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

Asthma Diagnosis Guidelines

Journal

EClinicalMedicine
ISSN: 2589-5370
Titre abrégé: EClinicalMedicine
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101733727

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Oct 2024
Historique:
received: 18 06 2024
revised: 02 08 2024
accepted: 19 08 2024
medline: 19 9 2024
pubmed: 19 9 2024
entrez: 19 9 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

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. In this prospective observational study (ISRCTN-11676160, May 2019-June 2022), participants referred from primary care with clinician-suspected asthma underwent comprehensive investigation including: spirometry, bronchodilator reversibility, fractional exhaled nitric oxide, peak expiratory flow 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, positive predictive and negative predictive values were calculated. One hundred and forty adults were enrolled and 118 given a definitive 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%), but they provided good specificity at the most stringent thresholds (range: 88-100%). The sensitivity/specificity of ERS, NICE and GINA was 81/85%, 41/100% and 47/100%, respectively. Concordance between guidelines was only moderate (Cohen's Kappa 0.45-0.51). Current guidelines for the diagnosis of asthma in adults provide either excellent specificity but low sensitivity (GINA and NICE) or only reasonable sensitivity and specificity (ERS). All guidelines therefore have limitations with regards to their clinical application; new guidelines are needed but should be tested prospectively before roll out. This work was supported by the Manchester NIHR Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) (grant no. BRC-1215-20007, and NIHR203308), Asthma UK/Innovate (grant no. AUK-PG-2018-406), GSK ID 212474 and North West Lung Centre Charity.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
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 UNASSIGNED
In this prospective observational study (ISRCTN-11676160, May 2019-June 2022), participants referred from primary care with clinician-suspected asthma underwent comprehensive investigation including: spirometry, bronchodilator reversibility, fractional exhaled nitric oxide, peak expiratory flow 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, positive predictive and negative predictive values were calculated.
Findings UNASSIGNED
One hundred and forty adults were enrolled and 118 given a definitive 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%), but they provided good specificity at the most stringent thresholds (range: 88-100%). The sensitivity/specificity of ERS, NICE and GINA was 81/85%, 41/100% and 47/100%, respectively. Concordance between guidelines was only moderate (Cohen's Kappa 0.45-0.51).
Interpretation UNASSIGNED
Current guidelines for the diagnosis of asthma in adults provide either excellent specificity but low sensitivity (GINA and NICE) or only reasonable sensitivity and specificity (ERS). All guidelines therefore have limitations with regards to their clinical application; new guidelines are needed but should be tested prospectively before roll out.
Funding UNASSIGNED
This work was supported by the Manchester NIHR Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) (grant no. BRC-1215-20007, and NIHR203308), Asthma UK/Innovate (grant no. AUK-PG-2018-406), GSK ID 212474 and North West Lung Centre Charity.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39296585
doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102813
pii: S2589-5370(24)00392-4
pmc: PMC11408836
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

102813

Informations de copyright

© 2024 The Author(s).

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

HD participates in a data safety and monitoring board (HEAL-COVID). CM has received lecture fees from Sanofi and GSK and a travel grant from Sanofi. MB has received travel grants form by North West Lung Foundation and European Respiratory Society. None of the other authors had any interest to declare.

Auteurs

Andrew J Simpson (AJ)

School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Hull, United Kingdom.

Sarah Drake (S)

Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom.

Laura Healy (L)

Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom.

Ran Wang (R)

Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom.
Division of Immunology, Immunity to Infection and Respiratory Medicine at the University of Manchester, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, United Kingdom.

Miriam Bennett (M)

Division of Immunology, Immunity to Infection and Respiratory Medicine at the University of Manchester, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, United Kingdom.

Hannah Wardman (H)

Division of Immunology, Immunity to Infection and Respiratory Medicine at the University of Manchester, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, United Kingdom.

Hannah Durrington (H)

Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom.
Division of Immunology, Immunity to Infection and Respiratory Medicine at the University of Manchester, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, United Kingdom.

Stephen J Fowler (SJ)

Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom.
Division of Immunology, Immunity to Infection and Respiratory Medicine at the University of Manchester, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, United Kingdom.

Clare S Murray (CS)

Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom.
Division of Immunology, Immunity to Infection and Respiratory Medicine at the University of Manchester, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, United Kingdom.

Angela Simpson (A)

Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom.
Division of Immunology, Immunity to Infection and Respiratory Medicine at the University of Manchester, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, United Kingdom.

Classifications MeSH