ATS guidelines for methacholine and exercise challenge testing.

We have written an Editorial on paraquat intoxication (1), in which we review the physiopathology, the prognosis, and the treatment of this intoxication. One of the citations was that of Lin and colleagues, published last year in the AJRCCM (2). In this article spectacular results were obtained with respect to patient survival rates, given that some 82% of patients with moderate or severe intoxication survived after receiving, among other measures, pulse therapy with glucocorticoid and cyclophosphamide (CP). However, the dose of CP that appears in the mentioned article is much more toxic than the paraquat itself if we go by what is stated in the M ETHODS section, which says that patients received “15 g/kg of CP in 5% glucose saline 200 ml. . . intravenously infused for 2 h/d” for two days. In previous articles by the same group or by other authors doses of 1 g/day or of 15 mg/kg are used (3, 4). In addition, immunosuppressive therapy using high doses of CP do not usually use more than 7 g/m 2 of body surface (5) or 50 mg/kg/d (6). For these reasons, we believe that the dose of CP stated in the article must be a typographical error and should read milligrams (mg) instead of grams (g). However, until now this error seems not to have been noticed, or at least we have not seen it corrected in subsequent issues of your journal. We are firmly convinced that the treatment described by Lin will be used in many hospitals throughout the world and cited in textbooks of pneumology, critical care, clinical toxicology, emergency medicine, etc. Therefore, as well as informing Dr. Lin of our observation, we have thought it opportune that the readers of the AJRCCM also be informed on this important point, in order to avoid the possibility of treatment guidelines that could have severe consequences for patients suffering from paraquat intoxication.

[1]  R. Effros Endogenous airway acidification: implications for asthma pathology. , 2001, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[2]  D. Cockcroft,et al.  Calculation of Provocative Concentration Causing a 20% Fall in FEV1 , 2000 .

[3]  B. Gaston,et al.  Endogenous airway acidification. Implications for asthma pathophysiology. , 2000, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[4]  M. Sears,et al.  Comparison of two standardized methods of methacholine inhalation challenge in young adults , 2000 .

[5]  J. Hankinson,et al.  Guidelines for methacholine and exercise challenge testing-1999. This official statement of the American Thoracic Society was adopted by the ATS Board of Directors, July 1999. , 2000, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[6]  M. Sears,et al.  Comparison of two standardized methods of methacholine inhalation challenge in young adults. , 2000, The European respiratory journal.

[7]  D. Cockcroft,et al.  Calculation of provocative concentration causing a 20% fall in FEV(1): comparison of lowest vs highest post-challenge FEV(1). , 2000, Chest.

[8]  S. Godfrey,et al.  Cut-off points defining normal and asthmatic bronchial reactivity to exercise and inhalation challenges in children and young adults. , 1999, The European respiratory journal.

[9]  W. Guggino Cystic Fibrosis and the Salt Controversy , 1999, Cell.

[10]  V. Koseoglu,et al.  Acquired pseudocholinesterase deficiency after high-dose cyclophosphamide , 1999, Bone Marrow Transplantation.

[11]  L. Ignarro,et al.  Condensed expirate nitrite as a home marker for acute asthma , 1995, The Lancet.

[12]  V. Popa Physiologic factors affecting the discriminant ability of provocation doses to histamine. , 1994, Annals of allergy.

[13]  S. Klebanoff,et al.  Reactive nitrogen intermediates and antimicrobial activity: role of nitrite. , 1993, Free radical biology & medicine.

[14]  D. Cockcroft,et al.  Sensitivity and specificity of histamine PC20 determination in a random selection of young college students. , 1992, The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology.

[15]  A. Bauman,et al.  Repeatability of histamine bronchial challenge and comparability with methacholine bronchial challenge in a population of Australian schoolchildren. , 1991, The American review of respiratory disease.

[16]  V. Popa,et al.  Provocation dose and discriminant analysis in histamine bronchoprovocation. Are the current predictive data satisfactory? , 1988, Chest.

[17]  P. Burney,et al.  Comparison of histamine and methacholine for use in bronchial challenge tests in community studies. , 1988, Thorax.

[18]  S. Vedal,et al.  Asthma, asthmalike symptoms, chronic bronchitis, and the degree of bronchial hyperresponsiveness in epidemiologic surveys. , 1987, The American review of respiratory disease.

[19]  R. Davies,et al.  A comparison of histamine and methacholine bronchial challenges using the DeVilbiss 646 nebulizer and the Rosenthal-French dosimeter. , 1987, British journal of diseases of the chest.

[20]  T. Poon-King,et al.  LEUCOCYTE SUPPRESSION IN TREATMENT OF 72 PATIENTS WITH PARAQUAT POISONING , 1986, The Lancet.

[21]  P. Valberg,et al.  Deposition of aerosol in the respiratory tract. , 1979, The American review of respiratory disease.