help button home button
AJRCCM
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Published ahead of print on November 25, 2003, doi:10.1164/rccm.200310-1376OC
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Online Supplement
Right arrow Online Supplement
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
200310-1376OCv1
169/4/473    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Smith, A. D.
Right arrow Articles by Taylor, D. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Smith, A. D.
Right arrow Articles by Taylor, D. R.
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine Vol 169. pp. 473-478, (2004)
© 2004 American Thoracic Society

Diagnosing Asthma

Comparisons between Exhaled Nitric Oxide Measurements and Conventional Tests

Andrew D. Smith, Jan O. Cowan, Sue Filsell, Chris McLachlan, Gabrielle Monti-Sheehan, Pamela Jackson and D. Robin Taylor

Otago Respiratory Research Unit, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago Medical School, Dunedin, New Zealand

Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to D. Robin Taylor, M.D., Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago Medical School, P.O. Box 913, Dunedin, New Zealand. E-mail: robin.taylor{at}stonebow.otago.ac.nz


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
International guidelines recommend a range of clinical tests to confirm the diagnosis of asthma. These focus largely on identifying variable airflow obstruction and responses to bronchodilator or corticosteroid. More recently, exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) measurements and induced sputum analysis to assess airway inflammation have been highlighted. However, to date, no systematic comparisons to confirm the diagnostic utility of each of these methods have been performed. To do so, we investigated 47 consecutive patients with symptoms suggestive of asthma, using a comprehensive fixed-sequence series of diagnostic tests. Sensitivities and specificities were obtained for peak flow measurements, spirometry, and changes in these parameters after a trial of steroid. Comparisons were made against FENO and sputum cell counts. Sensitivities for each of the conventional tests (0–47%) were lower than for FENO (88%) and sputum eosinophils (86%). Overall, the diagnostic accuracy when using FENO and sputum eosinophils was significantly greater. Results for conventional tests were not improved, using a trial of steroid. We conclude that FENO measurements and induced sputum analysis are superior to conventional approaches, with exhaled nitric oxide being most advantageous because the test is quick and easy to perform.

Key Words: asthma • diagnosis • exhaled nitric oxide • induced sputum • lung function

Bronchial asthma is common and in Western populations its prevalence is about 20% in young adults (1). Diagnosis is based on a history of wheeze, shortness of breath, and cough, which are variable in severity and over time (2), but it may not always be straightforward and clinicians frequently wish to validate the diagnosis using objective tests. This is particularly so if maintenance treatment with long-term inhaled corticosteroid therapy is being considered.

International guidelines recommend the measurement of serial peak expiratory flows or spirometry to confirm the diagnosis of asthma (3–5). The response to either inhaled bronchodilator or to a trial of corticosteroid is also included as part of current recommendations. However, these traditional approaches are problematic. First, they are primarily based on demonstrating abnormal airway physiology. Particularly in mild asthma, this is often not present and for this reason the sensitivity of each of these tests is low (6–8). Second, obtaining serial peak flow recordings or repeated spirometry over an interval of 10–14 days (as recommended) requires adequate patient compliance, and it is the experience of many clinicians that this is not easily achieved (7). As an alternative, supportive evidence may be sought using laboratory-based tests for nonspecific bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR) (3, 5, 9). BHR is a recognized feature of asthma and is associated with increased vulnerability to exogenous stimuli. But again, the sensitivity of tests such as methacholine challenge is variable (8, 10), and access to testing is not always available.

Updates to current guidelines have highlighted the potential diagnostic role of exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) measurements and induced sputum analysis (5). FENO is increased in patients with bronchial asthma (11) and has been shown to distinguish subjects with asthma from those without asthma (11, 12) with a high degree of discriminatory power (13–15). Moreover, FENO correlates well with airway eosinophilia and with BHR (16–18). Thus FENO is a potential surrogate measurement of abnormal airway pathology in asthma, and as such may be a more appropriate diagnostic tool than conventional approaches based on abnormal physiology. The test is easily performed in both adults and children (19). A similar rationale applies to the use of induced sputum analysis, but the latter is much more technically demanding, and is not routinely available.

