive response to the inhalation test, Group II had a positive response to the oral challenge, and Group III had negative responses to both tests. Eleven patients showed a negative response to the inhalation test but did not receive the oral challenge and were excluded from the classification.

Airway responsiveness measurement

A methacholine bronchoprovocation test was performed on the first day, followed by administration of the aspirin challenge on the second day. The methacholine test followed a standardized tidal breathing protocol [19]. The FEV1 was measured in triplicate before testing and in duplicate at 30 and 90 s after each inhalation period using a spirometer (SpiroAnalyzer ST-250, Fukuda Sangyo, Tokyo, Japan). The highest FEV1 from the acceptable spirograms was selected as the representative value for each period [20]. The selected predictive equation for FEV1 was that recommended by the Intermountain Thoracic Society [21]. Isotonic saline followed by methacholine (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) was aerosolized at room temperature in a DeVilbiss 646 nebulizer (output 0.13 mL/min; DeVilbiss, Somerset, PA, USA). The dilution increments were 0.075, 0.15, 0.31, 0.62, 1.25, 2.5, 5.0, 10, and 25 mg/mL. The aerosols were inhaled by tidal breathing over 2 minutes at 5-minute intervals through the mouth with the nose clipped. The challenge test was discontinued if the FEV1 dropped by 20% or more from the post-saline FEV1, or if the maximum concentration of methacholine was administered. The PC20 was calculated by linear interpolation of the log dose-response curve. The severity of methacholine AHR was categorized by a modification of the method of Woolcock and Jenkins [22] as follows: severe, PC20 < 0.2; moderate, PC20 = 0.2 to 2.0; mild, PC20 = 2.0 to 16.0; and normal, PC20 > 16 mg/mL. As actual PC20 values could not be obtained for subjects with a negative test response, the bronchial reactivity index (BRindex) as an index of AHR was calculated as follows: log10 (10 + maximal % fall in FEV1 / log10 [dose in mg/dL of methacholine required to produce the response]) [23].

An inhalation aspirin challenge was performed according to the method of Phillips et al. [11]. Patients inhaled increasing doses (11.25, 45, 180, and 360 mg/mL) of lysine-aspirin (Ilyang, Seoul, Korea; 360 mg of lysine-aspirin is equivalent to 200 mg of aspirin) after the saline challenge using a dosimeter (Microdosimer, SM Instruments Co. Ltd., Doyles Town, PA, USA). The aerosols were inhaled ten times from the end tidal volume to full inspiratory capacity at 30-minute intervals, and the FEV1 was measured at 10, 20, and 30 minutes after each inhalation period. The lowest FEV1 of the three measurements was selected as the representative value for each period [4]. The inhalation challenge was discontinued if the FEV1 dropped by 20% or more from the post-saline FEV1, or if the maximum concentration of lysine-aspirin was administered. The maximum cumulative dose of aspirin calculated according to European guidelines [4] was 29.8 mg. A dose-response curve was constructed, and the BRindex for aspirin was calculated using an equation similar to that shown above for methacholine. In subjects who ingested aspirin, the FEV1 was measured 1 hour after ingestion and extrapulmonary symptoms were recorded. A positive response to aspirin was defined as a decrease in FEV1 ≥ 20% from the post-saline value or a fall in FEV1 ≥ 15% with extrapulmonary symptoms of intolerance such as rhinorrhea and nasal congestion [24]. AIA was defined as a positive response to the inhalation or oral aspirin challenge.

Statistical analysis

All data were analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis test, Mann-Whitney U test, χ2 test, Fisher's exact test, or Pearson's correlation using SPSS version 17.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). All data are shown as the mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). A p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.


