John D. Brannan

The safety and efficacy of inhaled dry powder mannitol as a bronchial provocation test for airway hyperresponsiveness: a phase 3 comparison study with hypertonic (4.5%) saline

BackgroundInhaled mannitol is a new bronchial provocation test (BPT) developed to improve portability and standardisation of osmotic challenge testing. Osmotic challenge tests have an advantage over the traditional methods of measuring airway hyperresponsiveness using methacholine as they demonstrate higher specificity to identify asthma and thus the need for treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). The safety and the efficacy of mannitol (M) as a BPT to measure airway hyperresponsiveness were compared to hypertonic (4.5%) saline (HS) in people both with and without signs and symptoms of asthma.MethodsA phase III, multi-centre, open label, operator-blinded, crossover design, randomised trial, with follow-up. Asthmatics and non-asthmatics (6–83 yr) were recruited and 592 subjects completed the study. Mannitol was delivered using a low resistance dry powder inhaler and HS was delivered using an ultrasonic nebuliser. The FEV1 was measured 60 seconds after each dose of mannitol (5,10,20,40,80,160,160,160 mg) and after each exposure to HS (0.5,1.0,2.0,4.0,8.0 minutes). A 15% fall in FEV1 defined a positive test. Adverse events were monitored and diaries kept for 7 days following the tests.ResultsMean pre-test FEV1 (mean ± SD) was 95.5 ± 14% predicted. 296 were positive to mannitol (M+) and 322 positive to HS (HS+). A post study physician conducted clinical assessment identified 82.3% asthmatic (44% classified mild) and 17.7% non-asthmatic. Of those M+, 70.1% were taking ICS and of those mannitol negative (M-), 81.1 % were taking ICS. The % fall in FEV1 for mannitol in asthmatics was 21.0% ± 5.7 and for the non-asthmatics, 5.5% ± 4.8. The median PD15 M was 148 mg and PD15 HS 6.2 ml. The sensitivity of M to identify HS+ was 80.7% and the specificity 86.7%. The sensitivity of M compared with the clinical assessment was 59.8% and specificity 95.2% and increased to 88.7% and 95.0% respectively when the M- subjects taking ICS were excluded. Cough was common during testing. There were no serious adverse events. The diarised events were similar for mannitol and HS, the most common being headache (17.2%M, 19%HS), pharyngolaryngeal pain (5.1%M, 3%HS), nausea (4.3%M, 3%HS), and cough (2.2%M, 2.4%HS).ConclusionThe efficacy and safety of mannitol was demonstrated in non-asthmatic and clinically diagnosed asthmatic adults and children.

Evidence of mast cell activation and leukotriene release after mannitol inhalation

The aim of this study was to investigate if mannitol inhalation, as a model of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB), causes mast cell activation and release of mediators of bronchoconstriction. Urinary excretion of previously identified mediators of EIB was investigated in association with mannitol-induced bronchoconstriction. Twelve asthmatic and nine nonasthmatic subjects inhaled mannitol and urine was collected 60 min before andfor90 min after challenge. The urinary concentrations of leukotriene (LT)E4, the prostaglandin (PG)D2 metabolite and the mast cell marker 9α,11β‐PGF2 weremeasured by enzyme immunoassay. Nτ‐methylhistamine was measured by radioimmunoassay. In asthmatic subjects, inhalation of a mean±sem dose of 272±56 mg mannitol induced a reduction in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) of 34.5±2.1%. This was associated with increases in urinary 9α,11β‐PGF2 (91.9±8.2 versus 66.9±6.6 ng·mmol creatinine−1, peak versus baseline) and LTE4 (51.3±7.5 versus 32.9±4.7). In nonasthmatic subjects, the reduction in FEV1 was 1.0±0.5% after inhaling 635 mg of mannitol. Although smaller than in the asthmatics, significant increases of urinary 9α,11β‐PGF2 (68.4±6.9 versus 56.0±5.8 ng·mmol creatinine−1) and LTE4 (58.5±5.3 versus 43.0±3.3 ng·mmol creatinine−1) were observed in the nonasthmatic subjects. There was also a small increase in urinary excretion of Nτ‐methylhistamine in the nonasthmatics, but not in the asthmatics. The increased urinary levels of 9α,11β‐prostaglandin F2 support mast cell activation with release of mediators following inhalation of mannitol. Increased bronchial responsiveness to the released mediators could explain the exclusive bronchoconstriction in asthmatic subjects.

