Abstract
Findings In athletes with AHR, the PC20 (expressed as the mean of double concentrations (DC) ± standard error) was 0.7 ± 1.2 DC lower when MIT followed EVH (p = 0.015), while there was no significant difference in athletes without AHR (-0.4 ± 0.8 DC) nor in control subjects (0.4 ± 0.7 DC). When grouping subjects based on the EVH response, those with a positive response (FEV1 fall ≥ 10%) had a mean PC20 0.8 ± 1.1 DC lower when MIT followed EVH (p = 0.0008) while in those with no response to EVH (FEV1 fall <10%), airway responsiveness was not influenced by this test (0.05 ± 0.76 DC).
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