RESULTS
Patient distribution and characteristics

The 196 asthmatic patients included in this study were classified into three groups based on their inhalation and oral aspirin challenge responses. Forty-one subjects (20.9%) had a positive response to the inhalation test (Group I), 14 subjects (7.1%) had a positive response to the oral challenge (Group II), and 141 subjects (71.9%) had negative responses to both tests (Group III). The remaining 11 patients, who were excluded from the classification, showed a negative response to the inhalation test but did not receive the oral challenge. Thus, a total of 55 (28.1%) patients were diagnosed as AIA; the proportion of false negative diagnosis following the inhalation challenge was 25.5%. The clinical characteristics of the subjects are summarized in Table 1. No differences in sex, age, height, duration of asthma, associated allergic rhinitis and sinusitis, blood eosinophilia, increased total IgE level, or positivity for house dust mite-specific IgE were observed among the groups. However, the prevalence rates of a positive history of aspirin intolerance were significantly different among the groups (24.3, 14.3, and 7.4% for Groups I, II, and III, respectively; p < 0.05). In five (35.7%) of the 14 patients in Group II, the oral challenge was considered positive on the basis of extra-bronchial symptoms even though the FEV1 decreased < 20% from the post-saline value. When only the data of men aged ≤ 30 years were analyzed, the results were similar to those for the whole study population (subject distribution = 20.7, 7.1, and 72.2% for Groups I, II, and III, respectively). Moreover, no difference in clinical characteristics was noted among the groups except in the prevalence of a history of aspirin intolerance (p < 0.01). Only three (9.7%) of 31 patients in Group I had a positive history of aspirin intolerance.

Airway responsiveness to methacholine

Baseline FEV1 did not differ significantly among the groups (mean values for Groups I-III: 84.5, 86.5, and 87.3%, respectively). However, the baseline FEV1 / forced vital capacity (FVC) ratios were significantly lower in Groups I (79.3 ± 1.5%) and II (78.3 ± 1.9%) than in Group III (82.7 ± 0.8%; both p < 0.05). The log methacholine-PC20 was significantly lower and the methacholine BRindex was significantly higher in Group I (log PC20: -0.24 ± 0.10; BRindex: 1.46 ± 0.02) than in Groups II (0.12 ± 0.16, p < 0.05; 1.36 ± 0.03, p < 0.01) and III (0.23 ± 0.07, p < 0.001; 1.37 ± 0.01, p < 0.001), respectively (Fig. 1). However, neither methacholine measurement was significantly different between Groups II and III. The distribution of the severity of methacholine AHR differed significantly among the groups (Fig. 2). The proportion of subjects with severe methacholine AHR to total patients was significantly higher in Group I than in the others (11/41 [26.8%] vs. 21/166 [12.7%], p < 0.05). However, it was not significantly different between the subjects with and without AIA (13/55 [23.6%] vs. 18/141 [12.8%], p = 0.061). In addition, both the methacholine-PC20 and BRindex were significantly correlated with the aspirin BRindex (Fig. 3).

Inhalation-aspirin-challenge-induced symptoms

The prevalence of pulmonary or extra-pulmonary symptoms that occurred in response to the inhalation aspirin challenge in patients with a positive response to the inhalation challenge (Group I) was significantly higher than in the others (Table 2). In addition, inhaled-aspirin-induced symptoms occurred more frequently in Group II than in Group III. However, seven patients symptomatic for inhalation, as well as the whole study population in Group II, showed no significant differences in methacholine responsiveness from Group III. In Group I, the FEV1 / FVC ratios in the patients who were symptomatic following the inhalation aspirin challenge were significantly lower than in those who were not (77.4 ± 1.5 vs. 83.6 ± 3.5%, p < 0.01). However, among patients with a negative response to the inhalation challenge, the symptomatic subjects showed no significant difference in clinical characteristics from the others.

Four patients received an oral challenge despite having a positive response to the inhalation challenge due to the absence of associated symptoms. Only one of these subjects showed a positive response to the oral challenge, suggesting false-positive responses to the inhalation challenge in many patients. The methacholine-PC20 was 0.74 mg/mL in a patient showing a positive oral challenge result compared with 0.09 and 0.12 mg/mL in two patients with a negative result. The remaining patient who showed a positive result on inhalation challenge but a negative result on oral challenge had a methacholine-PC20 > 25 mg/mL; however, even though his FEV1 30 minutes after the inhalation of 360 mg/mL aspirin decreased by 24.7% from the post-saline value, the FEV1 at 10 minutes decreased by only 16.2%, which was below the cutoff value (20%) for a positive response.


