Capsaicin provocation using two different inhalation devices.

Author(s): Ternesten-Hasseus E, Larsson C, Bende M, Millqvist E

Affiliation(s): Asthma and Allergy Research Group, Department of Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, The Sahlgrenska Academy at Goteborg University, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, S-413 45 Goteborg, Sweden. ewa.ternesten@lungall.gu.se

Publication date & source: 2008-12, Respir Med., 102(12):1784-90. Epub 2008 Aug 15.

Publication type: Randomized Controlled Trial; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

BACKGROUND: Sensory hyperreactivity (SHR) has been suggested as one explanation for chemically induced airway symptoms; it can be diagnosed with a capsaicin inhalation test. Previous capsaicin inhalation studies of SHR have used a Pari Boy device. This model of inhalator device has become outdated, hence it is necessary to abandon it in favour of a new device. The aim of this study was to transfer the capsaicin inhalation test using the Pari Boy device to a corresponding model using the Maxin MA3 device. METHODS: Twenty-one patients with SHR and 44 healthy controls visited the clinic twice and underwent a randomised protocol. The participants were provoked with saline and capsaicin using one of two devices, Pari Boy and Maxin MA3. Eight patients also underwent two additional capsaicin provocations with Maxin MA3. A new series of capsaicin concentrations was chosen for Maxin MA3. The results from each device were analysed, the agreement between the two devices and the repeatability of the Maxin MA3 were evaluated. RESULTS: Among all participants, the mean number of coughs with the Pari Boy was 5.5 (95% CI: 2.7; 8.2) after inhalation of 0.4 micromol/L capsaicin and 20.0 (95% CI: 14.1; 25.9) after 2.0 micromol/L. With the Maxin MA3, the mean number of coughs was 3.6 (95% CI: 1.3; 4.0) after 0.06 micromol/L capsaicin, and 17.8 (95% CI: 12.0; 23.6) after 0.3 micromol/L. The Maxin MA3 showed good repeatability and the agreement between the devices with the capsaicin concentrations chosen for each device was considered to be good.