To date, there has been no systematic comparison between FENO measurements and each of the "routine" tests recommended for diagnosing asthma. In this study, we have compared FENO measurements and induced sputum cell counts against serial peak flow recordings, spirometry, and airway responses to inhaled bronchodilator and oral steroid, in an unselected population of patients being investigated by their family practitioner. Our principal aim was to evaluate the diagnostic utility of FENO measurements as a test for asthma. Our data have previously been presented in part as an abstract (20).


   METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Subjects
We recruited 47 consecutive patients aged 8–75 years referred by their family practitioner to the Dunedin Hospital (Dunedin, New Zealand) pulmonary function laboratory for investigation of possible bronchial asthma. The laboratory offers spirometry and BHR testing to community-based clinicians as a routine service. No patient had been referred for specialist consultation as such, and there was no prior selection of patients except that each subject was required to have had respiratory symptoms for a minimum of 6 weeks. Subjects were excluded if they had used oral or inhaled corticosteroid in the preceding 4 weeks or if they had had a typical respiratory tract infection in the previous 6 weeks. The study was approved by the Otago Ethics Committee and all subjects gave written informed consent.

Study Design
Patients attended on three separate occasions at 2-week intervals. Short-acting ß-agonist and anticholinergic inhalers were permitted during the study, but were withheld for a minimum of 6 hours before each study visit. After completing a questionnaire providing details of respiratory symptoms, a fixed sequence of diagnostic investigations was performed at each of the study visits (Table 1) . Between Visits 2 and 3, a 14-day trial of oral prednisone (30 mg/day for adults; 0.5 mg/kg per day for children) was given.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 1. Study plan

 
At the final visit, the diagnosis of asthma was ascertained on the basis of the following: relevant symptom history (present in all patients), using American Thoracic Society criteria (2), and a positive test for BHR and/or a positive response to bronchodilator. These were defined as: provocative dose of hypertonic saline resulting in a 15% fall in FEV1 (PD15) of less than 20 ml (21) and an increase in FEV1 of 12% or greater from baseline 15 minutes after inhaled albuterol, respectively (6).

Study Procedures
Respiratory symptoms, bronchodilator use, and twice daily peak flows were recorded in a diary card. Data for the 7 days before the trial of oral steroid was used to calculate peak flow variation. Significant variation was defined as an amplitude percent mean of 20% or greater (22). These data were also used as a baseline to calculate the percent increase in mean morning peak flows with steroid. An increase of 15% or greater for both morning peak flows and FEV1 was considered significant (5).

Exhaled nitric oxide was measured before any forced expiratory maneuvers, according to current guidelines (19). All readings were obtained by technical staff who were blinded as to the clinical status of the patients. Two exhalation flow rates were used (50 and 250 ml/second). For the flow rate of 50 ml/second, FENO levels were read at the first NO plateau, and for the flow rate of 250 ml/second, they were read at the end-of-exhalation carbon dioxide plateau (23). The correlation between FENO50 and FENO250 was high (r = 0.99, p < 0.0001). On the basis of these and other data (24), only results for FENO50 are reported. Bronchodilator reversibility was calculated as percent change in FEV1 15 minutes after inhaling 400 µg of albuterol. An increase of 12% or greater was considered significant (6).

Bronchial hyperresponsiveness to hypertonic saline (4.5%) was measured by means of a modified version of an earlier protocol, from which PD15 was established (21). Simultaneously, sputum was collected for cell analysis according to a standardized method (25).

Statistical Analysis
Comparisons between asthmatic and nonasthmatic diagnostic groups were made by Mann–Whitney U tests. Sensitivities, specificities, and positive and negative predictive values for the diagnosis of asthma were calculated for each of the diagnostic tests. For FEV1 the cut point used to define "abnormal" was 80% (6). For the FEV1/FVC ratio, because an "abnormal" test is less easy to define (6), two cut points were used: 80 and 70%. For sputum eosinophils, the cut point used was 3% (26).