DISCUSSION

A relationship between AHR and aspirin can be inferred based on the fact that many patients with AIA are oral steroid dependent [16,17] and thus have severe AHR. This is the first study to definitively demonstrate a significant relationship between methacholine AHR and airway responses to an inhalation aspirin challenge. In this study, the methacholine-PC20 was significantly lower, whereas the methacholine-BRindex was significantly higher, in subjects with a positive response to the inhalation aspirin challenge than in the other groups. Moreover, airway responsiveness to methacholine was significantly correlated with that to aspirin. Our results also support a role for severe AHR in AIA by showing that a higher proportion of subjects with a positive inhalation challenge result had severe AHR compared to the proportions in the other groups. In previous studies [9-14], a relationship between AHR and AIA was not seen, suggesting that the number of subjects in these studies may have been too small (≤ 25) for the results to reach statistical significance.

Considering the natural history of AIA [17], patients with full-blown AIA who respond to the inhalation challenge may have had relatively severe AHR, whereas those with AIA who respond only to oral challenge may have had less severe AHR, similar to that of non-AIA patients. The responsiveness to methacholine in those subjects with a positive inhalation challenge result (Group I) was significantly different from that in those who showed a positive response to the oral challenge only (Group II), and no difference was found between Groups II and III even though the FEV1 / FVC ratio was significantly lower in Group II than in Group III. Thus, the prevalence of severe AHR was significantly higher in the AIA group than in the other groups when the inhalation challenge alone was used for the diagnosis of AIA, but not when the oral challenge was included. Nizankowska et al. [7] suggested that most patients with a positive response to oral challenge alone were considered positive on the basis of extra-bronchial symptoms. However, only 35.7% of the subjects in Group II were considered to show a positive oral challenge result on the basis of extrabronchial symptoms in the present study. Taken together, these observations suggest that patients with AIA who responded to the oral challenge alone may have had less severe AHR.

Although a significant relationship between methacholine AHR and the airway response to an inhalation aspirin challenge was found in this study, additional studies are required to determine whether aspirin intolerance is the cause of methacholine AHR or whether methacholine AHR results in a positive response to an inhalation aspirin challenge. As irritable airways constrict easily in response to various inhaled stimuli, the inhalation rather than ingestion of aspirin may affect airway responsiveness to the challenge. Therefore, to confirm the relationship between airway responsiveness to methacholine and to aspirin, it is necessary to use an oral aspirin challenge, even though almost all patients with positive inhalation responses also respond positively to the oral challenge [5,7]. In addition, a longitudinal study in which methacholine AHR is altered with time may be necessary to determine the extent to which AHR non-specifically affects inhalation aspirin challenge results, despite the repeatability of the inhalation aspirin challenge reported by Phillips et al. [11]. However, such efforts may not yield meaningful results because the underlying aspirin intolerance determined by an oral challenge can disappear with improvements in methacholine AHR due to asthma therapy [25].

Irritable airways may respond to inhaled aspirin non-specifically in asthma patients without aspirin intolerance. Our data supports this hypothesis because we found that three of four patients who received an oral challenge, despite having a positive response to the inhalation challenge due to the absence of associated symptoms, showed a negative response to the oral challenge. Furthermore, two negative oral responders had severe AHR. In another negative oral responder, FEV1 decreased in only one of the three measurements after the inhalation of 360 mg/mL aspirin to fulfill the positive criteria in which the lowest value was used as the representative result [4]. Therefore, it is possible that false-positive responses to aspirin occurred when the inhalation challenge was performed in patients with severe AHR who were asymptomatic to the inhalation challenge, or when the FEV1 decreased only transiently after the challenge. The high dose of inhaled aspirin used here does not pose a problem, as it is comparable to that reported by Phillips et al. [11], and recent guidelines [4] recommend as many as 43 breaths of 2 M (720 mg/mL) lysine-aspirin.

