Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions

When asthma diagnosis becomes a challenge

M. Contoli, A. Papi
European Respiratory Journal 2010 36: 231-233; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00053010
M. Contoli
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: ctm@unife.it
A. Papi
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Asthma is a worldwide disease affecting an estimated 300 million individuals 1, 2. Some authors refer to the increased prevalence of asthma reported during the past decades, in many parts of the world, as a wave of “asthma epidemic” 3. Given the recent increase in asthma-related healthcare costs 4, it has become important, in a time of economical restriction, to critically review the dimensions of this phenomenon and to investigate the underlying causes. First of all, is there a real epidemic threat? Indeed, besides several proposed explanations for increasing asthma prevalence (e.g. exposure to tobacco smoke, air pollution and specific allergens, change in diet intake, obesity, exposure to infections and microbial substance in the environment) 3, there has also been an improved awareness of the disease over the past few years. Substantial effort has been made in the past decade for the development and the dissemination of international asthma guidelines. Such widespread publicity has certainly contributed to improve asthma management worldwide and to identify and treat new asthmatic patients. However, it might also have caused overdiagnosis of asthma and, more specifically, it may have contributed to the increased proportion of incorrectly diagnosed asthma cases. Inevitably, any misdiagnosed cases lead to over treatment or inappropriate treatments 5, and increased risk of side-effects in the absence of any pharmacological benefit.

Is it only a hypothetical situation? Unfortunately it does not appear to be a mere theory. International guidelines advise that asthma diagnosis be based on both the presence of symptoms and objective measurements of variable airflow obstruction 1, 2. Spirometry, when it shows reversible airflow obstruction, and/or bronchial challenge, and when it identifies bronchial hyperresponsiveness, is a highly valuable diagnostic tool in patients with a clinical history suggestive of asthma. However, in daily practice, there are important barriers to performing lung function tests which can occur more frequently in a primary care setting but also in secondary care settings 6–8. Under these conditions one can be tempted to initiate asthma medication in patients presenting with asthma symptoms, without putting any effort into further diagnostic investigations. Recent studies indicate that many of the diagnoses of asthma in primary care rely solely on clinical evaluation and/or response to treatment 9. Thus, the risk of misdiagnosed asthma is not a hypothesis and it could become a real issue. In a Swedish study, where patients on a primary care asthma register underwent a comprehensive diagnosis re-evaluation, asthma could not be confirmed in more than one third of patients 10. Similarly, in a sample population of physician-labelled asthmatics, 41% showed no evidence of reversible airflow obstruction and had a negative methacholine challenge 11. More recently, Aaron et al. 12 reported that asthma was ultimately excluded in 30% of physician-diagnosed asthmatic patients based on the absence of acute worsening of asthma symptoms, reversible airflow obstruction or bronchial hyperresponsiveness after withdrawal of asthma medication. Taken together, these findings document that asthma overdiagnosis/misdiagnosis is not a rare event in daily practice. Obvious consequences are, on the one hand, inappropriate and most probably unsuccessful treatment and, on the other hand, increased costs and increased risk of adverse events. This issue becomes even more crucial in the light of the recently renewed US Food and Drug Administration warning on the appropriateness of the use of long-acting β2-agonists in association with inhaled corticosteroids 13.

In daily clinical practice, how often do we confirm existing asthma treatments without inquiring too much on the appropriateness of the original diagnosis? How often do we doubt the diagnosis in patients labelled as asthmatics and treated accordingly but free of symptoms for a long time? How often do we visit patients that, due to difficulty in accessing healthcare facilities, are treated based on a clinical suspicion but awaiting lung function testing? In all these circumstances, the (re)confirmation/assessment of asthma diagnosis is a true medical need. Unfortunately, international guidelines do not provide validated strategies to confirm or exclude asthma in patients already labelled and treated as asthmatics.

