A collaboration of multidisciplinary experts on the delivery of pharmaceutical aerosols was facilitated by the European Respiratory Society (ERS) and the International Society for Aerosols in Medicine (ISAM), in order to draw up a consensus statement with clear, up-to-date recommendations that enable the pulmonary physician to choose the type of aerosol delivery device that is most suitable for their patient. The focus of the consensus statement is the patientuse aspect of the aerosol delivery devices that are currently available.The subject was divided into different topics, which were in turn assigned to at least two experts. The authors searched the literature according to their own strategies, with no central literature review being performed. To achieve consensus, draft reports and recommendations were reviewed and voted on by the entire panel.Specific recommendations for use of the devices can be found throughout the statement. Healthcare providers should ensure that their patients can and will use these devices correctly. This requires that the clinician: is aware of the devices that are currently available to deliver the prescribed drugs; knows the various techniques that are appropriate for each device; is able to evaluate the patient's inhalation technique to be sure they are using the devices properly; and ensures that the inhalation method is appropriate for each patient.

This international task force report updates general considerations for bronchial challenge testing and the performance of the methacholine challenge test. There are notable changes from prior recommendations in order to accommodate newer delivery devices. Rather than basing the test result upon a methacholine concentration (provocative concentration (PC) causing a 20% fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV)), the new recommendations base the result upon the delivered dose of methacholine causing a 20% fall in FEV (provocative dose (PD)). This end-point allows comparable results from different devices or protocols, thus any suitable nebuliser or dosimeter may be used, so long as the delivery characteristics are known. Inhalation may be by tidal breathing using a breath-actuated or continuous nebuliser for 1 min (or more), or by a dosimeter with a suitable breath count. Tests requiring maximal inhalations to total lung capacity are not recommended because the bronchoprotective effect of a deep breath reduces the sensitivity of the test.

Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Recently, this international task force reported the general considerations for bronchial challenge testing and the performance of the methacholine challenge test, a “direct” airway challenge test. Here, the task force provides an updated description of the pathophysiology and the methods to conduct indirect challenge tests. Because indirect challenge tests trigger airway narrowing through the activation of endogenous pathways that are involved in asthma, indirect challenge tests tend to be specific for asthma and reveal much about the biology of asthma, but may be less sensitive than direct tests for the detection of airway hyperresponsiveness. We provide recommendations for the conduct and interpretation of hyperpnoea challenge tests such as dry air exercise challenge and eucapnic voluntary hyperpnoea that provide a single strong stimulus for airway narrowing. This technical standard expands the recommendations to additional indirect tests such as hypertonic saline, mannitol and adenosine challenge that are incremental tests, but still retain characteristics of other indirect challenges. Assessment of airway hyperresponsiveness, with direct and indirect tests, are valuable tools to understand and to monitor airway function and to characterise the underlying asthma phenotype to guide therapy. The tests should be interpreted within the context of the clinical features of asthma.

No abstract

New 'omics'-technologies have the potential to better define airway disease in terms of pathophysiological and clinical phenotyping. The integration of electronic nose (eNose) technology with existing diagnostic tests, such as routine spirometry, can bring this technology to 'point-of-care'. We aimed to determine and optimize the technical performance and diagnostic accuracy of exhaled breath analysis linked to routine spirometry. Exhaled breath was collected in triplicate in healthy subjects by an eNose (SpiroNose) based on five identical metal oxide semiconductor sensor arrays (three arrays monitoring exhaled breath and two reference arrays monitoring ambient air) at the rear end of a pneumotachograph. First, the influence of flow, volume, humidity, temperature, environment, etc, was assessed. Secondly, a two-centre case-control study was performed using diagnostic and monitoring visits in day-to-day clinical care in patients with a (differential) diagnosis of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or lung cancer. Breathprint analysis involved signal processing, environment correction based on alveolar gradients and statistics based on principal component (PC) analysis, followed by discriminant analysis (Matlab2014/SPSS20). Expiratory flow showed a significant linear correlation with raw sensor deflections (R(2)  =  0.84) in 60 healthy subjects (age 43  ±  11 years). No correlation was found between sensor readings and exhaled volume, humidity and temperature. Exhaled data after environment correction were highly reproducible for each sensor array (Cohen's Kappa 0.81-0.94). Thirty-seven asthmatics (41  ±  14.2 years), 31 COPD patients (66  ±  8.4 years), 31 lung cancer patients (63  ±  10.8 years) and 45 healthy controls (41  ±  12.5 years) entered the cross-sectional study. SpiroNose could adequately distinguish between controls, asthma, COPD and lung cancer patients with cross-validation values ranging between 78-88%. We have developed a standardized way to integrate eNose technology with spirometry. Signal processing techniques and environmental background correction ensured that the multiple sensor arrays within the SpiroNose provided repeatable and interchangeable results. SpiroNose discriminated controls and patients with asthma, COPD and lung cancer with promising accuracy, paving the route towards point-of-care exhaled breath diagnostics.

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are complex and overlapping diseases that include inflammatory phenotypes. Novel anti-eosinophilic/anti-neutrophilic strategies demand rapid inflammatory phenotyping, which might be accessible from exhaled breath.Our objective was to capture clinical/inflammatory phenotypes in patients with chronic airway disease using an electronic nose (eNose) in a training and validation set.This was a multicentre cross-sectional study in which exhaled breath from asthma and COPD patients (n=435; training n=321 and validation n=114) was analysed using eNose technology. Data analysis involved signal processing and statistics based on principal component analysis followed by unsupervised cluster analysis and supervised linear regression.Clustering based on eNose resulted in five significant combined asthma and COPD clusters that differed regarding ethnicity (p=0.01), systemic eosinophilia (p=0.02) and neutrophilia (p=0.03), body mass index (p=0.04), exhaled nitric oxide fraction (p<0.01), atopy (p<0.01) and exacerbation rate (p<0.01). Significant regression models were found for the prediction of eosinophilic (R=0.581) and neutrophilic (R=0.409) blood counts based on eNose. Similar clusters and regression results were obtained in the validation set.Phenotyping a combined sample of asthma and COPD patients using eNose provides validated clusters that are not determined by diagnosis, but rather by clinical/inflammatory characteristics. eNose identified systemic neutrophilia and/or eosinophilia in a dose-dependent manner.

In mild POSAS with normal EES the new SPT device and the standard TBT are equally effective in reducing respiratory indices. However, compared to the TBT, sleep quality, quality of life, and compliance improved significantly more in the SPT group.