The rate of false-negative responses to the inhalation aspirin challenge was 25.5% in the present study. The maximum cumulative dose of aspirin (29.8 mg) used in this study may have resulted in false-negative results because it was only 16.4% of the 181.98 mg recommended by European guidelines [4] and used by Nizankowska et al. [7]. However, the sensitivity of the inhalation challenge reported by Nizankowska et al. [7] was only 77%, despite that strong extra-bronchial symptoms were added to a fall in FEV1 > 20% as indicating a positive response. Therefore, an additional oral challenge is desirable in cases in which the highest inhaled aspirin concentration fails to induce bronchospasms. The false-negative responders to the inhalation aspirin challenge complained of bronchial or extra-bronchial symptoms more frequently in this study. Thus, an oral challenge should be added for patients symptomatic to an inhalation challenge.

The AIA prevalence rate in the present study (28.1%) is consistent with that reported previously (14 to 29%) [1]. The factors mentioned above (i.e., underlying AHR, challenge method, positivity criteria, etc.) affect the prevalence of AIA. In addition, many patients with AIA are oral steroid dependent [16,17]; thus, an inhalation challenge cannot be performed due to airway instability [7]. Szczeklik et al. [17] reported that 15% of patients with AIA were unaware of their intolerance to aspirin and learned about it only after undergoing provocation testing. In the present study, 90.3% of the young adult male patients who required a medical certificate for exemption from obligatory military service had no previous history of aspirin intolerance. The most important reason for this discrepancy is that we examined aspirin intolerance routinely in these patients for the purpose of providing the necessary certificates.

In the present study, a considerable number of asthmatic subjects without a positive history of aspirin intolerance responded to the inhalation aspirin challenge. The airway response to aspirin was significantly related to methacholine AHR, and a false-positive response to the inhalation challenge would be expected in patients with severe AHR.


