186
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Diagnosis

Methacholine challenge is insufficient to exclude bronchial hyper-responsiveness in a symptomatic military population

, MD, , MD & , MD
Pages 886-890 | Received 15 Jan 2014, Accepted 24 Apr 2014, Published online: 28 May 2014
 

Abstract

Background: Bronchial hyper-responsiveness in a military population has been evaluated by direct and indirect challenge methods. We hypothesized that negative methacholine challenge testing (MCT) was not sufficient to exclude significant bronchial hyper-responsiveness in a symptomatic military population with exertional dyspnea. The purpose of our study was to identify bronchial hyper-responsiveness in symptomatic military recruits and active duty personnel with normal baseline spirometry and negative pharmacologic bronchoprovocation testing. Methods: We performed a retrospective single center electronic chart review of symptomatic service members with a negative MCT who completed a subsequent exercise challenge test (ECT). Results: ECT was positive in 45 (26.4%) of 171 subjects (98 recruits). Subjects with a positive ECT had lower baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC) and FEV1/FVC than those with a negative ECT, and these differences were statistically significant. The mean drop in FEV1 with exercise challenge positive patients was 17.9 ± 9.2%, and the mean drop in FEV1 with MCT was significantly greater in exercise challenge positive patients (−9.5 ± 5.5 vs. −7.6 ± 5.5, p = 0.042). Exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) was observed in 41% of all recruits who subsequently did not complete training. Only 1 recruit subject of 28 with EIB completed training. Conclusions: Methacholine challenge is an insufficient screening test to detect bronchial hyper-responsiveness in a symptomatic military population. In military recruits, EIB is associated with training failure.

Acknowledgements

Dr Stocks collected and analyzed data, wrote and edited the main body of the text and abstract, and submitted the manuscript for publication. Dr Lin was the PI of the study and submitted the IRB protocol, collected and analyzed data, wrote and edited the text and provided general oversight of the study. Dr Tripp analyzed data, edited the text and prepared the manuscript for publication. The authors wish to acknowledge Dr Robert Riffenburgh, PhD, for statistical analysis and Ms Juneva Julio (CRT, CPFT) for assistance with data acquisition.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 65.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 1,078.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.