Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT02318043

AMP-BPT and His-BPT for Assessment of Asthma

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.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

18 year–65 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

About this study

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.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • aged 18~65 years;
  • nil respiratory infection within 3 weeks;
  • normal chest radiography;
  • baseline FEV1>60% predicted;
  • 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

  • FEV1 fall ≥20% following saline inhalation;
  • other chronic lower respiratory diseases (i.e. COPD);
  • severe systemic diseases (i.e. uncontrolled hypertension, malignancy);
  • 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.

Treatment and study plan

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

Drug

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.

Primary outcomes

  1. Cumulative dose eliciting 20% fall in FEV1 (PD20FEV1)

    Time frame: up to 12 months (Jan 2007 to Dec 2007)

    Cumulative dose eliciting 20% fall in FEV1 (PD20FEV1), reported as

  2. Asthma symptom score as proposed by Hoggs et al

    Time frame: up 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

Secondary outcomes

  1. Baseline spirometry (FVC, FEV1, FEV1/FVC, MMEF, PEF)

    Time frame: up to 12 months (Jan 2007 to Dec 2007)

    FVC, FEV1, FEV1/FVC, MMEF, PEF

  2. Maximal decrease in FVC following bronchial provocation (expressed as percentage)

    Time frame: up to 12 months (Jan 2007 to Dec 2007)

    Maximal decrease in FVC following bronchial provocation, expressed as percentage as compared with baseline levels

  3. Maximal decrease in FEV1 following bronchial provocation (expressed as percentage)

    Time frame: up to 12 months (Jan 2007 to Dec 2007)

    Maximal decrease in FEV1 following bronchial provocation, expressed as percentage as compared with baseline levels

  4. Maximal decrease in MMEF following bronchial provocation (expressed as percentage)

    Time frame: up to 12 months (Jan 2007 to Dec 2007)

    Maximal decrease in MMEF following bronchial provocation, expressed as percentage as compared with baseline levels

  5. Maximal decrease in PEF following bronchial provocation (expressed as percentage)

    Time frame: up to 12 months (Jan 2007 to Dec 2007)

    Maximal decrease in PEF following bronchial provocation, expressed as percentage as compared with baseline levels

  6. Assay positivity of AMP-BPT and His-BPT (expressed as percentage)

    Time frame: up to 12 months (Jan 2007 to Dec 2007)

    Assay positivity of AMP-BPT and His-BPT, expressed as percentage

  7. Diagnostic performance of AMP-BPT and His-BPT (area under the receiver operation characteristic curve, sensitivity, specificity, Youden index)

    Time frame: up to 12 months (Jan 2007 to Dec 2007)

    area under the receiver operation characteristic curve, sensitivity, specificity, Youden index

  8. Changes in post-treatment asthma symptom scores

    Time frame: up to 12 months (Jan 2007 to Dec 2007)

    post-treatment minus pre-treatment asthma symptom score

  9. Changes in post-treatment PD20FEV1

    Time frame: up to 12 months (Jan 2007 to Dec 2007)

    post-treatment minus pre-treatment PD20FEV1

Other outcomes

  1. incidence of adverse events of both BPTs

    Time frame: up to 12 months (Jan 2007 to Dec 2007)

    adverse events of AMP-BPT and His-BPT

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Disease

Other

Registry information

Official study title

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

Acronym: AMPHis

Important dates

Study start
2007
Primary completion
2007
Study completion
2007
First posted
Dec 17, 2014
Registry last updated
Dec 17, 2014

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.