Receiver–operator characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed to compare the diagnostic utility for each test, except for percent change in FEV1 with bronchodilator and PD15, both of which had been used as diagnostic criteria. The areas under the ROC curves were compared statistically by the method described by Hanley and McNeil (27). Predictive accuracy was defined as the percentage of all test results that correctly identified presence or absence of asthma.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Fifty-one consecutive patients were enrolled. Four patients withdrew after the first study visit because of the time commitment. The baseline characteristics of the remaining 47 are shown in Table 2 . Sputum induction was possible in only 40 of 47 patients.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 2. Characteristics of the study participants by asthma diagnosis

 
Seventeen patients (36%) were diagnosed with asthma, 15 having symptoms and evidence of BHR, and a further 2 having symptoms and a positive response to bronchodilator without evidence of BHR. On the basis of Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) criteria, 1 patient was classified as having severe asthma, 4 had moderately severe asthma, and 12 had mild asthma. Thirty patients (64%) were deemed not to have asthma. The final diagnosis for these patients was as follows: chronic rhinosinusitis (13; 28%); extended postviral respiratory syndrome (8; 17%); gastroesophageal reflux disease (6; 13%); eosinophilic bronchitis (2; 4%); and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (1; 2%). Thirteen of the 17 patients with asthma (76%) were atopic compared with 13 of 30 (43%) in the nonasthmatic group.

Compared with the nonasthmatic group, the mean FEV1 (percent predicted) and FEV1/FVC ratio were significantly lower with asthma (Table 2). FENO and sputum eosinophils were significantly higher in the asthmatic group (Table 2). The peak flow and spirometric responses to a trial of oral prednisone did not differ significantly between the two groups: mean (SD) morning peak flows increased by 7.0% (9.8) and 2.2% (6.7) and FEV1 increased by 5.4% (12.6) and 2.1% (4.2) in the asthmatic and nonasthmatic patients, respectively.

The sensitivities, specificities, and positive and negative predictive values for each of the diagnostic tests are shown in Table 3 . ROC curves and comparisons of areas under the ROC curves are shown in Figure 1 and Table 4 , respectively. Both FENO and sputum eosinophils provided significantly higher degrees of diagnostic accuracy than did tests based on lung function. For FENO, the optimum cut point for diagnosing asthma, based on calculating the predictive accuracy for a range of different FENO50 levels, was 20 parts per billion (see the online supplement for detailed data).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 3. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for each of the diagnostic tests for asthma

 




View larger version (50K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. (A) Receiver–operator characteristic (ROC) curves for peak expiratory flow variation (amplitude percent mean; solid line) and peak expiratory flow steroid response (change in mean morning peak flows between the 7 days before and the final 7 days during the steroid trial; dotted line). (B) ROC curves for FEV1% predicted (solid line), FEV1/FVC ratio (dotted line), and FEV1 steroid response (dashed-dotted line). (C) ROC curves for FENO50 (solid line) and sputum eosinophils (dotted line).

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 4. Matrix of comparisons for areas under the curve for receiver–operator characteristic curves for each of the diagnostic tests

 
In contrast, conventional lung function tests (spirometry and peak flow recordings) provided substantially lower degrees of diagnostic accuracy. Measurements taken before and after a trial of oral steroid did not offer an improvement in this overall picture. Given that bronchodilator reversibility and BHR were used to define the diagnosis of asthma, similar comparisons could not be made for these tests. However, significant bronchodilator reversibility was present in only 7 of 17 patients with asthma (41%) (poorly sensitive).

There were significant correlations between FENO50 and sputum eosinophils (r = 0.67, p < 0.001) and PD15 (r = -0.56, p < 0.001).


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
In this prospective study, we have evaluated a comprehensive range of tests for confirming the diagnosis of asthma and compared those that are recommended in international guidelines with more recent "state-of-the-art" approaches, notably exhaled nitric oxide measurements. Our results show that single measurements of FENO in patients with undiagnosed chronic respiratory symptoms are strongly predictive of a diagnosis of asthma. On the basis of ROC curve analysis, FENO was also superior to the majority of conventional tests of lung function, such as peak flow recordings and spirometry, as well as changes in these parameters after a trial of steroid. In addition, we assessed the value of induced sputum analysis, given that it has been shown to reflect the underlying pathology of asthma (25, 28). FENO measurements were comparable to this technically more demanding approach, but with the advantage of being noninvasive, and quick and easy to perform.

