Kay Choong See1, David C Christiani2. 1. Division of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, National University Hospital, Singapore; Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA. Electronic address: kay_choong_see@nuhs.edu.sg. 2. Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA; Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Elevated fractional excretion of exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) reflects airway inflammation, but few studies have established its normal values. This study aims to establish the normal values and thresholds for the clinical interpretation of FENO in the US general population. METHODS: Thirteen thousand two hundred seventy-five subjects aged 6 to 80 years sampled for the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2007-2010 underwent interviews, physical examination, and FENO analysis at 50 mL/s using an online chemiluminescence device according to American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society guidelines. After excluding subjects with self-reported asthma and subjects with wheeze in the prior 12 months, prediction equations for the natural logarithm (ln) of FENO were constructed using age, sex, ethnicity, height, BMI, active/passive smoke exposure, and hay fever episodes as covariates. RESULTS: The fifth to 95th percentile values of FENO were 3.5 to 36.5 parts per billion (ppb) for children < 12 years of age and 3.5 to 39 ppb for subjects 12 to 80 years of age. Using multiple linear regression, prediction equations explained only 10.3% to 15.7% of the variation in the general population. In the general population, 39% to 45% had ln(FENO) levels > 2 SD of the predicted means. When applied to the general population inclusive of subjects who reported asthma but who did not have attacks within the past year, nearly identical results were obtained. CONCLUSIONS: Assuming 95% of the healthy US general population had no clinically significant airway inflammation as assessed by FENO, values exceeding the 95th percentiles indicated abnormality and a high risk of airway inflammation. A large variation of normal FENO values existed in the general population, which was poorly predicted by multiple linear regression models.
BACKGROUND: Elevated fractional excretion of exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) reflects airway inflammation, but few studies have established its normal values. This study aims to establish the normal values and thresholds for the clinical interpretation of FENO in the US general population. METHODS: Thirteen thousand two hundred seventy-five subjects aged 6 to 80 years sampled for the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2007-2010 underwent interviews, physical examination, and FENO analysis at 50 mL/s using an online chemiluminescence device according to American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society guidelines. After excluding subjects with self-reported asthma and subjects with wheeze in the prior 12 months, prediction equations for the natural logarithm (ln) of FENO were constructed using age, sex, ethnicity, height, BMI, active/passive smoke exposure, and hay fever episodes as covariates. RESULTS: The fifth to 95th percentile values of FENO were 3.5 to 36.5 parts per billion (ppb) for children < 12 years of age and 3.5 to 39 ppb for subjects 12 to 80 years of age. Using multiple linear regression, prediction equations explained only 10.3% to 15.7% of the variation in the general population. In the general population, 39% to 45% had ln(FENO) levels > 2 SD of the predicted means. When applied to the general population inclusive of subjects who reported asthma but who did not have attacks within the past year, nearly identical results were obtained. CONCLUSIONS: Assuming 95% of the healthy US general population had no clinically significant airway inflammation as assessed by FENO, values exceeding the 95th percentiles indicated abnormality and a high risk of airway inflammation. A large variation of normal FENO values existed in the general population, which was poorly predicted by multiple linear regression models.
Authors: Majid Afshar; Jill A Poole; Guichan Cao; Ramon Durazo; Richard C Cooper; Elizabeth J Kovacs; Joseph H Sisson Journal: Chest Date: 2016-02-19 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Andressa Guariento Ferreira Alves; Maria Fernanda de Azevedo Giacomin; Alfésio Luis Ferreira Braga; Adriana Maluf Elias Sallum; Luiz Alberto Amador Pereira; Luis Carlos Farhat; Fernando Louzada Strufaldi; Ana Julia de Faria Coimbra Lichtenfels; Tômas de Santana Carvalho; Naomi Kondo Nakagawa; Clovis Artur Silva; Sylvia Costa Lima Farhat Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2017-11-02 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Mohamed A Gashouta; Christian A Merlo; Matthew R Pipeling; John F McDyer; J W Awori Hayanga; Jonathan B Orens; Reda E Girgis Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Peter G Shields; Micah Berman; Theodore M Brasky; Jo L Freudenheim; Ewy Mathe; Joseph P McElroy; Min-Ae Song; Mark D Wewers Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Matthew W Nonnenmann; David Gimeno Ruiz de Porras; Jeffrey Levin; David Douphrate; Vijay Boggaram; Joshua Schaffer; Michael Gallagher; Madeleine Hornick; Stephen Reynolds Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 2.214
Authors: Abraham B Roos; Michiko Mori; Reidar Grönneberg; Christina Österlund; Hans-Erik Claesson; Jan Wahlström; Johan Grunewald; Anders Eklund; Jonas S Erjefält; Jon O Lundberg; Magnus Nord Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-02-28 Impact factor: 3.240