In search for better pharmacological prophylaxis for acute mountain sickness: looking in other directions.

Despite decades of research, the exact pathogenic mechanisms underlying acute mountain sickness (AMS) are still poorly understood. This fact frustrates the search for novel pharmacological prophylaxis for AMS. The prevailing view is that AMS results from an insufficient physiological response to hypoxia and that prophylaxis should aim at stimulating the response. Starting off from the opposite hypothesis that AMS may be caused by an initial excessive response to hypoxia, we suggest that directly or indirectly blunting-specific parts of the response might provide promising research alternatives. This reasoning is based on the observations that (i) humans, once acclimatized, can climb Mt Everest experiencing arterial partial oxygen pressures (PaO2 ) as low as 25 mmHg without AMS symptoms; (ii) paradoxically, AMS usually develops at much higher PaO2 levels; and (iii) several biomarkers, suggesting initial activation of specific pathways at such PaO2 , are correlated with AMS. Apart from looking for substances that stimulate certain hypoxia triggered effects, such as the ventilatory response to hypoxia, we suggest to also investigate pharmacological means aiming at blunting certain other specific hypoxia-activated pathways, or stimulating their agonists, in the quest for better pharmacological prophylaxis for AMS.

Impact of Study Design on Reported Incidences of Acute Mountain Sickness: A Systematic Review.

AIMS: Published incidences of acute mountain sickness (AMS) vary widely. Reasons for this variation, and predictive factors of AMS, are not well understood. We aimed to identify predictive factors that are associated with the occurrence of AMS, and to test the hypothesis that study design is an independent predictive factor of AMS incidence. We did a systematic search (Medline, bibliographies) for relevant articles in English or French, up to April 28, 2013. Studies of any design reporting on AMS incidence in humans without prophylaxis were selected. Data on incidence and potential predictive factors were extracted by two reviewers and crosschecked by four reviewers. Associations between predictive factors and AMS incidence were sought through bivariate and multivariate analyses for different study designs separately. Association between AMS incidence and study design was assessed using multiple linear regression. RESULTS: We extracted data from 53,603 subjects from 34 randomized controlled trials, 44 cohort studies, and 33 cross-sectional studies. In randomized trials, the median of AMS incidences without prophylaxis was 60% (range, 16%-100%); mode of ascent and population were significantly associated with AMS incidence. In cohort studies, the median of AMS incidences was 51% (0%-100%); geographical location was significantly associated with AMS incidence. In cross-sectional studies, the median of AMS incidences was 32% (0%-68%); mode of ascent and maximum altitude were significantly associated with AMS incidence. In a multivariate analysis, study design (p=0.012), mode of ascent (p=0.003), maximum altitude (p<0.001), population (p=0.002), and geographical location (p<0.001) were significantly associated with AMS incidence. Age, sex, speed of ascent, duration of exposure, or history of AMS were inconsistently reported and therefore not further analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: Reported incidences and identifiable predictive factors of AMS depend on study design.