"Best practice" for confirming the diagnosis of asthma is currently based on assessing abnormal airway physiology, using relatively simple tests, despite a relative dearth of supportive evidence (3–5). Peak flow variation, spirometric values, and responses to bronchodilator have been shown to differ significantly between subjects with asthma and those without asthma (7). For the most part, this was confirmed in the present study (Table 2). However, our results demonstrate that despite significant between-group differences, the diagnostic usefulness of these conventional tests, including the response to a trial of steroid, is limited. They were poorly sensitive and their predictive values were much lower than for FENO and sputum eosinophils. This is in keeping with the results of two other studies showing that peak flow variation (8) and bronchodilator response (29) are poorly sensitive in diagnosing asthma, particularly in patients who present with mild disease. Thus, although it may be desirable for clinicians to confirm the diagnosis of asthma "on the spot," the overall yield of currently advocated, easily accessible tests is likely to be low.

It might be argued that the thresholds we used to define "abnormal" for peak flow measurements and spirometry were inappropriate in a population with only mild asthma. We examined this issue by altering the threshold of abnormal for both FEV1 (percent predicted) and FEV1/FVC ratio. For FEV1 (percent predicted), no significant improvement in sensitivity was obtained by setting the threshold at 90% (Table 3). Similarly, for the FEV1/FVC ratio, a cut point of 80% improved the sensitivity to only 47%. This pattern of results strengthens our conclusion that FENO measurements are of even greater diagnostic value in patients presenting with only mild disease.

The advent of FENO measurements to evaluate airway inflammation in asthma represents a significant advance in respiratory medicine, but its application in day-to-day clinical practice as a diagnostic tool has not yet been defined. This was recognized in the most recent update to GINA guidelines (5). Asthma is an inflammatory disease, for the most part, although not exclusively characterized by eosinophilic airway inflammation, variable airways obstruction, and BHR (30, 31). Given that a significant relationship between FENO and both sputum eosinophils and BHR has been confirmed in this and previous studies (16, 18), it is therefore much more logical to use FENO as a surrogate test for airway inflammation than to rely on physiological changes, the measurements of which are variable over time, are often undetectable in mild cases, and correlate only poorly with clinical symptoms. Our results provide evidence in support of this view.

The predictive value of any test is dependent on the "gold standard" used for the diagnosis. The GINA guidelines describe asthma as a "chronic inflammatory disorder characterised by recurrent respiratory symptoms against a background of increased responsiveness to external stimuli giving rise to variable airflow limitation which is reversible either spontaneously or with treatment" (5). On the basis of this description, we elected to define asthma in our study as follows: relevant respiratory symptoms (which were present in all subjects and therefore could not be regarded as discriminatory) plus a positive test for bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR) and/or bronchodilator reversibility. A similar approach has been used previously (9, 32). In fact, we performed additional analyses (not reported) using two alternative gold standards. These were "relevant symptoms plus sputum eosinophilia (greater than 3%)" and "relevant symptoms plus one or more of the following: greater than 20% peak flow variability; positive bronchodilator response (spirometry); positive steroid response (peak flows or spirometry); positive test for BHR." By using these alternative definitions even greater accuracy for FENO as a diagnostic test was obtained. Thus the present results are conservative and have not been influenced by the definition of asthma used.

Of necessity, our particular choice of gold standard also meant that neither bronchodilator response nor BHR could be assessed against FENO in terms of their diagnostic utility, because both were used to define asthma in the first place. The former is often used to confirm "reversibility." Despite this apparent lack, it is worth noting that even in the asthmatic group, fewer than half (7 of 17) demonstrated reversibility to bronchodilator, indicating low sensitivity for this test. The choice of hypertonic saline rather than another challenge agent was pragmatic in that it permitted simultaneous induced sputum collection. Compared with histamine or methacholine, hypertonic saline appears to be less sensitive but more specific for diagnosing asthma (33, 34). If anything, this will have resulted in a more conservative outcome than if methacholine or histamine had been used.

