RATIONALE: Basic and clinical research strategies used for many lung diseases have depended on volunteer subjects undergoing bronchoscopy to establish access to the airways to collect biological specimens and tissue, perhaps with added bronchoprovocation in asthma syndromes. These procedures have yielded a wealth of important scientific information. Since the last critical review more than a decade ago, some of the techniques and applications have changed, and untoward events have occurred, raising safety concerns and increasing institutional review scrutiny. OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: To reappraise these investigational methods in the context of current knowledge, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health convened a working group to review these procedures used for airway disease research, emphasizing asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. MAIN RESULTS: The group reaffirmed the scientific importance of investigative bronchoscopy and bronchoprovocation, even as less invasive technologies evolve. The group also considered the safety of bronchoscopy and bronchoprovocation with methacholine and antigen to be acceptable for volunteer subjects and patients, but stressed the need to monitor this closely and to emphasize proper training of participating medical research personnel. Issues were raised about vulnerable volunteers, especially children who need surrogates for informed consent. CONCLUSION: This review of investigative bronchoscopy and bronchoprovocation could serve as the basis for future guidelines for the use of these procedures in the United States.
RATIONALE: Basic and clinical research strategies used for many lung diseases have depended on volunteer subjects undergoing bronchoscopy to establish access to the airways to collect biological specimens and tissue, perhaps with added bronchoprovocation in asthma syndromes. These procedures have yielded a wealth of important scientific information. Since the last critical review more than a decade ago, some of the techniques and applications have changed, and untoward events have occurred, raising safety concerns and increasing institutional review scrutiny. OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: To reappraise these investigational methods in the context of current knowledge, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health convened a working group to review these procedures used for airway disease research, emphasizing asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. MAIN RESULTS: The group reaffirmed the scientific importance of investigative bronchoscopy and bronchoprovocation, even as less invasive technologies evolve. The group also considered the safety of bronchoscopy and bronchoprovocation with methacholine and antigen to be acceptable for volunteer subjects and patients, but stressed the need to monitor this closely and to emphasize proper training of participating medical research personnel. Issues were raised about vulnerable volunteers, especially children who need surrogates for informed consent. CONCLUSION: This review of investigative bronchoscopy and bronchoprovocation could serve as the basis for future guidelines for the use of these procedures in the United States.
Authors: G A Finlay; K J Russell; K J McMahon; E M D'arcy; J B Masterson; M X FitzGerald; C M O'Connor Journal: Thorax Date: 1997-06 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: E Pizzichini; M M Pizzichini; A Efthimiadis; S Evans; M M Morris; D Squillace; G J Gleich; J Dolovich; F E Hargreave Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 1996-08 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: E Rand Sutherland; Tonya S King; Nikolina Icitovic; Bill T Ameredes; Eugene Bleecker; Homer A Boushey; William J Calhoun; Mario Castro; Reuben M Cherniack; Vernon M Chinchilli; Timothy J Craig; Loren Denlinger; Emily A DiMango; John V Fahy; Elliot Israel; Nizar Jarjour; Monica Kraft; Stephen C Lazarus; Robert F Lemanske; Stephen P Peters; Joe Ramsdell; Christine A Sorkness; Stanley J Szefler; Michael J Walter; Stephen I Wasserman; Michael E Wechsler; Hong Wei Chu; Richard J Martin Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Elena Goleva; Leisa P Jackson; J Kirk Harris; Charles E Robertson; E Rand Sutherland; Clifton F Hall; James T Good; Erwin W Gelfand; Richard J Martin; Donald Y M Leung Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2013-11-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Ronaldo Paolo L Panganiban; Mark H Pinkerton; Saumya Y Maru; Sarah J Jefferson; Alanna N Roff; Faoud T Ishmael Journal: Am J Clin Exp Immunol Date: 2012-11-15
Authors: Ryszard Dworski; Wei Han; Timothy S Blackwell; Aimee Hoskins; Michael L Freeman Journal: Free Radic Biol Med Date: 2011-05-04 Impact factor: 7.376
Authors: Frank Schaumann; Meike Müller; Armin Braun; Birgit Luettig; David B Peden; Jens M Hohlfeld; Norbert Krug Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2008-04-03 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Ruby Fernandez-Boyanapalli; Elena Goleva; Christena Kolakowski; Elysia Min; Brian Day; Donald Y M Leung; David W H Riches; Donna L Bratton; E Rand Sutherland Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2012-11-13 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Alejandro A Pezzulo; Patrick H Kelly; Boulos S Nassar; Cedric J Rutland; Nicholas D Gansemer; Cassie L Dohrn; Andrew J Costello; David A Stoltz; Joseph Zabner Journal: Appl Environ Microbiol Date: 2013-07-19 Impact factor: 4.792