pmc logo imageJournal ListSearchpmc logo image
Logo of rrBioMed Central web siteReference to the article.Search.Manuscript submission.Registration.Journal front page.
Respir Res. 2009; 10(1): 15.
Published online 2009 March 3. doi: 10.1186/1465-9921-10-15.
PMCID: PMC2660901
Diagnosing asthma in general practice with portable exhaled nitric oxide measurement – results of a prospective diagnostic study
Antonius Schneider,corresponding author1 Lisa Tilemann,1 Tjard Schermer,2 Lena Gindner,1 Gunter Laux,1 Joachim Szecsenyi,1 and Franz Joachim Meyer3
1Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
2Department of Primary Care Medicine, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
3Department of Cardiology, Pulmonology and Angiology, Medical Centre, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
corresponding authorCorresponding author.
Antonius Schneider: antonius.schneider/at/med.uni-heidelberg.de; Lisa Tilemann: lisa.tilemann/at/med.uni-heidelberg.de; Tjard Schermer: T.Schermer/at/hag.umcn.nl; Lena Gindner: lena.gindner/at/med.uni-heidelberg.de; Gunter Laux: gunter.laux/at/med.uni-heidelberg.de; Joachim Szecsenyi: joachim.szecsenyi/at/med.uni-heidelberg.de; Franz Joachim Meyer: joachim.meyer/at/med.uni-heidelberg.de
Received October 12, 2008; Accepted March 3, 2009.
Abstract
Background
To evaluate the sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) for the diagnosis of asthma in general practice.
Methods
Prospective diagnostic study with 160 patients attending 10 general practices for the first time with complaints suspicious of obstructive airway disease (OAD). Patients were referred to a lung function laboratory for diagnostic investigation. The index test was FENO measured with a portable FENO analyser based on electrochemical sensor. The reference standard was the Tiffeneau ratio (FEV1/VC) as received by spirometric manoeuvre and/or results of bronchial provocation. Bronchial provocation with methacholine was performed to determine bronchial hyper-responsiveness (BHR) in the event of inconclusive spirometric results.
Results
88 (55%) were female; their average age was 43.9 years. 75 (46.9%) patients had asthma, 25 (15.6%) had COPD, 8 (5.0%) had an overlap of COPD and asthma, and 52 (32.5%) had no OAD. At a cut-off level of 46 parts per billion (ppb) (n = 30; 18.8%), sensitivity was 32% (95%CI 23–43%), specificity 93% (95%CI 85–97%), positive predictive value (PPV) 80% (95%CI 63–91%), negative predictive value (NPV) 61% (95%CI 52–69%) when compared with a 20% fall in FEV1 from the baseline value (PC20) after inhaling methacholine concentration ≤ 16 mg/ml. At 76 ppb (n = 11; 6.9%) specificity was 100% (95%CI 96–100%) and PPV was 100% (95%CI 72–100). At a cut-off level of 12 ppb (n = 34; 21.3%), sensitivity was 90% (95%CI 79–95%), specificity 25% (95%CI 17–34%), PPV 40% (95%CI 32–50), NPV 81% (95%CI 64–91%) when compared with a 20% fall of FEV1 after inhaling methacholine concentration ≤ 4 mg/ml. Three patients with unsuspicious spirometric results have to be tested with FENO to save one bronchial provocation test.
Conclusion
Asthma could be ruled in with FENO > 46 ppb. Mild and moderate to severe asthma could be ruled out with FENO ≤ 12 ppb. FENO measurement with an electrochemical sensor might be reasonable with respect to the time consuming procedure of bronchial provocation, which carries also some risk of severe bronchospasm. Further research is necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of this dual diagnostic strategy. The number needed to diagnose might be improved when the diagnostic precision could be enhanced by future technical developments.