Methods for “Indirect” challenge tests including exercise, eucapnic voluntary hyperpnea, and hypertonic aerosols

Bronchial provocation tests that use stimuli that act indirectly to cause airway narrowing have a high specificity for identifying people with active asthma who have the potential to respond to treatment with antiinflammatory drugs. The first test to be developed was exercise and it was used to assess the efficacy of drugs such as sodium cromoglycate. Eucapnic voluntary hyperpnea was developed later, as a surrogate test for exercise. Hypertonic aerosols were introduced to mimic the dehydrating effects of evaporative water loss that occurs during hyperpnea. A wet aerosol of 4.5% saline or a dry powder formulation of mannitol is used. At present the indirect challenge tests are becoming increasingly recognised as appropriate for monitoring treatment with inhaled steroids. Indirect tests identify those with potential for exercise-induced bronchoconstriction, an important problem for some occupations, such as the defence forces, fire fighters and the police force and for some athletic activities. The advantage in using an indirect challenges, over a direct challenge with a single pharmacological agonist, is that a positive response indicates that inflammatory cells and their mediators (prostaglandins, leukotrienes and histamine) are present in the airways in sufficient numbers and concentration to indicate that asthma is active at the time of testing. The corollary to this is that a negative test in a known asthmatic indicates good control or mild disease. Another advantage is that healthy subjects do not have significant airway narrowing to indirect challenge tests. The protocols used for challenge with indirectly acting stimuli are presented in detail.

Inhibition of mast cell PGD2 release protects against mannitol-induced airway narrowing

Mannitol inhalation increases urinary excretion of 9α,11β-prostaglandin F2 (a metabolite of prostaglandin D2 and marker of mast cell activation) and leukotriene E4. The present study tested the hypothesis that β2-adrenoreceptor agonists and disodium cromoglycate (SCG) protect against mannitol-induced bronchoconstriction by inhibition of mast cell mediator release. Fourteen asthmatic subjects inhaled mannitol (mean dose 252±213 mg) in order to induce a fall in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) of ≥25%. The same dose was given 15 min after inhalation of formoterol fumarate (24 µg), SCG (40 mg) or placebo. Pre- and post-challenge urine samples were analysed by enzyme immunoassay for 9α,11β-prostaglandin F2 and leukotriene E4. The maximum fall in FEV1 of 32±10% on placebo was reduced by 95% following formoterol and 63% following SCG. Following placebo, there was an increase in median urinary 9α,11β-prostaglandin F2 concentration from 61 to 92 ng·mmol creatinine−1, but no significant increase in 9α,11β-prostaglandin F2 concentration in the presence of either formoterol (69 versus 67 ng·mmol creatinine−1) or SCG (66 versus 60 ng·mmol creatinine−1). The increase in urinary leukotriene E4 following placebo (from 19 to 31 ng·mmol creatinine−1) was unaffected by the drugs. These results support the hypothesis that the drug effect on airway response to mannitol is due to inhibition of mast cell prostaglandin D2 release.

Relationship between airway responsiveness to mannitol and to methacholine and markers of airway inflammation, peak flow variability and quality of life in asthma patients

Background Airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) to stimuli that cause bronchial smooth muscle (BSM) contraction indirectly through the release of endogenous mediators is thought to reflect airway inflammation more closely compared with AHR measured by stimuli that act directly on BSM.

Inhalation of dry-powder mannitol increases mucociliary clearance

Inhalation of hypertonic saline stimulates mucociliary clearance (MCC) in healthy subjects and those with obstructive lung disease. We investigated the effect of inhaling the osmotic agent mannitol on MCC. We used a dry-powder preparation of mannitol British Pharmacopea (BP) which was encapsulated and delivered using a Dinkihaler. MCC was measured for 75 min in six asthmatic and six healthy subjects on two occasions before and after the mannitol inhalation or its control, using 99mTc-sulphur colloid and a gamma camera. The inhaled dose of mannitol was 267+/-171 mg (mean+/-SD) and 400 mg and the percentage fall in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) was 22+/-3 and 4+/-2% in the asthmatic and healthy subjects, respectively. The total clearance in the whole right lung for the 60 min from the start of inhalation of mannitol was greater by 263+/-11.9% in the asthmatic and 18.1+/-4.9% in the healthy subjects compared to the control. The total clearance over 75 min was 54.7+/-9.6% and 33.6+/-9.4% on the mannitol and control day (p<0.002), respectively, in the asthmatic subjects and 40.5+/-7.1% and 24.8+/-7.8% (p<0.002) in the healthy subjects. In conclusion, inhalation of dry-powder mannitol increases mucociliary clearance in asthmatic and healthy subjects and may benefit patients with abnormal mucociliary clearance.

Budesonide reduces sensitivity and reactivity to inhaled mannitol in asthmatic subjects.

Objective: The aim of the study was to investigate whether treatment using inhaled corticosteroids decreases airway responsiveness to inhaled mannitol in asthmatic subjects.

β2-agonists and exercise-induced asthma

Abstractβ2-Agonists taken immediately before exercise provide significant protection against exercise-induced asthma (EIA) in most patients. However, when they are taken daily, there are some negative aspects regarding severity, control, and recovery from EIA. First, there is a significant minority (15–20%) of asthmatics whose EIA is not prevented by β2-agonists, even when inhaled corticosteroids are used concomitantly. Second, with daily use, there is a decline in duration of the protective effect of long-acting β2-agonists. Third, if breakthrough EIA occurs, recovery of lung function is slower in response to a β2-agonist, and additional doses are often required to achieve pre-exercise values. If a person who takes a β2-agonist daily experiences problems with exercise, then the physician should consider changing the treatment regimen to achieve better control of EIA. These problems likely result from desensitization of the β2-receptor on the mast cell, which enhances mediator release, and on the bronchial smooth muscle, which enhances the bronchoconstrictor response and delays recovery from EIA. These effects are reversed within 72 h after cessation of a β2-agonists. The important clinical question is: Are we acutally compromising the beneficial effects of β2-agonists on the prevention and recovery from EIA by prescribing them daily? Patients with EIA need to ensure that their doses of inhaled corticosteroid or other anti-inflammatory therapy are optimized so that, if necessary, a β2-agonist can be used intermittently as prophylactic medication with greater confidence in the outcome.

Laboratory protocol for exercise asthma to evaluate salbutamol given by two devices.

PURPOSE As new delivery devices and formulations are being introduced for drugs given by inhalation, there is a need to evaluate their equivalence with old preparations. One way to do this is to investigate their equivalence in protecting from exercise-induced asthma (EIA). METHODS We used a protocol for EIA to compare the protective effect of salbutamol delivered by the pressurised metered dose inhaler (pMDI) and the new Diskus dry powder device. Twenty-seven asthmatic subjects with moderately severe EIA completed an exercise test on four separate days at two study centers. Exercise was performed by cycling for 8 min while inhaling dry air (0% RH, 20-24 degrees C). The target workload in W was predicted as (53.76 x predicted FEV1) - 11.07 and 95% of this target was achieved at 4 min of exercise. This target was chosen in order to achieve ventilation between 50 and 60% of predicted maximum in the last 4 min. RESULTS There was no significant difference in the workload, ventilation, or heart rate achieved on the study days. The severity of EIA was measured as the % fall in FEV1. EIA severity was similar on the placebo and control day and the coefficient of variation was 19.4%. The mean +/- SD % fall on the control, placebo, salbutamol by Diskus, and pMDI were 42.0% +/- 15, 39.4% +/-17.6, 13.4% +/- 13.2, and 8.5% +/- 13.8, respectively. Salbutamol significantly inhibited the % fall in FEV1 after exercise, and there was no difference between the preparations. CONCLUSION The protocol described here is suitable for evaluating equivalence of salbutamol preparations in protecting against EIA and could be used to evaluate the protective effect of other medications.

Airway Hyperresponsiveness in Asthma: Mechanisms, Clinical Significance, and Treatment

Airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) and airway inflammation are key pathophysiological features of asthma. Bronchial provocation tests (BPTs) are objective tests for AHR that are clinically useful to aid in the diagnosis of asthma in both adults and children. BPTs can be either “direct” or “indirect,” referring to the mechanism by which a stimulus mediates bronchoconstriction. Direct BPTs refer to the administration of pharmacological agonist (e.g., methacholine or histamine) that act on specific receptors on the airway smooth muscle. Airway inflammation and/or airway remodeling may be key determinants of the response to direct stimuli. Indirect BPTs are those in which the stimulus causes the release of mediators of bronchoconstriction from inflammatory cells (e.g., exercise, allergen, mannitol). Airway sensitivity to indirect stimuli is dependent upon the presence of inflammation (e.g., mast cells, eosinophils), which responds to treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Thus, there is a stronger relationship between indices of steroid-sensitive inflammation (e.g., sputum eosinophils, fraction of exhaled nitric oxide) and airway sensitivity to indirect compared to direct stimuli. Regular treatment with ICS does not result in the complete inhibition of responsiveness to direct stimuli. AHR to indirect stimuli identifies individuals that are highly likely to have a clinical improvement with ICS therapy in association with an inhibition of airway sensitivity following weeks to months of treatment with ICS. To comprehend the clinical utility of direct or indirect stimuli in either diagnosis of asthma or monitoring of therapeutic intervention requires an understanding of the underlying pathophysiology of AHR and mechanisms of action of both stimuli.