Usefulness of mannitol challenge testing for diagnosing asthma in everyday clinical practice.

Background: The mannitol test is widely used for assessment of airway responsiveness in patients with possible asthma, but our knowledge of the value in everyday clinical practice is limited.Objective: To investigate the diagnostic value of the mannitol test in a clinical setting.Methods: All patients having a mannitol challenge test as part of their diagnostic work-up for asthma at the respiratory outpatient clinic, Hvidovre Hospital, over a 5-year period were included in the present analysis. Case history, including previous diagnoses, spirometry, exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) was obtained. The mannitol challenge was performed according to guidelines, i.e. increasing doses of mannitol (from 5 to 635 mg) until maximum dose or a 15% decline in FEV1 (PD15) was achieved (positive test defined as a PD15 < 635 mg).Results: Our cohort comprised 566 patients (210 men). Post-challenge, 247 patients were diagnosed with asthma by a specialist in respiratory medicine, of whom 138 (56%) had a positive mannitol test. A diagnosis of asthma was ruled out by the specialist in 319 individuals, of whom 18 (6%) had a positive mannitol test and 77 (24%) previous doctor-diagnosed asthma (but with no evidence of a confirmatory test). The specificity and sensitivity of the test was 94% and 56%, respectively. Female gender (p = 0.005), increasing BMI (p < 0.001), exercise-induced cough (p = 0.002), night-time respiratory symptoms (p = 0.002), low FEV1/FVC ratio (p = 0.008) and high FENO (p < 0.001) were determinants for a positive mannitol test.Conclusion: In everyday clinical work-up of patients with possible asthma, the sensitivity and specificity of the mannitol challenge test is comparable to previous controlled trials.

Predictors of accelerated FEV1 decline in adults with airflow limitation-Findings from the Health2006 cohort.

To investigate predictors of accelerated decline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) in individuals with preexisting airflow limitation (AL). Participants in the Health2006 baseline study aged ≥ 35 with FEV1/ forced vital capacity (FVC) < lower limit of normal (LLN) were invited for a 10-year follow-up. At both examinations, data were obtained on demographics, spirometry, fitness level, allergy, and exhaled nitric oxide. We used multiple regression modeling to predict the annual decline in FEV1, reported as regression coefficients ( R) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 123 (43% of those invited) participated in the follow-up examination, where more had exercise-induced dyspnea but fewer had asthma symptoms. Being female ( R = -29.8 ml, CI: -39.7 to -19.8), diagnosed with asthma ( R = -13.7, CI: -20.4 to -7.0) or atopic dermatitis ( R = -29.0, CI: -39.7 to -18.4), and having current asthma symptoms or nightly respiratory symptoms ( R = -22.1, CI: -31.9 to -12.4 and R = -14.3, CI: -19.9 to -8.7, respectively) were significantly associated with a steeper decline in FEV1. Although to a smaller extent, a steeper decline was also predicted by age, baseline FEV1, waist/hip-ratio, and number of pack-years smoked. In individuals with preexisting AL, being female and having ever or current respiratory symptoms were associated with an accelerated annual decline in FEV1.

Are recreational SCUBA divers with asthma at increased risk?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Asthma has traditionally been regarded as a contraindication to self-contained underwater breathing apparatus (SCUBA) diving, although large numbers of patients with asthma dive. The aim of the review is to provide an update on current knowledge on potential disease-related hazards in SCUBA divers with asthma. METHODS: Systematic literature review based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS: Seven studies met the criteria for inclusion in the review (comprising a total of 560 subjects). Five studies reported an increased risk for developing diving-related injuries in divers with asthma, based on case reports (n = 1), case history combined with objective assessment (n = 1), and dives and/or simulated dives (n = 3). The remaining studies (n = 2) were based on self-reported diving habits in divers suffering from asthma, obtained from anonymous questionnaires in diving magazines, reported no diving-related injuries among respondents. CONCLUSION: Due to limited evidence it is difficult to draw valid conclusions, but there are indications that recreational divers with asthma may be at increased risk for diving-related injuries compared to non-asthmatic divers. However, it is of at most importance to obtain further evidence from large-scale, well-designed studies.