The present study provides evidence of relevance in a population of patients that is most likely to be encountered in day-to-day clinical practice. By prospectively studying consecutive patients in primary care with hitherto undiagnosed symptoms, and who had relatively mild disease, we have demonstrated that even with low pretest probabilities, FENO measurements perform well when compared with conventional tests. Our results are consistent with those of three other studies (13–15) in which the diagnostic role of FENO measurements has been assessed. However, these earlier investigations offer somewhat different and more limited perspectives. In the studies by Dupont and coworkers (13) and Malmberg and coworkers (14), although the diagnostic accuracy for FENO was similarly high, no direct comparisons with other clinical and laboratory-based tests for asthma were made. Similarly, Deykin and coworkers (15) studied selected rather than unselected patients and focused on the impact of different expiratory flow rates during FENO measurements on diagnostic accuracy.

In summary, our study confirms the overall superiority of FENO measurements and induced sputum analysis in the diagnosis of asthma compared with conventional tests. FENO measurements are quick and easy to perform and may be readily incorporated into routine pulmonary function test procedures. This advance offers the possibility that a diagnosis of asthma may be performed more easily and confirmed with much greater confidence than has been possible to date.


   FOOTNOTES
 
Supported by the Otago Medical Research Foundation and the Otago Respiratory Research Trust. GlaxoSmithKline provided a personal educational grant to A.D.S. as GSK Research Fellow.

This article has an online supplement, which is accessible from this issue's table of contents online at www.atsjournals.org

Conflict of Interest Statement: A.D.S. has no declared conflict of interest; J.O.C. has no declared conflict of interest; S.F. has no declared conflict of interest; C.M. has no declared conflict of interest; G.M-S. has no declared conflict of interest; P.J. has no declared conflict of interest; D.R.T. has no declared conflict of interest.

Received in original form October 8, 2003; accepted in final form November 24, 2003


