 |
 |

Methacholine Challenge Test
LTC Lawrence J. Fetters, MC;
COL Joseph I. Matthews, MC
Arch Intern Med. 1984;144(5):938-940.
Abstract
 |  |
Methacholine challenge has been proposed as a diagnostic test in situations where clinical asthma is suspected but reversible airway obstruction cannot be demonstrated spirometrically. Methacholine challenge was used in 14 patients with suspected asthma and five normal controls. Eight individuals (six patients and two controls) had a reduction in the forced expiratory volume at 1 s (FEV1) of 20% or more with 100 inhalation units (IUs) of methacholine; seven additional individuals (six patients and one control) met one or more of the American Thoracic Society's criteria for a positive bronchoprovocation test; and four individuals (two patients and two controls) were not sensitive to methacholine by any criteria. The diagnosis of asthma can be excluded if methacholine does not induce reversible obstruction. However, provocation of reversible obstruction with methacholine is not specific for asthma. More stringent criteria, such as reduction of FEV1 by 20% by 20 IUs of methacholine, would be less sensitive but more specific for asthma.
(Arch Intern Med 1984;144:938-940)
Author Affiliations
USA; USA
From the Pulmonary Disease Service, Department of Medicine, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Tex. Dr Fetters is now with the Department of Medicine, Womack Army Community Hospital, Fort Bragg, NC.
Footnotes
Accepted for publication Sept 19, 1983.
The opinions or assertions contained herein are the private views of the authors and are not to be construed as reflecting the views of the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense.
Reprint requests to Pulmonary Disease Service, Box 446, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234 (Dr Matthews).
CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Bronchoprovocative Tests: Clinical Usefulness and Limitations
Bewtra and Townley
Arch Intern Med 1984;144:925-926.
ABSTRACT
|