Exhaled breath temperature measurement and asthma control in children prescribed inhaled corticosteroids: A cross sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Exhaled breath temperature (EBT) reflects airways (both eosinophilic and neutrophilic) inflammation in asthma and thus may aid the management of children with asthma that are treated with anti-inflammatory drugs. A new EBT monitor has become available that is cheap and easy to use and may be a suitable monitoring device for airways inflammation. Little is known about how EBT relates to asthma treatment decisions, disease control, lung function, or other non-invasive measures of airways inflammation, such as exhaled nitric oxide (ENO). OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationships between EBT and asthma treatment decision, current control, pulmonary function, and ENO. METHODS: Cross-sectional prospective study on 159 children aged 5-16 years attending a pediatric respiratory clinic. EBT was compared with the clinician's decision regarding treatment (decrease, no change, increase), asthma control assessment (controlled, partial, uncontrolled), level of current treatment (according to British Thoracic Society guideline, BTS step), ENO, and spirometry. RESULTS: EBT measurement was feasible in the majority of children (25 of 159 could not perform the test) and correlated weakly with age (R = 0.33, P = <0.01). EBT did not differ significantly between the three clinician decision groups (P = 0.42), the three asthma control assessment groups (P = 0.9), or the current asthma treatment BTS step (P = 0.57). CONCLUSIONS & CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: EBT measurement was not related to measures of asthma control determined at the clinic. The routine intermittent monitoring of EBT in children prescribed inhaled corticosteroids who attend asthma clinics cannot be recommended for adjusting anti-inflammatory asthma therapy.

Comparative repeatability of two handheld fractional exhaled nitric oxide monitors.

BACKGROUND: The use of portable fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) devices is increasingly common in the diagnosis and management of allergic airways inflammation. METHODS: We tested two handheld FENO devices, to determine (a) if there was adequate intradevice repeatability to allow the use of single breath testing, and (b) if the devices could be used interchangeably. In a mixed pediatric population, including normal, asthmatic, and children with peanut allergies, 858 paired values were collected from the NIOX-MINO® and/or the NObreath® devices. RESULTS: The NIOX-MINO® showed excellent repeatability (mean difference of 0.1 with 95% limits of agreement between -7.93 to 7.72 ppb), while the NObreath® showed good repeatability (mean difference of -1.61 with 95% limits of agreement between -14.1 and 10.8 ppb). Intradevice repeatability was good but not adequate and the NIOX-MINO® systematically produced higher results than the NObreath® [mean difference of 7.8 ppb with 95% limits of agreement from -11.55 to 27.52 ppb (-33% to 290%)]. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the manufacturer's advice that single breath testing is appropriate for the NIOX-MINO®. NObreath® results indicate that the mean of more than one breath should be utilized. The devices cannot be used interchangeably.