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

A clinically significant bronchodilator response in children: how should it be measured?

Carmen C.M. de Jong, Eva S.L. Pedersen, R. Mozun, Myrofora Goutaki, Daniel Trachsel, Juerg Barben, Claudia E. Kuehni
European Respiratory Journal 2020 55: 2000636; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00636-2020
Carmen C.M. de Jong
1Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Carmen C.M. de Jong
Eva S.L. Pedersen
1Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
R. Mozun
1Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for R. Mozun
Myrofora Goutaki
1Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
2Paediatric Respiratory Medicine, Children's University Hospital of Bern, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Myrofora Goutaki
Daniel Trachsel
3Paediatric Respiratory Medicine, Children's University Hospital of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Juerg Barben
4Paediatric Respiratory Medicine, Children's Hospital of Eastern Switzerland, St Gallen, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Claudia E. Kuehni
1Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
2Paediatric Respiratory Medicine, Children's University Hospital of Bern, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Claudia E. Kuehni
  • For correspondence: claudia.kuehni@ispm.unibe.ch
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

More research is needed to evaluate the usefulness of diagnostic tests for asthma in children and cut-offs should be critically questioned and defined based on evidence from the patient population of interest https://bit.ly/33xjLVW

From the authors:

We thank F. Guezguez and H. Ben Saad for raising important questions on recommendations for assessing a bronchodilator response (BDR) in children. The authors summarise how recommended outcome measures and cut-offs for BDR in children vary between guidelines, and raise questions about our study [1].

To clarify: our study did not focus on bronchodilator reversibility testing in children or compare different outcome measures. Rather, we assessed the contribution of a detailed history and a variety of tests for diagnosing asthma in children aged 6–16 years referred to pulmonary outpatient clinics. We compared the diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity) of different commonly performed tests: skin-prick tests, measurement of exhaled nitric oxide fraction (FENO), spirometry, bronchodilator reversibility and bronchial provocation tests (BPT) by exercise, methacholine and mannitol against an asthma diagnosis from the paediatric pulmonologist. Thus, we used tests, outcomes and cut-offs commonly recommended and used in clinical practice. In addition, for examinations that provided a continuous (rather than a binary) output, such as forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), BDR or FENO, we also assessed which cut-off distinguished best between those with and without asthma. We found that the combined sensitivity and specificity was highest for reported symptoms (frequent wheeze, night-time awakening due to wheeze, and wheeze triggered by pollen or pets). Among the tests, the area under the curve was highest for FENO and BPT by methacholine or exercise, and lower for spirometry, bronchodilator reversibility and skin-prick tests.

F. Guezguez and H. Ben Saad ask how we had assessed FEV1 increase: as percentage of the initial value, as percentage of the predicted value, or as absolute increase. We calculated BDR as percentage increase of the initial FEV1 (in mL) using the following formula: (FEV1 post-bronchodilator − FEV1 pre-bronchodilator)/FEV1 pre-bronchodilator. This is the most widely used method for calculating reversibility and recommended by most guidelines [2–4]. FEV1 pre- and post-bronchodilator was measured in triplicate and American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society guidelines reproducibility criteria were applied [5]. Second, they indicated that BDR can also be calculated for forced vital capacity and peak expiratory flow. Although this is true, FEV1 is the most widely recommended outcome, as it is less subject to cooperation and has higher reproducibility [2, 3].

Third, they wondered what evidence we used to base our cut-off levels on. The 12% cut-off is recommended in all recent guidelines, but derives from studies in adults, expert opinion, or studies that compared severe asthmatics with healthy children. Recent population-based studies have questioned this cut-off for the paediatric population [6, 7]. In our study of children seen for evaluation of possible asthma in paediatric outpatient clinics, a cut-off of 10% had the highest combined sensitivity and specificity. However, we want to stress that cut-off levels for diagnostic tests that produce an outcome on a continuous scale are artificial and an oversimplification. We lose information if we force a continuous measure into a binary one. There is a trade-off between sensitivity and specificity, and depending on the clinical question, higher or lower cut-offs can be preferable. In general, the further away a result is from the mean of the frequency distribution in healthy children, the more likely it is that it is pathological. There is no such thing as a “true” cut-off that distinguishes unequivocally between healthy and diseased. For clinical application, a cut-off is often helpful, but factors such as pre-test probability, place of the test in the diagnostic algorithm, and costs must also be considered.