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. ISAAC Steering Committee. Worldwide variations in the prevalence of asthma symptoms: the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC). Eur Respir J 1998;12:315–335.[Abstract]
  2. American Thoracic Society. Standards for the diagnosis and care of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma. Am Rev Respir Dis 1987;136:225–244.[Medline]
  3. British Thoracic Society. British guideline on the management of asthma. Thorax 2003;58(Suppl 1):1–94.
  4. National Institutes of Health. National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Expert Panel Report 2: guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1997. NHLBI Publication 97–4051.
  5. Global Initiative for Asthma. Global strategy for asthma management and prevention: NHLBI/WHO Workshop Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1995. NHLBI Publication 95.
  6. American Thoracic Society. Lung function testing: selection of reference values and interpretative strategies. Am Rev Respir Dis 1991;144:1202–1218.[Medline]
  7. Enright PL, Lebowitz MD, Cockroft DW. Physiologic measures: pulmonary function tests. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1994;149:S9–S20.
  8. Hunter CJ, Brightling CE, Woltmann G, Wardlaw AJ, Pavord ID. A comparison of the validity of different diagnostic tests in adults with asthma. Chest 2002;121:1051–1057.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Ryan G, Latimer KM, Dolovich J, Hargreave FE. Bronchial responsiveness to histamine: relationship to diurnal variation of peak flow rate, improvement after bronchodilator, and airway calibre. Thorax 1982;37:423–429.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. James A, Ryan G. Testing airway responsiveness using inhaled methacholine or histamine. Respirology 1997;2:97–105.[Medline]
  11. Alving K, Weitzberg E, Lundberg JM. Increased amount of nitric oxide in exhaled air of asthmatics. Eur Respir J 1993;6:1368–1370.[Abstract]
  12. Kharitonov SA, Yates D, Robbins RA, Logan-Sinclair R, Shinebourne EA, Barnes PJ. Increased nitric oxide in exhaled air of asthmatic patients. Lancet 1994;343:133–135.[CrossRef][Medline]
  13. Dupont LJ, Demedts MG, Verleden GM. Prospective evaluation of the validity of exhaled nitric oxide for the diagnosis of asthma. Chest 2003;123:751–756.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Malmberg LP, Pelkonen AS, Haahtela T, Turpeinen M. Exhaled nitric oxide rather than lung function distinguishes preschool children with probable asthma. Thorax 2003;58:494–499.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Deykin A, Massaro AF, Drazen JM, Israel E. Exhaled nitric oxide as a diagnostic test for asthma: online versus offline techniques and effect of flow rate. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002;165:1597–1601.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Jatakanon A, Sim L, Kharitonov S, Chung K, Barnes P. Correlation between exhaled nitric oxide, sputum eosinophils, and methacholine responsiveness in patients with mild asthma. Thorax 1998;53:91–95.[Abstract]
  17. van den Toorn LM, Overbeek SE, de Jongste JC, Leman K, Hoogsteden HC, Prins JB. Airway inflammation is present during clinical remission of atopic asthma. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001;164:2107–2113.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Jones SL, Kittelson J, Cowan JO, Flannery EM, Hancox RJ, McLachlan CR, Taylor DR. The predictive value of exhaled nitric oxide measurements in assessing changes in asthma control. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001;164:738–743.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. American Thoracic Society. Recommendations for standardized procedures for the on-line and off-line measurement of exhaled lower respiratory nitric oxide and nasal nitric oxide in adults and children. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999;160:2104–2117.[Free Full Text]
  20. Smith AD, Filsell S, Cowan JO, Jackson P, McLachlan C, Monti-Sheehan G, Taylor DR. Diagnosing asthma using exhaled nitric oxide (eNO) measurements. Eur Respir J 2003;22:11s.
  21. Anderson SD, Bramman J. Methods for indirect challenge tests including exercise, eucapnic voluntary hyperventilation and hypertonic aerosols. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol 2003;24:27–54.[CrossRef][Medline]
  22. Quackenboss JJ, Lebowitz MD, Krzyzanowski M. The normal range of diurnal changes in peak expiratory flow rates: relationship to symptoms and respiratory disease. Am Rev Respir Dis 1991;143:323–330.[Medline]
  23. Kharitonov S, Alving K, Barnes PJ. Exhaled and nasal nitric oxide measurements: recommendations. European Respiratory Society Task Force. Eur Respir J 1997;10:1683–1693.[CrossRef][Medline]