In the current issue of the European Respiratory Journal, Luks et al. 14 propose a practical approach to this topic. In a previous study, Aaron et al. 12 found that about one-third of individuals with physician-diagnosed asthma did not have asthma when objectively assessed. In this study they applied a stepwise diagnostic approach to the same cohort of patients to confirm or exclude a previous physician diagnosis of asthma. First, the authors confirm their previous finding that in ∼30% of patients the previous diagnosis of asthma could be excluded. This finding quantifies the magnitude of the risk of misdiagnosed asthma, clearly indicating the relevance of this issue. Secondly, the authors report that reversibility testing and methacholine challenge are sufficient to confirm asthma for the vast majority of patients (∼95%) irrespective of any ongoing asthma treatment. Thus, withholding or tapering asthma medication is not generally required to confirm the diagnosis of asthma. Thirdly, in only a minority of patients was tapering or withdrawal of regular treatment necessary to document bronchial hyperresponsiveness. Of note, up to one-third of patients in whom asthma was excluded did resume taking an asthma medication at some point during the 6-month follow-up period.

The effort made by the authors in their attempt to identify an easy and time saving protocol to confirm asthma diagnosis has to be appreciated. However, some doubts remain. In the study by Luks et al. 14 the presence of bronchial hyperresponsiveness has been used to definitely exclude or confirm asthma diagnosis. Although the sensitivity of methacholine challenge is well recognised, its specificity is of some concern 15, 16. Examples include the following: 1) several studies have reported that airway hyperresponsiveness is enhanced in patients with allergic rhinitis and no asthma 17–19; 2) there is evidence that cigarette smoke can acutely increase bronchial hyperresponsiveness 20–22 by inducing the release of pro-inflammatory mediators and/or by interfering with the metabolism of bronchoconstriction mediators 23; 3) clinical conditions characterised by airflow limitation can be associated with bronchial hyperresponsiveness mainly related to the reduced airways calibre (e.g. chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) 15, 24; 4) viral infections of the airways transiently increase airway hyperresponsiveness even in healthy subjects 25. Thus, other possible causes of bronchial hyperresponsiveness, sometimes presenting with clinical features not dissimilar to asthma should be carefully excluded to avoid false-positive results 1, 2. However, the presence of a negative bronchial challenge does not rule out asthma diagnosis. Indeed, bronchial hyperresponsiveness may not always be present in asthmatic patients. For example, a negative methacholine challenge may occur in: seasonal asthmatic patients when tested out of season 26; workers with occupational asthma due to a single antigen or chemical sensitiser, which may respond only when challenged with the specific agent 27; and patients taking intensive anti-inflammatory medication 15. In the study by Luks et al. 14, ∼30% of patients with a negative methacholine challenge, even after withdrawing all medication, experienced asthma symptoms requiring medical intervention in the following 6 months. Can we totally exclude asthma in these patients? If not, as appears to be the case, the approach proposed in the present study needs to be improved in order to better identify truly negative results. One possible false-negative result out of three negative results might not be of great clinical help, and it questions the sensitivity of the decision process based on the algorithm proposed by the authors. However, since no absolute and unanimously accepted protocol is available to evaluate the accuracy of pre-existing asthma diagnosis, the study presented by Luks et al. 14 should be merited with having raised such a relevant issue and for proposing a valuable but perfectible strategy.

Footnotes

  • Statement of Interest

    None declared.

