4.6 Article

Diagnostic yield of specific inhalation challenge in hypersensitivity pneumonitis

期刊

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
卷 44, 期 6, 页码 1658-1665

出版社

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00060714

关键词

-

资金

  1. Instituto de Salud Carlos III [FIS PI1001577]
  2. Sociedad Espanola de Patologia Respiratoria (SEPAR, Spanish Society of Respiratory Disease)
  3. Fundacio Catalana de Pneumologia (FUCAP, Catalonian Pulmonology Foundation)
  4. Miguel Servet programme from Instituto de Salud Carlos III [CP12/03101]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reliable methods are needed to diagnose hypersensitivity pneumonitis. The aim of the study was to establish the diagnostic yield of specific inhalation challenge (SIC) in patients with hypersensitivity pneumonitis. All patients with suspected hypersensitivity pneumonitis in whom SIC was performed (n=113) were included. SIC was considered positive when patients showed a decrease of >15% in forced vital capacity (PVC) or >20% in diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon dioxide, or a decrease of 10% to 15% in PVC accompanied by a temperature increase of 0.5 degrees C within 24 h of inhalation of the antigen. SIC was positive to the agents tested in 68 patients: 64 received a diagnosis of hypersensitivity pneumonitis and SIC results were considered false-positive in the remaining four patients. In the SIC-negative group (n=45), 24 patients received a diagnosis of hypersensitivity pneumonitis and SIC results were considered false-negative, and 21 patients were diagnosed with other respiratory diseases. The sensitivity and specificity of the test were 72.7% and 84%, respectively. Having hypersensitivity pneumonitis caused by an antigen other than birds or fungi predicted a false-negative result (p=0.001). In hypersensitivity pneumonitis, positive SIC testing virtually confirms the diagnosis, whereas negative testing does not rule it out, especially when the antigenic sources are not birds or fungi.

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

4.6
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