4.5 Article

Exhaled NO and exhaled breath condensate pH in the evaluation of asthma control

期刊

RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
卷 105, 期 4, 页码 526-532

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2010.10.015

关键词

Asthma control; Exhaled NO; Exhaled breath condensate pH; Inhaled corticosteroids; Smoking

资金

  1. Aerocrine AB

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Asthma is a chronic inflammatory airways disorder. However, no biomarker of airways inflammation has been included in the assessment of asthma control. Objective: To evaluate exhaled NO (FeNO) and exhaled breath condensate (EBC) pH in patients with asthma according to the level of control, and their performance in the identification of not well-controlled patients. Methods: FeNO and EBC pH after Argon deaeration were measured in 274 consecutive patients. Asthma control was evaluated by two asthma specialists blinded to FeNO and pH measurements according to GINA guidelines, as well as by asthma control test (ACT) and asthma control questionnaire (ACQ). Results: FeNO was higher and EBC pH was lower in patients with not well-controlled compared to controlled asthma. In ROC analysis, FeNO presented an AUC of 0.790 for the identification of not well-controlled asthma performing better in non-smokers; EBC pH presented an AUC of 0.791 for the identification of not well-controlled asthma, performing better in smokers. The performance of both biomarkers was inferior to that of ACT and ACQ. FeNO values > 30 ppb presented positive predictive values (PPV) > 0.85 with the exception of smokers treated with inhaled corticosteroids. EBC pH values <= 7.20 presented PPV > 0.80 in all groups. The presence of FeNO > 30 ppb and/or EBC pH <= 7.20 was indicative of not well-uncontrolled asthma in 88.3% of the patients. Conclusion: FeNO and EBC pH levels may identify patients with not well-controlled asthma. However, their performance was inferior to clinical judgment and may be limited to selected subgroups of asthmatic patients. (c) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据