    • ©ERS 2010

    REFERENCES

    1. ↵
      1. Bateman ED,
      2. Hurd SS,
      3. Barnes PJ,
      4. et al
      . Global strategy for asthma management and prevention: GINA executive summary. Eur Respir J 2008; 31: 143–178.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    2. ↵
      Global Initiative for Asthma. Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention. 2008 Update. Publication No. 02-3659: 1–116. NHLBI/WHO workshop report. Bethesda, National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, 2008. www.ginasthma.com/Guidelineitem.asp??l1=2&l2=1&intId=60.
    3. ↵
      1. Eder W,
      2. Ege MJ,
      3. von Mutius E
      . The asthma epidemic. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 2226–2235.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    4. ↵
      1. Bahadori K,
      2. Doyle-Waters MM,
      3. Marra C,
      4. et al
      . Economic burden of asthma: a systematic review. BMC Pulm Med 2009; 9: 24–
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    5. ↵
      1. Lucas AE,
      2. Smeenk FW,
      3. Smeele IJ,
      4. et al
      . Overtreatment with inhaled corticosteroids and diagnostic problems in primary care patients, an exploratory study. Fam Pract 2008; 25: 86–91.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    6. ↵
      1. Caramori G,
      2. Bettoncelli G,
      3. Tosatto R,
      4. et al
      . Underuse of spirometry by general practitioners for the diagnosis of COPD in Italy. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis 2005; 63: 6–12.
      OpenUrlPubMed
      1. Miravitlles M,
      2. de la Roza C,
      3. Naberan K,
      4. et al
      . Use of spirometry and patterns of prescribing in COPD in primary care. Respir Med 2007; 101: 1753–1760.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    7. ↵
      1. Riario-Sforza GG,
      2. Incorvaia C,
      3. Pravettoni C,
      4. et al
      . Guidelines versus clinical practice in the treatment of COPD: a reappraisal. Eur Respir J 2006; 27: 656–
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    8. ↵
      1. Caramori G,
      2. Bettoncelli G,
      3. Carone M,
      4. et al
      . Degree of control of physician-diagnosed asthma and COPD in Italy. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis 2007; 67: 15–22.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    9. ↵
      1. Marklund B,
      2. Tunsater A,
      3. Bengtsson C
      . How often is the diagnosis bronchial asthma correct? Fam Pract 1999; 16: 112–116.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    10. ↵
      1. LindenSmith J,
      2. Morrison D,
      3. Deveau C,
      4. et al
      . Overdiagnosis of asthma in the community. Can Respir J 2004; 11: 111–116.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    11. ↵
      1. Aaron SD,
      2. Vandemheen KL,
      3. Boulet LP,
      4. et al
      . Overdiagnosis of asthma in obese and nonobese adults. CMAJ 2008; 179: 1121–1131.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    12. ↵
      1. Chowdhury BA,
      2. Dal Pan G
      . The FDA and safe use of long-acting beta-agonists in the treatment of asthma. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1169–1171.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    13. ↵
      1. Luks VP,
      2. Vandemheen KL,
      3. Aaron SD
      . Confirmation of asthma in an era of overdiagnosis. Eur Respir J 2010; 36: 255–260.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    14. ↵
      1. Crapo RO,
      2. Casaburi R,
      3. Coates AL,
      4. et al
      . Guideline for methacoline and exercise challenge testing 1999. The Offical Statement of the American Thoracic Society was adopted by the ATS Board of Directors, July 1999. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000; 161: 309–329.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    15. ↵
      1. Cockcroft DW,
      2. Murdock KY,
      3. Berscheid BA,
      4. et al
      . Sensitivity and specificity of histamine PC20 determination in a random selection of young college students. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1992; 89: 23–30.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    16. ↵
      1. Cirillo I,
      2. Pistorio A,
      3. Tosca M,
      4. et al
      . Impact of allergic rhinitis on asthma: effects on bronchial hyperreactivity. Allergy 2009; 64: 439–444.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Ramsdale EH,
      2. Morris MM,
      3. Roberts RS,
      4. et al
      . Asymptomatic bronchial hyperresponsiveness in rhinitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1985; 75: 573–577.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    17. ↵
      1. Shaaban R,
      2. Zureik M,
      3. Soussan D,
      4. et al
      . Allergic rhinitis and onset of bronchial hyperresponsiveness: a population-based study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2007; 176: 659–666.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    18. ↵
      1. Menon P,
      2. Rando RJ,
      3. Stankus RP,
      4. et al
      . Passive cigarette smoke-challenge studies: increase in bronchial hyperreactivity. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1992; 89: 560–566.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Jensen EJ,
      2. Dahl R,
      3. Steffensen F
      . Bronchial reactivity to cigarette smoke in smokers: repeatability, relationship to methacholine reactivity, smoking and atopy. Eur Respir J 1998; 11: 670–676.
      OpenUrlAbstract
    19. ↵
      1. Cerveri I,
      2. Bruschi C,
      3. Zoia MC,
      4. et al
      . Smoking habit and bronchial reactivity in normal subjects. A population-based study. Am Rev Respir Dis 1989; 140: 191–196.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    20. ↵
      1. Dusser DJ,
      2. Djokic TD,
      3. Borson DB,
      4. et al
      . Cigarette smoke induces bronchoconstrictor hyperresponsiveness to substance P and inactivates airway neutral endopeptidase in the guinea pig. Possible role of free radicals. J Clin Invest 1989; 84: 900–906.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    21. ↵
      1. Ramsdale EH,
      2. Morris MM,
      3. Roberts RS,
      4. et al
      . Bronchial responsiveness to methacholine in chronic bronchitis: relationship to airflow obstruction and cold air responsiveness. Thorax 1984; 39: 912–918.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    22. ↵
      1. Message SD,
      2. Laza-Stanca V,
      3. Mallia P,
      4. et al
      . Rhinovirus-induced lower respiratory illness is increased in asthma and related to virus load and Th1/2 cytokine and IL-10 production. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2008; 105: 13562–13567.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    23. ↵
      1. Cockcroft DW
      . Allergen-induced increase in nonallergic airway responsiveness: a citation classic revisited. Can Respir J 2000; 7: 182–187.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    24. ↵
      1. Tarlo SM,
      2. Balmes J,
      3. Balkissoon R,
      4. et al
      . Diagnosis and management of work-related asthma: American College of Chest Physicians Consensus Statement. Chest 2008; 134 Suppl. 3:1S–41S.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    View Abstract
    PreviousNext
    Back to top
    View this article with LENS
    Vol 36 Issue 2 Table of Contents
    European Respiratory Journal: 36 (2)
    • Table of Contents
    • Table of Contents (PDF)
    • Index by author
    Email

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    When asthma diagnosis becomes a challenge
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Print
    Citation Tools
    When asthma diagnosis becomes a challenge
    M. Contoli, A. Papi
    European Respiratory Journal Aug 2010, 36 (2) 231-233; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00053010

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero

    Share
    When asthma diagnosis becomes a challenge
    M. Contoli, A. Papi
    European Respiratory Journal Aug 2010, 36 (2) 231-233; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00053010
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
    Full Text (PDF)

    Jump To

    • Article
      • Footnotes
      • REFERENCES
    • Info & Metrics
    • PDF

    Subjects

    • Asthma and allergy
    • Tweet Widget
    • Facebook Like
    • Google Plus One

    More in this TOC Section

    • Commemorating World Tuberculosis Day 2022
    • Is low level of vitamin D a marker of poor health or its cause?
    • A unique event for the francophone respiratory community
    Show more Editorial

    Related Articles

    Navigate

    • Home
    • Current issue
    • Archive

    About the ERJ

    • Journal information
    • Editorial board
    • Reviewers
    • Press
    • Permissions and reprints
    • Advertising

    The European Respiratory Society

    • Society home
    • myERS
    • Privacy policy
    • Accessibility

    ERS publications

    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS books online
    • ERS Bookshop

    Help

    • Feedback

    For authors

    • Instructions for authors
    • Publication ethics and malpractice
    • Submit a manuscript

    For readers

    • Alerts
    • Subjects
    • Podcasts
    • RSS

    Subscriptions

    • Accessing the ERS publications

    Contact us

    European Respiratory Society
    442 Glossop Road
    Sheffield S10 2PX
    United Kingdom
    Tel: +44 114 2672860
    Email: journals@ersnet.org

    ISSN

    Print ISSN:  0903-1936
    Online ISSN: 1399-3003

    Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society