Jessica H Y Tan1, Wui Mei Chew1, Therese S Lapperre1,2, Gan Liang Tan1, Chian Min Loo1,2, Mariko S Koh1,2,3. 1. Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore. 2. Duke-National University of Singapore Graduate Medical School, Singapore. 3. Allergy Centre, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies on diagnostic tests for exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) have centered around the asthmatic and elite athletic population. Traditionally, the exercise challenge test (ET) was recommended to assess EIB. We aimed to compare the performance of surrogate testing, mainly the hypertonic saline (HS) test, and methacholine challenge test (MCT) versus ET in identifying EIB among non-athletic subjects. METHODS: We prospectively recruited subjects who did not have confirmed active asthma, but who reported exercise-induced dyspnoea. The participants underwent HS and ET on separate days within two weeks. MCT performed within one year were obtained retrospectively from medical records. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of each diagnostic test were calculated using ET as the gold standard. RESULTS: We recruited 27 participants (mean age 20.6±2.5 years; 92.6% male). Five (18.5%) had a history of self-reported asthma prior to recruitment. Eleven participants (40.7%) had a positive ET test. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of HS in diagnosing EIB was 90.9%, 62.5% and 74.1%; while that of MCT was 88.9%, 83.3% and 85.7% respectively. Six subjects were positive to HS but had negative ET test. CONCLUSIONS: Both HS and MCT were found to be suitable alternatives to ET in screening for EIB in the non-athletic population in this pilot study. Further large scale studies are required to confirm this finding. These tests have the potential to replace ET for the diagnosis of EIB in centres without ET equipment or facilities.
BACKGROUND: Studies on diagnostic tests for exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) have centered around the asthmatic and elite athletic population. Traditionally, the exercise challenge test (ET) was recommended to assess EIB. We aimed to compare the performance of surrogate testing, mainly the hypertonic saline (HS) test, and methacholine challenge test (MCT) versus ET in identifying EIB among non-athletic subjects. METHODS: We prospectively recruited subjects who did not have confirmed active asthma, but who reported exercise-induced dyspnoea. The participants underwent HS and ET on separate days within two weeks. MCT performed within one year were obtained retrospectively from medical records. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of each diagnostic test were calculated using ET as the gold standard. RESULTS: We recruited 27 participants (mean age 20.6±2.5 years; 92.6% male). Five (18.5%) had a history of self-reported asthma prior to recruitment. Eleven participants (40.7%) had a positive ET test. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of HS in diagnosing EIB was 90.9%, 62.5% and 74.1%; while that of MCT was 88.9%, 83.3% and 85.7% respectively. Six subjects were positive to HS but had negative ET test. CONCLUSIONS: Both HS and MCT were found to be suitable alternatives to ET in screening for EIB in the non-athletic population in this pilot study. Further large scale studies are required to confirm this finding. These tests have the potential to replace ET for the diagnosis of EIB in centres without ET equipment or facilities.
Authors: R O Crapo; R Casaburi; A L Coates; P L Enright; J L Hankinson; C G Irvin; N R MacIntyre; R T McKay; J S Wanger; S D Anderson; D W Cockcroft; J E Fish; P J Sterk Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: John M Weiler; Sandra D Anderson; Christopher Randolph; Sergio Bonini; Timothy J Craig; David S Pearlman; Kenneth W Rundell; William S Silvers; William W Storms; David I Bernstein; Joann Blessing-Moore; Linda Cox; David A Khan; David M Lang; Richard A Nicklas; John Oppenheimer; Jay M Portnoy; Diane E Schuller; Sheldon L Spector; Stephen A Tilles; Dana Wallace; William Henderson; Lawrence Schwartz; David Kaufman; Talal Nsouli; Lawrence Shieken; Nelson Rosario Journal: Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 6.347
Authors: C A Newill; P A Eggleston; V L Prenger; J E Fish; E L Diamond; Q Wei; R Evans Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 1995-03 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Sandra D Anderson; David S Pearlman; Kenneth W Rundell; Claire P Perry; Homer Boushey; Christine A Sorkness; Sara Nichols; John M Weiler Journal: Respir Res Date: 2010-09-01