Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • ERS Guidelines
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • 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
  • ERS Guidelines
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

From the authors:

S. Aaron, V. Luks
European Respiratory Journal 2011 37: 223-224; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00143910
S. Aaron
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: saaron@ottawahospital.on.ca
V. Luks
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

From the authors:

A. D'Urzo has correctly identified from our data 1 that bronchial challenge testing seems to be a more sensitive test to confirm asthma compared to pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry. Our results were similar to those of Goldstein et al. 2 who demonstrated that bronchial challenge testing with methacholine has far greater sensitivity to diagnose asthma compared with post-bronchodilator spirometry. Despite these findings, pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry should probably be the first-line test to diagnose or confirm asthma for several reasons. Inducing bronchoconstriction with a bronchial challenge test poses a risk to the patient that could be avoided if that patient is able to have asthma diagnosed, or confirmed, with post-bronchodilator spirometry. Admittedly, the risk may be more theoretical than evidence-based. For example, to date there are no reported deaths from methacholine challenge testing 3 and there are studies demonstrating that it is quite safe, even in patients with severe obstruction 4. That being said, there have been fatalities following specific antigen challenges and the current American Thoracic Society guidelines cite moderate obstruction (forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) ≤60–70% predicted) as a contraindication to methacholine challenge testing 3. Bronchial challenge testing is also more time consuming and more expensive than spirometry, less readily available than spirometry and potentially uncomfortable for patients (approximately a third of patients develop symptoms) 3. Furthermore, a physician must be available onsite during the bronchial challenge test, which adds to expense. In contrast to bronchial challenge testing, pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry is completely safe, inexpensive and can be more easily performed in primary care. Thus, although sensitivity is an issue, we feel that pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry, which is the cheapest, safest and most readily available test, is probably preferred as a first step in confirming a diagnosis of asthma.

S.K. Chhabra and M. Gupta correctly state that there is debate and a relative lack of gold standard criteria on which to base a diagnosis of asthma. We used first-step criteria of FEV1 improvement ≥200 mL and ≥15% (rather than 12%) because, as S.K. Chhabra and M. Gupta point out, bronchodilator responsiveness lacks specificity. Our intention was to be conservative and to avoid false-positive results in the first step of the diagnostic algorithm. As all patients who did not exhibit 15% reversibility proceeded to a bronchial challenge test we surmised that true asthmatics would have their diagnosis confirmed at the following visit. S.K. Chhabra and M. Gupta also point out that bronchodilator responsiveness lacks specificity and can be positive in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We agree that many patients with COPD may exhibit bronchodilator responsiveness and positive bronchial challenge tests, therefore, our study excluded any patients with a >10 pack-yr smoking history, specifically to avoid applying our diagnostic algorithm to patients with possible COPD.

The aim of our study was to confirm a diagnosis of asthma in those who had already received a physician diagnosis of asthma in the past. According to the Canadian Asthma Consensus guidelines, asthma is defined as “A disease characterised by paroxysmal or persistent symptoms of dyspnoea, chest tightness, wheezing, sputum production and cough, associated with variable airflow limitation and airway hyperresponsiveness to endogenous or exogenous stimuli” 5. Similarly the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines define asthma as “a chronic inflammatory disorder of the airways associated with airway hyperresponsiveness that leads to recurrent episodes of wheezing, breathlessness, chest tightness and coughing, particularly at night or in the early morning” 6. A necessary condition of both the Canadian and GINA definitions is that asthma must be diagnosed based on the evidence of: 1) respiratory symptoms; and 2) physiological evidence of reversible airflow obstruction and/or airway hyperresponsiveness. Thus, we used our algorithm to confirm physiological evidence of asthma in those who had been previously diagnosed. We agree with S.K. Chhabra and M. Gupta that in the absence of a gold standard for diagnosis, a weighted multi-dimensional diagnostic scoring system that incorporates physiological testing, patient history and symptoms, and perhaps responsiveness to asthma medications, needs to be developed to comprehensively evaluate patients for a diagnosis of asthma. To date, this ‘gold standard’ diagnostic scoring system remains elusive; however, we feel that studies such as ours are the first necessary step towards the development of such a gold standard.

Footnotes

  • Statement of Interest

    None declared.

  • ©ERS 2011

REFERENCE

  1. ↵
    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
  2. ↵
    1. Goldstein MF,
    2. Veza BA,
    3. Dunsky EH,
    4. et al
    . Comparisons of peak diurnal expiratory flow, post-bronchodilator FEV1 responses, and methacholine inhalation challenges in the evaluation of suspected asthma. Chest 2001; 119: 1001–1010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    1. Crapo RO,
    2. Casaburi R,
    3. Coates AL,
    4. et al
    . Guideline for methacoline and exercise challenge testing 1999. The Official 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
  4. ↵
    1. Martin RJ,
    2. Wanger JS,
    3. Irvin CG,
    4. et al
    . Methacholine challenge testing: safety of low starting FEV1. Asthma Clinical Research Network (ACRN). Chest 1997; 112: 53–56.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. ↵
    1. Boulet LP,
    2. Becker A,
    3. Bérubé D,
    4. et al
    . Canadian Asthma consensus report, 1999. CMAJ 1999; 161 Suppl. 11:S1–S62.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    Global Initiative for Asthma. Global strategy for asthma management and prevention. GINA, 2009. www.ginasthma.org/Guidelineitem.asp??l1=2&l2=1&intId=1561.org Date last accessed: September 7, 2010.
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 37 Issue 1 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Journal: 37 (1)
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • 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.
From the authors:
(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
From the authors:
S. Aaron, V. Luks
European Respiratory Journal Jan 2011, 37 (1) 223-224; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00143910

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
From the authors:
S. Aaron, V. Luks
European Respiratory Journal Jan 2011, 37 (1) 223-224; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00143910
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
    • REFERENCE
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

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

More in this TOC Section

  • Treatable traits in ILD: why not consider acute exacerbations?
  • Inclusion of lung health outcomes in TB treatment trials
  • Understanding confounding in Mendelian randomisation studies
Show more Correspondence

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • 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