Association between asthma control test, pulmonary function tests and non-specific bronchial hyperresponsiveness in assessing the level of asthma control.

Pneumonologia i alergologia polska Pub Date : 2015-01-01 Epub Date: 2015-05-19 DOI:10.5603/PiAP.a2015.0044
Iwona Florentyna Grzelewska-Rzymowska, Joanna Mikołajczyk, Jadwiga Kroczyńska-Bednarek, Paweł Górski
{"title":"Association between asthma control test, pulmonary function tests and non-specific bronchial hyperresponsiveness in assessing the level of asthma control.","authors":"Iwona Florentyna Grzelewska-Rzymowska,&nbsp;Joanna Mikołajczyk,&nbsp;Jadwiga Kroczyńska-Bednarek,&nbsp;Paweł Górski","doi":"10.5603/PiAP.a2015.0044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) reports emphasize the use of validated and simple tools in order to assess the level of asthma control, as the Asthma Control Test (ACT). However, an ACT does not include assessment of airway inflammation, which is better reflected when measuring nonspecific bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR). The authors aimed to find out if the level of asthma control quantified by an ACT correlates with BHR and pulmonary function tests.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>118 asthmatics participated in the study. All patients completed an ACT. The scores of the ACTs were compared with pulmonary function tests and BHR assessed with the methacholine challenge test and expressed as a provocative concentration of methacholine, inducing a 20% decline in the FEV1 (PC20 M in mg/ml).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients with controlled asthma amounted to 52 (44%) while those with uncontrolled asthma amounted to 66 (56%). In patients with controlled asthma (ACT score ≥ 20) the mean geometric value of PC20M was 2.72 mg/ml (range from 0.25 to > 8.0), whereas 0.94 mg/ml (range from 0.28 to 8.0) (p = 0.02) was observed in patients with uncontrolled asthma (ACT score < 20). Almost 64% (21/33) of uncontrolled asthmatics achieved normal lung function (FEV1 > 80% pred. value) while 19% (5/26) patients with controlled asthma presented an FEV1 < 80% predicted value. Asthma duration in years in controlled asthmatics was significantly shorter than in uncontrolled patients (6.2 ± 8.9 vs. 12.0 ± 11.4, p = 0.005) CONCLUSION: In determining the most accurate level of asthma control it is reasonable to use an ACT in conjunction with BHR, which provides more accurate assessment of bronchial inflammation than ventilatory parameters alone.</p>","PeriodicalId":20258,"journal":{"name":"Pneumonologia i alergologia polska","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pneumonologia i alergologia polska","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5603/PiAP.a2015.0044","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2015/5/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction: Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) reports emphasize the use of validated and simple tools in order to assess the level of asthma control, as the Asthma Control Test (ACT). However, an ACT does not include assessment of airway inflammation, which is better reflected when measuring nonspecific bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR). The authors aimed to find out if the level of asthma control quantified by an ACT correlates with BHR and pulmonary function tests.

Material and methods: 118 asthmatics participated in the study. All patients completed an ACT. The scores of the ACTs were compared with pulmonary function tests and BHR assessed with the methacholine challenge test and expressed as a provocative concentration of methacholine, inducing a 20% decline in the FEV1 (PC20 M in mg/ml).

Results: Patients with controlled asthma amounted to 52 (44%) while those with uncontrolled asthma amounted to 66 (56%). In patients with controlled asthma (ACT score ≥ 20) the mean geometric value of PC20M was 2.72 mg/ml (range from 0.25 to > 8.0), whereas 0.94 mg/ml (range from 0.28 to 8.0) (p = 0.02) was observed in patients with uncontrolled asthma (ACT score < 20). Almost 64% (21/33) of uncontrolled asthmatics achieved normal lung function (FEV1 > 80% pred. value) while 19% (5/26) patients with controlled asthma presented an FEV1 < 80% predicted value. Asthma duration in years in controlled asthmatics was significantly shorter than in uncontrolled patients (6.2 ± 8.9 vs. 12.0 ± 11.4, p = 0.005) CONCLUSION: In determining the most accurate level of asthma control it is reasonable to use an ACT in conjunction with BHR, which provides more accurate assessment of bronchial inflammation than ventilatory parameters alone.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
哮喘控制试验、肺功能试验与非特异性支气管高反应性评估哮喘控制水平的关系
全球哮喘倡议(GINA)报告强调使用经过验证的简单工具来评估哮喘控制水平,如哮喘控制测试(ACT)。然而,ACT不包括气道炎症的评估,这在测量非特异性支气管高反应性(BHR)时更能反映出来。作者旨在发现ACT量化的哮喘控制水平是否与BHR和肺功能测试相关。材料与方法:118例哮喘患者参与研究。所有患者都完成了ACT测试。将ACTs得分与肺功能测试和BHR评分进行比较,并以乙酰胆碱激发浓度表示,诱导FEV1下降20% (PC20 M (mg/ml))。结果:哮喘控制组52例(44%),未控制组66例(56%)。在ACT评分≥20的控制哮喘患者中,PC20M的平均几何值为2.72 mg/ml(范围为0.25 ~ > 8.0),而在ACT评分< 20的控制哮喘患者中,PC20M的平均几何值为0.94 mg/ml(范围为0.28 ~ 8.0)(p = 0.02)。几乎64%(21/33)未控制的哮喘患者肺功能恢复正常(FEV1 > 80%)。19%(5/26)患者FEV1 < 80%预测值。哮喘控制组哮喘持续时间明显短于非控制组(6.2±8.9 vs. 12.0±11.4,p = 0.005)结论:在确定最准确的哮喘控制水平时,ACT联合BHR是合理的,它比单独使用通气参数更准确地评估支气管炎症。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
[Systemic mastocytosis]. The clinical differences of asthma in patients with molds allergy. Tumor necrosis factor alpha as an asthma biomarker in early childhood. Prognostic value of TH1/TH2 cytokines in infants with wheezing in a three year follow-up study. Fungal infection of cystic fibrosis patients - single center experience.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1