Skip to content

AMP-BPT and His-BPT for Assessment of Asthma

Is Adenosine Monophosphate Superior to Histamine for Bronchial Provocation Test in Evaluation of Asthma?

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02318043
Acronym
AMPHis
Enrollment
84
Registered
2014-12-17
Start date
2007-01-31
Completion date
2007-12-31
Last updated
2014-12-17

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Asthma

Keywords

adenosine monophosphate, histamine, bronchial provocation test, asthma symptom score, asthma control

Brief summary

Adenosine monophosphate (AMP) may reflect airway inflammation and hyperresponsiveness, but relationship between AMP and histamine (His, a conventional stimulus) bronchial provocation test (BPT) in asthma is not fully elucidated. The investigators aimed to compare both BPTs and determine their usefulness in reflecting changes of asthmatic symptoms. BPTs were performed in cross-over fashion, at 2-4day intervals. Cumulative doses eliciting 20% FEV1fall (PD20FEV1), diagnostic performance and adverse events were compared. Patients with PD20FEV1 lower than geometric mean were defined as responders, otherwise poor responders. Patients with uncontrolled and partly controlled asthma, who maintained their original inhaled corticosteroids therapy, underwent reassessment of airway responsiveness and asthmatic symptoms 3 and 6 months after.

Detailed description

Airway hyperresponsiveness, the pivotal feature of asthma, can be assessed by bronchial provocation tests (BPTs), which may elicit bronchoconstriction via inhalation of stimuli. Histamine has been a direct stimulus for inducing bronchoconstriction via vasodilation, eosinophil chemotaxis and tissue edema. Clinically, histamine BPT (His-BPT) has gained extensive application for decades owing to the assay sensitivity and feasibility, but could not ideally predict anti-inflammatory treatment outcomes in practice. Additionally, mild adverse events (flushing and hoarseness) and insufficient capacity of identifying exercise-induced asthma have hampered further clinical applications. Adenosine monophosphate (AMP) is an inflammatory mediator that serves as an indirect bronchial stimulus for detecting airway hyperresponsiveness in asthma. Compared with histamine, AMP may be pathophysiologically more relevant to airway inflammation and hyperresponsiveness and has been linked to presence and magnitude of atopy. However, differences of response to AMP-BPT and His-BPT in different asthma control levels and their associations with asthmatic symptom scores have not been fully elucidated. We hypothesized that asthmatic patients, regardless of control levels, responded differentially to AMP-BPT and His-BPT, and that greater reduction in airway responsiveness to AMP (esp. responders of AMP-BPT) was associated with significant symptom alleviation. Henceforth, we sought to: 1) compare diagnostic performance and safety of AMP-BPT and His-BPT in different asthma control levels; 2) determine the association between airway responsiveness and asthmatic symptom scores. Currently, His-BPT is recommended by the Chinese guideline and shares considerable similarity with methacholine (another conventional stimulus) BPT, we therefore did not perform the latter in this study.

Interventions

DRUGinhaled corticosteroids (usually budesonide/fomorterol 160/4.5mcg; fluticasone/salmeterol 250/50mcg)

Patients with uncontrolled and partly controlled asthma, following accomplishment of study 1, were invited to participate in observational study (study 2), which sought to determine usefulness of both BPTs in reflecting improvement of asthmatic symptoms following 3 and 6 months of moderate-dose ICSs treatment (400\ 800μg budesonide or equivalent). Patient continued to administer their original ICS during follow-up. During two follow-up visits (3 months apart), AMP-BPT, His-BPT and Hogg's symptom scores were reassessed.

Sponsors

Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Disease
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
DIAGNOSTIC
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 65 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

1. aged 18\ 65 years; 2. nil respiratory infection within 3 weeks; 3. normal chest radiography; 4. baseline FEV1\>60% predicted; 5. withdrawn from, if any, oral leukotriene modifiers, corticosteroid or anti-histamine for 5 days, oral xanthenes or long-acting bronchodilators for 2 days, inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) for 24 hours, and salbutamol for 6 hours

Exclusion criteria

1. FEV1 fall ≥20% following saline inhalation; 2. other chronic lower respiratory diseases (i.e. COPD); 3. severe systemic diseases (i.e. uncontrolled hypertension, malignancy); 4. limited understanding. For healthy subjects, they had to be aged 18\ 65 years and had nil respiratory infection within 3 weeks, systemic diseases and had normal lung function.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Asthma symptom score as proposed by Hoggs et alup to 12 months (Jan 2007 to Dec 2007)Asthma symptom score recorded within 1 week, with the highest possible score of 42 for the whole week
Cumulative dose eliciting 20% fall in FEV1 (PD20FEV1)up to 12 months (Jan 2007 to Dec 2007)Cumulative dose eliciting 20% fall in FEV1 (PD20FEV1), reported as

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Maximal decrease in FVC following bronchial provocation (expressed as percentage)up to 12 months (Jan 2007 to Dec 2007)Maximal decrease in FVC following bronchial provocation, expressed as percentage as compared with baseline levels
Maximal decrease in FEV1 following bronchial provocation (expressed as percentage)up to 12 months (Jan 2007 to Dec 2007)Maximal decrease in FEV1 following bronchial provocation, expressed as percentage as compared with baseline levels
Maximal decrease in MMEF following bronchial provocation (expressed as percentage)up to 12 months (Jan 2007 to Dec 2007)Maximal decrease in MMEF following bronchial provocation, expressed as percentage as compared with baseline levels
Maximal decrease in PEF following bronchial provocation (expressed as percentage)up to 12 months (Jan 2007 to Dec 2007)Maximal decrease in PEF following bronchial provocation, expressed as percentage as compared with baseline levels
Diagnostic performance of AMP-BPT and His-BPT (area under the receiver operation characteristic curve, sensitivity, specificity, Youden index)up to 12 months (Jan 2007 to Dec 2007)area under the receiver operation characteristic curve, sensitivity, specificity, Youden index
Changes in post-treatment asthma symptom scoresup to 12 months (Jan 2007 to Dec 2007)post-treatment minus pre-treatment asthma symptom score
Changes in post-treatment PD20FEV1up to 12 months (Jan 2007 to Dec 2007)post-treatment minus pre-treatment PD20FEV1
Assay positivity of AMP-BPT and His-BPT (expressed as percentage)up to 12 months (Jan 2007 to Dec 2007)Assay positivity of AMP-BPT and His-BPT, expressed as percentage
Baseline spirometry (FVC, FEV1, FEV1/FVC, MMEF, PEF)up to 12 months (Jan 2007 to Dec 2007)FVC, FEV1, FEV1/FVC, MMEF, PEF

Other

MeasureTime frameDescription
incidence of adverse events of both BPTsup to 12 months (Jan 2007 to Dec 2007)adverse events of AMP-BPT and His-BPT

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026