  24. Pedroletti C, Zetterquist W, Nordvall L, Alving K. Evaluation of exhaled nitric oxide in schoolchildren at different exhalation flow rates. Pediatr Res 2002;52:393–398.[CrossRef][Medline]
  25. Fahy JV, Liu J, Wong H, Boushey HA. Cellular and biochemical analysis of induced sputum from asthmatic and from healthy subjects. Am Rev Respir Dis 1993;147:1126–1131.[Medline]
  26. Pavord ID, Brightling CE, Woltmann G, Wardlaw AJ. Non-eosinophilic corticosteroid unresponsive asthma. Lancet 1999;353:2213–2214.[CrossRef][Medline]
  27. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 1983;148:839–843.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Louis R, Lau LC, Bron AO, Roldaan AC, Radermecker M, Djukanovic R. The relationship between airways inflammation and asthma severity. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000;161:9–16.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Goldstein MF, Veza BA, Dunsky EH, Dvorin DJ, Belecanech GA, Haralabatos IC. Comparisons of peak diurnal expiratory flow variation, postbronchodilator FEV1 responses, and methacholine inhalation challenges in the evaluation of suspected asthma. Chest 2001;119:1001–1010.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Djukanovic R, Roche WR, Wilson JW, Beasley CR, Twentyman OP, Howarth RH, Holgate ST. Mucosal inflammation in asthma. Am Rev Respir Dis 1990;142:434–457.[Medline]
  31. Barnes PJ. Pathophysiology of asthma. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1996;42:3–10.[CrossRef][Medline]
  32. Toelle BG, Peat JK, Salome CM, Mellis CM, Woolcock AJ. Toward a definition of asthma for epidemiology. Am Rev Respir Dis 1992;146:633–637.[Medline]
  33. Riedler J, Reade T, Dalton M, Holst D, Robertson C. Hypertonic saline challenge in an epidemiologic survey of asthma in children. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1994;150:1632–1639.[Abstract]
  34. Riedler J, Reade T, Robertson CF. Repeatability of response to hypertonic saline aerosol in children with mild to severe asthma. Pediatr Pulmonol 1994;18:330–336.[Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 ChestHome page
S. Ferrazzoni, M. C. Scarpa, G. Guarnieri, M. Corradi, A. Mutti, and P. Maestrelli
Exhaled Nitric Oxide and Breath Condensate pH in Asthmatic Reactions Induced by Isocyanates
Chest, July 1, 2009; 136(1): 155 - 162.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Chronic Respiratory DiseaseHome page
G. Rodway, J Choi, L. Hoffman, and J. Sethi
Exhaled nitric oxide in the diagnosis and management of asthma: clinical implications
Chronic Respiratory Disease, February 1, 2009; 6(1): 19 - 29.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur Respir JHome page
S. Holgate, H. Bisgaard, L. Bjermer, T. Haahtela, J. Haughney, R. Horne, A. McIvor, S. Palkonen, D. B. Price, M. Thomas, et al.
The Brussels Declaration: the need for change in asthma management
Eur. Respir. J., December 1, 2008; 32(6): 1433 - 1442.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Postgrad. Med. J.Home page
D R Taylor and I D Pavord
Biomarkers in the assessment and management of airways diseases
Postgrad. Med. J., December 1, 2008; 84(998): 628 - 634.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ChestHome page
K. G. Lim and C. Mottram
The Use of Fraction of Exhaled Nitric Oxide in Pulmonary Practice
Chest, May 1, 2008; 133(5): 1232 - 1242.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ChestHome page
N. M. Grob and R. A. Dweik
Exhaled Nitric Oxide in Asthma: From Diagnosis, to Monitoring, to Screening: Are We There Yet?
Chest, April 1, 2008; 133(4): 837 - 839.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ChestHome page
K. Kostikas, A. I. Papaioannou, K. Tanou, A. Koutsokera, M. Papala, and K. I. Gourgoulianis
Portable Exhaled Nitric Oxide as a Screening Tool for Asthma in Young Adults During Pollen Season
Chest, April 1, 2008; 133(4): 906 - 913.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mayo Clin Proc.Home page
P. Y. Hahn, T. I. Morgenthaler, and K. G. Lim
Use of Exhaled Nitric Oxide in Predicting Response to Inhaled Corticosteroids for Chronic Cough
Mayo Clin. Proc., November 1, 2007; 82(11): 1350 - 1355.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur Respir JHome page
B. Balbi, P. Pignatti, M. Corradi, P. Baiardi, L. Bianchi, G. Brunetti, A. Radaeli, G. Moscato, A. Mutti, A. Spanevello, et al.
Bronchoalveolar lavage, sputum and exhaled clinically relevant inflammatory markers: values in healthy adults
Eur. Respir. J., October 1, 2007; 30(4): 769 - 781.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.Home page
J. Travers, S. Marsh, S. Aldington, M. Williams, P. Shirtcliffe, A. Pritchard, M. Weatherall, and R. Beasley
Reference Ranges for Exhaled Nitric Oxide Derived from a Random Community Survey of Adults
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., August 1, 2007; 176(3): 238 - 242.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.Home page
