Antonius Schneider1, Johannes Schwarzbach, Bernhard Faderl, Hubert Hautmann, Rudolf A Jörres. 1. Institute of General Practice, Klinikum rechts der Isar der TU München, 1st Medical Clinic, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Institute of Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilian-University, Munich.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whole-body plethysmography (WBP) with bronchial challenge testing to measure the (specific) airway resistance, (s)R(AW), is considered to be a more sensitive diagnostic procedure than spirometry, which can only measure the forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1). The evidence for the added diagnostic value of WBP is not yet conclusive. METHODS: In a prospective diagnostic study, we carried out WBP with bronchial challenge testing as well as a bronchodilation test in 400 patients with suspected asthma from June 2010 to October 2011. The bronchial provocation test was considered positive if the FEV1 fell by at least 20% and/or the airway resistance doubled, with an increase of the sR(AW) to at least 2.0 kPA × s and/or of the R(AW) to 0.5 kPA × s/L. Follow-up evaluation was performed one year later. RESULTS: The prevalence of asthma in the 302 patients who completed follow-up was 27.5%. The sensitivity of WBP with sR(AW) measurement for asthma was 95.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 88.3%-98.1%), and its specificity was 81.7% (95% CI 76.1%-86.3%). The sensitivity of FEV1 was 44.6% (95% CI 34.4%-55.3%), and its specificity was 91.3% (95% CI 86.6%-94.4%). The negative predictive value (NPV) of WBP with sR(AW) measurement was 97.8% (95% CI 94.5%-99.1%), while that of FEV1 was 81.3% (95% CI 76.0%-85.7%). The positive predictive value (PPV) of WBP with sR(AW) measurement was 66.4% (95% CI 57.5%-74.2%), while that of FEV1 was 66.1% (95% CI 53.0%-77.1%). CONCLUSION: With sR(AW) measurement, asthma can be ruled out with high certainty. Improving the positive predictive value of testing for asthma remains a challenge, however, as sR(AW) measurement does not yield any increase in specificity.
BACKGROUND: Whole-body plethysmography (WBP) with bronchial challenge testing to measure the (specific) airway resistance, (s)R(AW), is considered to be a more sensitive diagnostic procedure than spirometry, which can only measure the forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1). The evidence for the added diagnostic value of WBP is not yet conclusive. METHODS: In a prospective diagnostic study, we carried out WBP with bronchial challenge testing as well as a bronchodilation test in 400 patients with suspected asthma from June 2010 to October 2011. The bronchial provocation test was considered positive if the FEV1 fell by at least 20% and/or the airway resistance doubled, with an increase of the sR(AW) to at least 2.0 kPA × s and/or of the R(AW) to 0.5 kPA × s/L. Follow-up evaluation was performed one year later. RESULTS: The prevalence of asthma in the 302 patients who completed follow-up was 27.5%. The sensitivity of WBP with sR(AW) measurement for asthma was 95.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 88.3%-98.1%), and its specificity was 81.7% (95% CI 76.1%-86.3%). The sensitivity of FEV1 was 44.6% (95% CI 34.4%-55.3%), and its specificity was 91.3% (95% CI 86.6%-94.4%). The negative predictive value (NPV) of WBP with sR(AW) measurement was 97.8% (95% CI 94.5%-99.1%), while that of FEV1 was 81.3% (95% CI 76.0%-85.7%). The positive predictive value (PPV) of WBP with sR(AW) measurement was 66.4% (95% CI 57.5%-74.2%), while that of FEV1 was 66.1% (95% CI 53.0%-77.1%). CONCLUSION: With sR(AW) measurement, asthma can be ruled out with high certainty. Improving the positive predictive value of testing for asthma remains a challenge, however, as sR(AW) measurement does not yield any increase in specificity.
Authors: Penny Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Johannes B Reitsma; Afina S Glas; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Jos Kleijnen Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-02-03 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: C Vogelmeier; R Buhl; C P Criée; A Gillissen; P Kardos; D Köhler; H Magnussen; H Morr; D Nowak; D Pfeiffer-Kascha; W Petro; K Rabe; K Schultz; H Sitter; H Teschler; T Welte; R Wettengel; H Worth Journal: Pneumologie Date: 2007-04-13
Authors: C P Criée; S Sorichter; H J Smith; P Kardos; R Merget; D Heise; D Berdel; D Köhler; H Magnussen; W Marek; H Mitfessel; K Rasche; M Rolke; H Worth; R A Jörres Journal: Respir Med Date: 2011-02-26 Impact factor: 3.415
Authors: Antonius Schneider; Johannes Schwarzbach; Bernhard Faderl; Lutz Welker; Marlies Karsch-Völk; Rudolf A Jörres Journal: Respir Med Date: 2012-10-27 Impact factor: 3.415
Authors: Antonius Schneider; Bernhard Faderl; Johannes Schwarzbach; Lutz Welker; Marlies Karsch-Völk; Rudolf A Jörres Journal: Respir Med Date: 2013-11-18 Impact factor: 3.415
Authors: Marc Decramer; Wim Janssens; Eric Derom; Guy Joos; Vincent Ninane; René Deman; Dirk Van Renterghem; Giuseppe Liistro; Kris Bogaerts Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2013-10-04 Impact factor: 30.700
Authors: Benedikt Kohler; Christina Kellerer; Konrad Schultz; Michael Wittmann; Oxana Atmann; Klaus Linde; Alexander Hapfelmeier; Antonius Schneider Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2020 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Antonius Schneider; Benjamin Brunn; Alexander Hapfelmeier; Konrad Schultz; Christina Kellerer; Rudolf A Jörres Journal: EClinicalMedicine Date: 2022-07-01
Authors: Christina Kellerer; Alexander Hapfelmeier; Rudolf A Jörres; Konrad Schultz; Benjamin Brunn; Antonius Schneider Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-02-12 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: C Kellerer; K Klütsch; K Husemann; S Sorichter; R A Jörres; A Schneider Journal: NPJ Prim Care Respir Med Date: 2020-07-30 Impact factor: 2.871