Notes

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

References
1. Jenkins C,Costello J,Hodge L. Systematic review of prevalence of aspirin induced asthma and its implications for clinical practiceBMJYear: 200432843414976098
2. Szczeklik A,Nizankowska-Mogilnicka E,Sanak M. Adkinson NF Jr,Bochner BS,Busse WW,Holgate ST,Lemanske RF Jr,Simons FEHypersensitivity to aspirin and nonsteriodal anti-inflammatory drugsMiddleton's Allergy: Principle and PracticeYear: 20097th edPhiladelphiaMosby-Elsevier Inc.12271243
3. Manning ME,Stevenson DD. Pseudoallergic drug reactionsImmunol Allergy Clin North AmYear: 199111659678
4. Nizankowska-Mogilnicka E,Bochenek G,Mastalerz L,et al. EAACI/GA2LEN guideline: aspirin provocation tests for diagnosis of aspirin hypersensitivityAllergyYear: 2007621111111817521312
5. Dahlén B,Zetterström O. Comparison of bronchial and per oral provocation with aspirin in aspirin-sensitive asthmaticsEur Respir JYear: 199035275342376250
6. Bianco S,Robuschi M,Petrigni G. Aspirin-induced tolerance in aspirin-induced asthma detected by a new challengeMed SciYear: 19775129130
7. Nizankowska E,Bestynska-Krypel A,Cmiel A,Szczeklik A. Oral and bronchial provocation tests with aspirin for diagnosis of aspirin-induced asthmaEur Respir JYear: 20001586386910853850
8. Melillo G,Bonini S,Cocco G,et al. EAACI provocation tests with allergens. Report prepared by the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology Subcommittee on provocation tests with allergensAllergyYear: 19975235 Suppl1359224539
9. Melillo G,Balzano G,Bianco S,et al. Report of the INTERASMA Working Group on Standardization of Inhalation Provocation Tests in Aspirin-induced Asthma. Oral and inhalation provocation tests for the diagnosis of aspirin-induced asthmaAllergyYear: 20015689991111551257
10. Melillo G,Padovano A,Masi C,Melillo E,Cocco G. Aspirin-induced asthma and bronchial hyperresponsivenessAllerg Immunol (Paris)Year: 1991234234271811646
11. Phillips GD,Foord R,Holgate ST. Inhaled lysine-aspirin as a bronchoprovocation procedure in aspirin-sensitive asthma: its repeatability, absence of a late-phase reaction, and the role of histamineJ Allergy Clin ImmunolYear: 1989842322412503553
12. Croce M,Costa Manso E,Croce J,Gato JJ,Vargas F. Bronchial challenge with aspirin lysine in the diagnosis of asthmatics with sensitization to aspirin and its inhibition by aerosolized furosemideJ Investig Allergol Clin ImmunolYear: 19922196204
13. Melillo G,Padovano A,Cocco G,Masi C. Dosimeter inhalation test with lysine acetylsalicylate for the detection of aspirin-induced asthmaAnn AllergyYear: 19937161658328716
14. Dahlén B,Melillo G. Inhalation challenge in ASA-induced asthmaRespir MedYear: 1998923783849692093
15. Palikhe NS,Kim SH,Park HS. What do we know about the genetics of aspirin intolerance?J Clin Pharm TherYear: 20083346547218834360
16. Szczeklik A,Stevenson DD. Aspirin-induced asthma: advances in pathogenesis and managementJ Allergy Clin ImmunolYear: 199910451310400832
17. Szczeklik A,Nizankowska E,Duplaga M. Natural history of aspirin-induced asthma AIANE Investigators European Network on Aspirin-Induced AsthmaEur Respir JYear: 20001643243611028656
18. Weller PF. Adkinson NF Jr,Bochner BS,Busse WW,Holgate ST,Lemanske RF Jr,Simons FEEosinophilia and eosinophil-related disordersMiddleton's Allergy: Principle and PracticeYear: 20097th edPhiladelphiaMosby-Elsevier Inc.859877
19. Sterk PJ,Fabbri LM,Quanjer PH,et al. Airway responsiveness. Standardized challenge testing with pharmacological, physical and sensitizing stimuli in adults Report Working Party Standardization of Lung Function Tests, European Community for Steel and Coal Official Statement of the European Respiratory SocietyEur Respir JYear: 1993616 Suppl53838425595
20. 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 1999Am J Respir Crit Care MedYear: 200016130932910619836
21. Morris AH,Kanner RE,Crapo RO,Gardner RM. Clinical pulmonary function testing: a manual of uniform laboratory proceduresYear: 19842nd edSalt Lake CityIntermountain Thoracic Society
22. Woolcock AJ,Jenkins CR. Assessment of bronchial responsiveness as a guide to prognosis and therapy in asthmaMed Clin North AmYear: 1990747537652186241
23. Burrows B,Sears MR,Flannery EM,Herbison GP,Holdaway MD. Relationships of bronchial responsiveness assessed by methacholine to serum IgE, lung function, symptoms, and diagnoses in 11-year-old New Zealand childrenJ Allergy Clin ImmunolYear: 1992903 Pt 13763851527320
24. Stevenson DD,Simon RA,Zuraw BL. Adkinson NF Jr,Yunginger JW,Busse WW,Bochner BS,Holgate ST,Simons FeSensitivity to aspirin and nonsteriodal antiinflammatory drugsMiddleton's Allergy: Principle and PracticeYear: 20036th edPhiladelphiaMosby16951710
25. Choi IS. Disappearance of aspirin intolerance with antiasthma treatmentJ Allergy Clin ImmunolYear: 200211066566612373279

Article Categories:
  • Original Article

Keywords: Asthma, aspirin-induced, Methacholine, Bronchial reactivity.

Previous Document:  Modified number of extranodal involved sites as a prognosticator in R-CHOP-treated patients with dis...
Next Document:  Induction of macrophage migration inhibitory factor in ConA-stimulated rheumatoid arthritis synovial...