Asthma diagnosis: a comparison of established diagnostic guidelines in adults with respiratory symptoms

被引:1
|
作者
Simpson, Andrew J. [1 ]
Drake, Sarah [2 ]
Healy, Laura [2 ]
Wang, Ran [2 ,3 ]
Bennett, Miriam [3 ]
Wardman, Hannah [3 ]
Durrington, Hannah [2 ,3 ]
Fowler, Stephen J. [2 ,3 ]
Murray, Clare S. [2 ,3 ]
Simpson, Angela [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hull, Sch Sport Exercise & Rehabil Sci, Kingston Upon Hull, England
[2] Manchester Univ NHS Fdn Trust, Manchester, England
[3] Univ Manchester, Manchester Acad Hlth Sci Ctr, Sch Biol Sc, Div Immunol Immun Infect & Resp Med, Manchester, England
关键词
Asthma; Diagnosis; Guidelines;
D O I
10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102813
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background Considerable variability exists between asthma diagnostic guidelines. We tested the performance characteristics of the European Respiratory Society (ERS), the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines for the diagnosis of asthma in adults. Methods In this prospective observational study (ISRCTN-11676160, - 11676160, May 2019-June - June 2022), participants referred from primary care with clinician-suspected asthma underwent comprehensive investigation including: spirometry, bronchodilator reversibility, fractional exhaled nitric oxide, peak expiratory fl ow variability, bronchial challenge testing with methacholine and mannitol, and responsiveness to inhaled corticosteroid therapy. Results were reviewed by a panel of asthma specialists to determine asthma diagnosis (reference standard) and compared to each diagnostic test and the ERS, NICE and GINA diagnostic algorithms (index tests). The sensitivity, specificity, fi city, positive predictive and negative predictive values were calculated. Findings One hundred and forty adults were enrolled and 118 given a definitive fi nitive diagnostic outcome [75 female; mean (SD) age 36 (12) years; 70 (59%) with asthma] and included in the analysis. Sensitivity of individual tests was poor (15-62%), - 62%), but they provided good specificity fi city at the most stringent thresholds (range: 88-100%). - 100%). The sensitivity/ specificity fi city of ERS, NICE and GINA was 81/85%, 41/100% and 47/100%, respectively. Concordance between guidelines was only moderate (Cohen's ' s Kappa 0.45-0.51). - 0.51). Interpretation Current guidelines for the diagnosis of asthma in adults provide either excellent specificity fi city but low sensitivity (GINA and NICE) or only reasonable sensitivity and specificity fi city (ERS). All guidelines therefore have limitations with regards to their clinical application; new guidelines are needed but should be tested prospectively before roll out.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Asthma in adults: association of asthma symptoms and age at asthma diagnosis
    Hisinger-Molkanen, Hanna
    Honkamaki, Jasmin
    Kankaanranta, Hannu
    Tuomisto, Leena E.
    Sovijarvi, Anssi
    Ronmark, Eva
    Lundback, Bo
    Backman, Helena
    Andersen, Heidi
    Lindqvist, Ari
    Lehtimaki, Lauri
    Pallasaho, Paula
    Ilmarinen, Pinja
    Piirila, Paivi
    EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL, 2020, 56
  • [2] A comparison of the validity of different diagnostic tests in adults with asthma
    Hunter, CJ
    Brightling, CE
    Woltmann, G
    Wardlaw, AJ
    Pavord, ID
    CHEST, 2002, 121 (04) : 1051 - 1057
  • [3] Asthma Diagnosis: The Changing Face of Guidelines
    Drake, Sarah M.
    Simpson, Angela
    Fowler, Stephen J.
    PULMONARY THERAPY, 2019, 5 (02) : 103 - 115
  • [4] Asthma Diagnosis: The Changing Face of Guidelines
    Sarah M. Drake
    Angela Simpson
    Stephen J. Fowler
    Pulmonary Therapy, 2019, 5 : 103 - 115
  • [5] The role of FeNO measurement in exploration of respiratory symptoms in children with no diagnosis of asthma
    Zejda, Jan Eugeniusz
    Baranski, Kamil
    EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL, 2015, 46
  • [6] The Saudi Initiative for Asthma-2021 Update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children
    Al-Moamary, Mohamed S.
    Alhaider, Sami A.
    Alangari, Abdullah A.
    Idrees, Majdy M.
    Zeitouni, Mohammed O.
    Al Ghobain, Mohammed O.
    Alanazi, Abdullah F.
    Al-Harbi, Adel S.
    Yousef, Abdullah A.
    Alorainy, Hassan S.
    Al-Hajjaj, Mohamed S.
    ANNALS OF THORACIC MEDICINE, 2021, 16 (01) : 4 - 56
  • [7] The Saudi Initiative for Asthma-2019 Update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children
    Al-Moamary, Mohamed S.
    Alhaider, Sami A.
    Alangari, Abdullah A.
    Al Ghobain, Mohammed O.
    Zeitouni, Mohammed O.
    Idrees, Majdy M.
    Alanazi, Abdullah F.
    Al-Harbi, Adel S.
    Yousef, Abdullah A.
    Alorainy, Hassan S.
    Al-Hajjaj, Mohamed S.
    ANNALS OF THORACIC MEDICINE, 2019, 14 (01) : 3 - 48
  • [8] The Saudi Initiative for Asthma-2016 update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children
    Al-Moamary, Mohamed S.
    Alhaider, Sami A.
    Idrees, Majdy M.
    Zeitouni, Mohammed O. Al Ghobain Mohammed O.
    Al-Harbi, Adel S.
    Yousef, Abdullah A.
    Al-Matar, Hussain
    Alorainy, Hassan S.
    Al-Hajjaj, Mohamed S.
    ANNALS OF THORACIC MEDICINE, 2016, 11 (01) : 3 - 42
  • [9] The Saudi initiative for asthma-2012 update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children
    Al-Moamary, Mohamed S.
    Alhaider, Sami A.
    Al-Hajjaj, Mohamed S.
    Al-Ghobain, Mohammed O.
    Idrees, Majdy M.
    Zeitouni, Mohammed O.
    Al-Harbi, Adel S.
    Al Dabbagh, Maha M.
    Al-Matar, Hussain
    Alorainy, Hassan S.
    ANNALS OF THORACIC MEDICINE, 2012, 7 (04) : 175 - 204
  • [10] The Saudi initiative for asthma-2024 update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children
    Al-Moamary, Mohamed Saad
    Alhaider, Sami A.
    Allehebi, Riyad
    Idrees, Majdy M.
    Zeitouni, Mohammed O.
    Al Ghobain, Mohammed O.
    Alanazi, Abdullah F.
    Al-Harbi, Adel S.
    Yousef, Abdullah A.
    Alorainy, Hassan S.
    Al-Hajjaj, Mohamed S.
    ANNALS OF THORACIC MEDICINE, 2024, 19 (01) : 1 - 55