In conclusion, we fully agree with F. Guezguez and H. Ben Saad that more research is needed to evaluate the usefulness of diagnostic tests for asthma in children. We also agree that cut-offs should be critically questioned and defined based on evidence from the patient population of interest (i.e. children suspected with asthma) and not based on studies in adults or on expert opinion.

Shareable PDF

Supplementary Material

This one-page PDF can be shared freely online.

Shareable PDF ERJ-00636-2020.Shareable

Footnotes

  • Conflict of interest: C.C.M. de Jong has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: E.S.L. Pedersen has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: R. Mozun has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: M. Goutaki has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: D. Trachsel has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: J. Barben has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: C.E. Kuehni has nothing to disclose.

  • Received March 10, 2020.
  • Accepted March 13, 2020.
  • Copyright ©ERS 2020
https://www.ersjournals.com/user-licence

References

  1. ↵
    1. de Jong CCM,
    2. Pedersen ESL,
    3. Mozun R, et al.
    Diagnosis of asthma in children: the contribution of a detailed history and test results. Eur Respir J 2019; 54: 1901326. doi:10.1183/13993003.01326-2019
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    NICE. Guideline Asthma Diagnosis and Monitoring. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng80/resources/asthma-diagnosis-monitoring-and-chronic-asthma-management-pdf-1837687975621 Date last updated: November 2017, December 2019.
  3. ↵
    1. National Asthma Education and Prevention Program
    . Expert Panel Report 3 (EPR-3): Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma-Summary Report 2007. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007; 120: Suppl. 5, S94–S138.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. ↵
    1. Pellegrino R,
    2. Decramer M,
    3. van Schayck CP, et al.
    Quality control of spirometry: a lesson from the BRONCUS trial. Eur Respir J 2005; 26: 1104–1109. doi:10.1183/09031936.05.00026705
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Quanjer PH,
    2. Stanojevic S,
    3. Cole TJ, et al.
    Multi-ethnic reference values for spirometry for the 3-95-yr age range: the global lung function 2012 equations. Eur Respir J 2012; 40: 1324–1343. doi:10.1183/09031936.00080312
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Murray C,
    2. Foden P,
    3. Lowe L, et al.
    Diagnosis of asthma in symptomatic children based on measures of lung function: an analysis of data from a population-based birth cohort study. Lancet Child Adolesc Health 2017; 1: 114–123. doi:10.1016/S2352-4642(17)30008-1
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Tse SM,
    2. Gold DR,
    3. Sordillo JE, et al.
    Diagnostic accuracy of the bronchodilator response in children. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2013; 132: 554–559. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2013.03.031
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 55 Issue 5 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Journal: 55 (5)
  • Table of Contents
  • 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.
A clinically significant bronchodilator response in children: how should it be measured?
(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
A clinically significant bronchodilator response in children: how should it be measured?
Carmen C.M. de Jong, Eva S.L. Pedersen, R. Mozun, Myrofora Goutaki, Daniel Trachsel, Juerg Barben, Claudia E. Kuehni
European Respiratory Journal May 2020, 55 (5) 2000636; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00636-2020

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
A clinically significant bronchodilator response in children: how should it be measured?
Carmen C.M. de Jong, Eva S.L. Pedersen, R. Mozun, Myrofora Goutaki, Daniel Trachsel, Juerg Barben, Claudia E. Kuehni
European Respiratory Journal May 2020, 55 (5) 2000636; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00636-2020
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
    • Abstract
    • Shareable PDF
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

Agora

  • Airway immune responses to COVID-19 vaccination in COPD patients
  • Wider access to rifapentine-based regimens is needed for TB care globally
  • Screening for PVOD in heterozygous EIF2AK4 variant carriers
Show more Agora

Correspondence

  • Reply to questions about FEV1Q and bronchodilator responsiveness
  • FEV1Q: it may be useful, but is it helpful?
  • Improving pulmonary function test interpretation
Show more Correspondence

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