Lutz Naehrlich1, Manfred Ballmann2, Jane Davies3, Nico Derichs4, Tanja Gonska5, Lena Hjelte6, Silke van Konigsbruggen-Rietschel7, Teresinha Leal8, Paola Melotti9, Peter Middleton10, Burkhard Tümmler11, Francois Vermeulen12, Michael Wilschanski13. 1. Department of Pediatrics, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Giessen, Germany. Electronic address: lutz.naehrlich@paediat.med.uni-giessen.de. 2. Ruhr University Paediatric Clinic at St Josef Hospital, Bochum, Germany. 3. Paediatric Respiratory Medicine, Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom; Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit, Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom; Department of Gene Therapy, Imperial College London, United Kingdom. 4. CFTR Biomarker Centre and Translational CF Research Group Christiane Herzog Cystic Fibrosis Centre, Paediatric Pulmonology and Immunology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 5. Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada. 6. Stockholm Cystic Fibrosis Center, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden. 7. CF Centre Cologne, Children's Hospital, University of Cologne, Germany. 8. Louvain Centre for Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology (LTAP), Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium. 9. Cystic Fibrosis Center, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata di Verona, Verona, Italy. 10. Cystic Fibrosis Unit, Ludwig Engel Centre for Respiratory Research, Westmead Millennium Institute, University of Sydney at Westmead, Westmead, NSW, Australia. 11. Klinik für Pädiatrische Pneumologie, Allergologie und Neonatologie, OE 6710, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Germany. 12. Cystic Fibrosis Reference Centre, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 13. Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hadassah University Hospital, Jerusalem, Israel.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role of nasal potential difference (NPD) measurement as a diagnostic test for cystic fibrosis (CF) is a subject of global controversy because of the lack of validation studies, clear reference values, and standardized protocols for diagnostic NPD. METHODS: To determine diagnostic NPD frequency, protocols, interpretation, and rater agreement, we surveyed the 18 NPD centres of the European Cystic Fibrosis Society Diagnostic Network Working Group. RESULTS: Fifteen centres reported performing 373 diagnostic NPDs in 2012. Most use the CFF-TDN-SOP (67%) and the chloride-free + isoproterenol response of the side with the largest response (47%) as diagnostic criteria and use centre-specific reference ranges. Rater agreement for five NPD tracings - in general - was good, but poor in tracings with different responses between the two nostrils. CONCLUSIONS: NPD is frequently used as a diagnostic and research tool for CF. Performance is highly standardized, centre-specific reference ranges are established, and rater agreement - in general - is good. Centre-independent diagnostic criteria and reference ranges must be defined by multicentre validation studies to improve standardized interpretation for diagnostic use.
BACKGROUND: The role of nasal potential difference (NPD) measurement as a diagnostic test for cystic fibrosis (CF) is a subject of global controversy because of the lack of validation studies, clear reference values, and standardized protocols for diagnostic NPD. METHODS: To determine diagnostic NPD frequency, protocols, interpretation, and rater agreement, we surveyed the 18 NPD centres of the European Cystic Fibrosis Society Diagnostic Network Working Group. RESULTS: Fifteen centres reported performing 373 diagnostic NPDs in 2012. Most use the CFF-TDN-SOP (67%) and the chloride-free + isoproterenol response of the side with the largest response (47%) as diagnostic criteria and use centre-specific reference ranges. Rater agreement for five NPD tracings - in general - was good, but poor in tracings with different responses between the two nostrils. CONCLUSIONS: NPD is frequently used as a diagnostic and research tool for CF. Performance is highly standardized, centre-specific reference ranges are established, and rater agreement - in general - is good. Centre-independent diagnostic criteria and reference ranges must be defined by multicentre validation studies to improve standardized interpretation for diagnostic use.
Authors: Elenara da Fonseca Andrade Procianoy; Fernando Antônio de Abreu E Silva; Paulo José Cauduro Maróstica; Paul M Quinton Journal: Lung Date: 2019-11-16 Impact factor: 2.584
Authors: George M Solomon; Bo Liu; Isabelle Sermet-Gaudelus; Isabelle Fajac; Michael Wilschanski; Francois Vermeulen; Steven M Rowe Journal: J Cyst Fibros Date: 2017-04-29 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: George M Solomon; Inez Bronsveld; Kathryn Hayes; Michael Wilschanski; Paola Melotti; Steven M Rowe; Isabelle Sermet-Gaudelus Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2018-09-13 Impact factor: 1.355
Authors: Eric W F W Alton; A Christopher Boyd; Jane C Davies; Deborah R Gill; Uta Griesenbach; Tracy E Harman; Stephen Hyde; Gerry McLachlan Journal: Hum Gene Ther Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 5.695
Authors: Ronny Tah Yen Ng; Fernando Augusto de Lima Marson; Jose Dirceu Ribeiro; Antonio Fernando Ribeiro; Carmen Silvia Bertuzzo; Maria Angela Gonçalves de Oliveira Ribeiro; Silvana Dalge Severino; Eulalia Sakano Journal: Dis Markers Date: 2015-01-15 Impact factor: 3.434
Authors: Harm A W M Tiddens; Michael Puderbach; Jose G Venegas; Felix Ratjen; Scott H Donaldson; Stephanie D Davis; Steven M Rowe; Scott D Sagel; Mark Higgins; David A Waltz Journal: Pediatr Pulmonol Date: 2014-12-30
Authors: Izabela Rocha Sad; Laurinda Yoko Shinzato Higa; Teresinha Leal; Raisa da Silva Martins; Ana Claudia de Almeida; Eloane Goncalves Ramos; Giselda Maria Kalil de Cabello; Maria Virginia Marques Peixoto Journal: J Clin Med Res Date: 2015-12-03