D. E. Shaw, M. A. Berry, M. Thomas, R. H. Green, C. E. Brightling, A. J. Wardlaw, and I. D. Pavord
The Use of Exhaled Nitric Oxide to Guide Asthma Management: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., August 1, 2007; 176(3): 231 - 237.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ChestHome page
D. Miedinger, P. N. Chhajed, M. Tamm, D. Stolz, C. Surber, and J. D. Leuppi
Diagnostic Tests for Asthma in Firefighters
Chest, June 1, 2007; 131(6): 1760 - 1767.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.Home page
P. Latzin, C. E. Kuehni, D. N. Baldwin, H. L. Roiha, C. Casaulta, and U. Frey
Elevated Exhaled Nitric Oxide in Newborns of Atopic Mothers Precedes Respiratory Symptoms
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., December 15, 2006; 174(12): 1292 - 1298.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ThoraxHome page
D R Taylor, M W Pijnenburg, A D Smith, and J C D Jongste
Exhaled nitric oxide measurements: clinical application and interpretation
Thorax, September 1, 2006; 61(9): 817 - 827.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ChestHome page
A. F. Gelb, C. Flynn Taylor, C. M. Shinar, C. Gutierrez, and N. Zamel
Role of Spirometry and Exhaled Nitric Oxide To Predict Exacerbations in Treated Asthmatics
Chest, June 1, 2006; 129(6): 1492 - 1499.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Biol Res NursHome page
J. Choi, L. A. Hoffman, G. W. Rodway, and J. M. Sethi
Markers of lung disease in exhaled breath: nitric oxide.
Biol Res Nurs, April 1, 2006; 7(4): 241 - 255.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 ChestHome page
A.-M. Vints, E. Oostveen, G. Eeckhaut, M. Smolders, and W. A. De Backer
Time-Dependent Effect of Nitrate-Rich Meals on Exhaled Nitric Oxide in Healthy Subjects
Chest, October 1, 2005; 128(4): 2465 - 2470.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur Respir JHome page
O. Holz
Catching breath: monitoring airway inflammation using exhaled breath condensate
Eur. Respir. J., September 1, 2005; 26(3): 371 - 372.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.Home page
A. D. Smith, J. O. Cowan, K. P. Brassett, S. Filsell, C. McLachlan, G. Monti-Sheehan, G. P. Herbison, and D. R. Taylor
Exhaled Nitric Oxide: A Predictor of Steroid Response
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., August 15, 2005; 172(4): 453 - 459.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Chronic Respiratory DiseaseHome page
R Ratnawati and P S Thomas
Exhaled nitric oxide in paediatric asthma
Chronic Respiratory Disease, July 1, 2005; 2(3): 163 - 174.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur Respir JHome page
P. E. Silkoff
Monitoring nitric oxide: here to stay for bench and bedside
Eur. Respir. J., June 1, 2005; 25(6): 949 - 950.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ThoraxHome page
N Berkman, A Avital, R Breuer, E Bardach, C Springer, and S Godfrey
Exhaled nitric oxide in the diagnosis of asthma: comparison with bronchial provocation tests
Thorax, May 1, 2005; 60(5): 383 - 388.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.Home page
ATS/ERS Recommendations for Standardized Procedures for the Online and Offline Measurement of Exhaled Lower Respiratory Nitric Oxide and Nasal Nitric Oxide, 2005
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., April 15, 2005; 171(8): 912 - 930.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.Home page
L. Fabbri, S. P. Peters, I. Pavord, S. E. Wenzel, S. C. Lazarus, W. MacNee, F. Lemaire, and E. Abraham
Allergic Rhinitis, Asthma, Airway Biology, and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in AJRCCM in 2004
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., April 1, 2005; 171(7): 686 - 698.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.Home page
A. F. Gelb, C. F. Taylor, E. Nussbaum, C. Gutierrez, A. Schein, C. M. Shinar, M. J. Schein, J. D. Epstein, and N. Zamel
Alveolar and Airway Sites of Nitric Oxide Inflammation in Treated Asthma
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., October 1, 2004; 170(7): 737 - 741.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.Home page
E. S. Taylor, A. D. Smith, J. O. Cowan, G. P. Herbison, and D. R. Taylor
Effect of Caffeine Ingestion on Exhaled Nitric Oxide Measurements in Patients with Asthma
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., May 1, 2004; 169(9): 1019 - 1021.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Online Supplement
Right arrow Online Supplement
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
200310-1376OCv1
169/4/473    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Smith, A. D.
Right arrow Articles by Taylor, D. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Smith, A. D.
Right arrow Articles by Taylor, D. R.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Proc. Am. Thorac. Soc. Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol.
Copyright © 2004 American Thoracic Society