Skip to main content

Spirometry or Body Plethysmography for the Assessment of Bronchial Hyperresponsiveness?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Allergy and Respiration

Part of the book series: Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology ((NR,volume 921))

Abstract

Methacholine testing is one of the standard tools for the diagnosis of mild asthma, but there is little information about optimal outcome measures. In this study a total of 395 college students were tested by the ATS dosimeter protocol for methacholine testing, with minor modification. Body plethysmography and spirometry were measured after each inhalation step. The end-of-test-criteria were (i) decrease in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) of ≥ 20 % and (ii) doubling of specific airway resistance and its increase to ≥ 2.0 kPa∙s. The results were expressed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plots using questionnaire answers as a reference. The areas under the ROC curves were iteratively calculated for a wide range of thresholds for both measures. We found that ROC plots showed maximal sensitivities of about 0.5–0.6 for FEV1 and about 0.7 for specific airway conductance (sGt), with similar specificities of about 0.7–0.8 taking questions with the known high specificity as references. Accordingly, larger maximal areas under the ROC curve were observed for body plethysmography, but the differences were small. A decrease in FEV1 of about 15 % and a decrease of sGt of about 60 % showed the largest areas under the ROC curves. In conclusion, body plethysmography yielded better sensitivity than spirometry, with similar specificity. However, replacing the common spirometric criterium for a positive test (20 % decrease in FEV1 from baseline) by the optimal body plethysmographic criterium would result in an increase of false positive tests from about 4 to 8 % in healthy young adults.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • ATS- American Thoracic Society (1995) Standardization of spirometry (1994 update). Am J Respir Crit Care Med 152:1107–1136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ATS- American Thoracic Society (2000) Guidelines for methacholine and exercise challenge testing-1999. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 161:309–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cockcroft DW, Berscheid BA (1983) Measurement of responsiveness to inhaled histamine: comparison of FEV1 and sGaw. Ann Allergy 51:374–377

    Google Scholar 

  • Cockcroft DW, Davis BE (2006) The bronchoprotective effect of inhaling methacholine by using total lung capacity inspirations has a marked influence on the interpretation of the test result. J Allergy Clin Immunol 117:1244–1248

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Criée CP, Sorichter S, Smith HJ, Kardos P, Merget R, Heise D, Berdel D, Köhler D, Magnussen H, Marek W, Mitfessel H, Rasche K, Rolke M, Worth H, Jörres RA (2011) Body plethysmography - its principles and clinical use. Respir Med 105:959–973

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dehaut P, Rachiele A, Martin RR, Malo JL (1983) Histamine dose–response curves in asthma: reproducibility and sensitivity of different indices to assess response. Thorax 38:516–522

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein MF, Pacana SM, Dvorin DJ, Dunsky EH (1994) Retrospective analyses of methacholine inhalation challenges. Chest 105:1082–1088

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hollie MC, Malone RA, Skufca RM, Nelson HS (1991) Extreme variability in aerosol output of the DeVilbiss 646 jet nebulizer. Chest 100:1339–1344

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jörres R, Nowak D, Rabe K, Magnussen H (1992) Variability in aerosol output of the DeVilbiss 646 jet nebulizer. Chest 102:1636

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Khalid I, Morris ZQ, Digiovine B (2009) Specific conductance criteria for a positive methacholine challenge test: are the American Thoracic Society guidelines rather generous? Respir Care 54:1168–1174

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Michoud MC, Ghezzo H, Amyot R (1982) A comparison of pulmonary function tests used for bronchial challenges. Bull Eur Physiopathol Respir 18:609–621

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nensa F, Kotschy-Lang N, Smith HJ, Marek W, Merget R (2013) Assessment of airway hyperresponsiveness: Comparison of spirometry and body plethysmography. Adv Exp Med Biol 755:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor G, Sparrow D, Taylor D, Segal M, Weiss S (1987) Analysis of dose response curves to methacholine. An approach suitable for population studies. Am Rev Respir Dis 136:1412–1417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Quanjer PH, Tammeling GJ, Cotes JE, Pedersen OF, Peslin R, Yernault JC (1993) Lung volumes and forced ventilatory flows. Report working party standardization of lung function tests, European community for steel and coal. Eur Respir J 6(Suppl 16):5–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Zweig MH, Campbell G (1993) Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem 39:561–577

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest in relation to this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Merget .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Merget, R., Nensa, F., Heinze, E., Taeger, D., Bruening, T. (2015). Spirometry or Body Plethysmography for the Assessment of Bronchial Hyperresponsiveness?. In: Pokorski, M. (eds) Allergy and Respiration. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology(), vol 921. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/5584_2015_204

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics