1,721,102 research outputs found
The lack of the bronchoprotective and not the bronchodilatory ability of deep inspiration is associated with airway hyperresponsiveness
No full textIn healthy subjects, deep inspiration (DI) acts both as a bronchodilator and a bronchoprotector. The latter is impaired in asthmatics. We have now evaluated whether the lack of bronchoprotection is related to bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR), and whether the bronchodilatory effect is also lost in asthmatics. Ten healthy subjects (PC20 > 75 mg/ml), 12 asthmatics with moderate to severe BHR (PC20 < 1 mg/ml), 14 asthmatics with mild to borderline BHR (1 < PC20 < 25 mg/ml), and 10 rhinitics with mild to borderline BHR (1 < PC20 < 25 mg/ml) underwent single-dose methacholine provocations inducing at least 20% reduction in FEV1 after 20 min of DI inhibition. To measure the bronchodilatory effect, DIs were taken immediately after the postmethacholine spirometry, and lung function was again tested. To measure the bronchoprotective effect, DIs were taken before the administration of spasmogen. All four groups achieved the same reductions in FEV1 and FVC, in the absence of deep breaths (analysis of variance [ANOVA], p = 0.49). Only healthy subjects showed bronchoprotection (percent bronchoprotection, mean +/- SEM; healthy: 79 +/- 4.0; asthmatics with moderate to severe BHR: 12 +/- 14.5; asthmatics with mild to borderline BHR: -7 +/- 19.7; rhinitics with mild to borderline BHR: 2 +/- 14.0). In contrast, DIs were able to partially reverse bronchial obstruction in all four groups, albeit percent bronchodilation in healthy subjects was somewhat stronger. The dissociation between bronchoprotection and bronchodilation suggests that the two effects involve different mechanisms
Reduced airway responsiveness in nonelite runners
No full textMed Sci Sports Exerc. 2005 Dec;37(12):2019-25.
Reduced airway responsiveness in nonelite runners.
Scichilone N, Morici G, Marchese R, Bonanno A, Profita M, Togias A, Bonsignore MR.
SourceInstitute of Medicine and Pneumology, Respiratory Unit; University of Palermo, Italy. [email protected]
Abstract
PURPOSE: The effects of endurance training on airway responsiveness in nonasthmatic subjects are poorly defined. We hypothesized that airway responsiveness may differ between none-lite endurance athletes and sedentary subjects, and studied healthy, nonelite runners and sedentary controls by single-dose methacholine challenges carried out in the absence of deep inspirations, in that deep inspirations are known to oppose airway narrowing in nonasthmatic subjects.
METHODS: A total of 20 nonasthmatic none-lite runners (mean age+/- SD: 43.0+/- 8.5 yr; training volume: 68 km.wk; range: 40-100; racing experience: 11+/- 8 yr) and 20 sedentary controls (age: 44.0+/- 20.6 yr) were studied, all of them being normo-reactive to standard methacholine challenge up to 25 mg.mL concentration. All subjects were studied at rest; six runners were also studied about 1 h after completing the Palermo marathon (December 8, 2001). The primary outcome of the study was the inspiratory vital capacity (IVC) obtained after single-dose methacholine inhalation at the end of 20 min of deep inspiration prohibition.
RESULTS: At rest, IVC decreased by 10.5+/-8.1% after challenge with methacholine at 75 mg.mL in athletes, and by 24.3+/-16.1% after a methacholine concentration of 52+/-5.7 mg.mL in sedentary controls (P=0.002). The decreased response to methacholine in runners did not correlate with static lung volumes, amount of weekly training, or running experience.
CONCLUSION: Methacholine challenge under deep inspiration prohibition revealed that endurance training attenuates airway responsiveness in nonasthmatic, none-lite runners. Airway hyporesponsiveness was potentiated after the marathon, suggesting involvement of humoral (i.e., catecholamine levels), airway factors (i.e., nitric oxide), or both in modulating airway tone after exercise.
PMID:16331124[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Deep inspiration-induced bronchoprotection is stronger than bronchodilation
No full textWe have previously shown that in healthy subjects, deep inspiration (DI) has not only a bronchodilatory but also a bronchoprotective effect that is absent in asthmatic subjects. We conducted the study reported here to test the hypothesis that the bronchoprotective effect is stronger than the bronchodilatory effect, and to determine the extent to which these two effects are related. Ten healthy subjects underwent provocations in which single doses of methacholine, previously shown to reduce FEV(1) by 10% to 20% (Dose 1) and by 20% to 40% (Dose 2) were administered after a 20-min period devoid of DI. To measure the bronchodilator effect, DIs were performed immediately after the first spirometry after methacholine, and were followed by another lung function test. To measure their bronchoprotective effect, DIs were performed before administration of a single dose of methacholine, and the FEV(1) after methacholine was compared with that of another single-dose challenge in which DIs were not included. From these outcomes, bronchodilation and bronchoprotection indices were constructed and compared with each other. At Dose 1 (mild obstruction), the ability of DIs to reverse methacholine-induced obstruction was equal to their ability to prevent it (bronchodilation index [BDI] versus bronchoprotection index [BPI]: 1.62 +/- 0.21 versus 2.02 +/- 0.40 [mean +/- SEM], p = 0.26). At Dose 2, the relative potency of both the bronchodilating and bronchoprotective effects of DIs increased, but bronchoprotection was significantly stronger (BDI versus BPI: 3.40 +/- 0.43 versus 6.98 +/- 1.42, p = 0.02). Correlation analysis of the two indices indicated that as the BPI increased, the BDI reached a plateau. We conclude that in healthy humans, the bronchoprotective effect of lung inflation is stronger than the bronchodilatory effect
Should atopy be assessed in elderly patients with respiratory symptoms suggestive of asthma?
No full text- …
