![Sample our Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5944/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Medicine-Dentistry-Nursing-Allied-Health.jpg"})
Abstract
Background. The 1999 American Thoracic Society methacholine challenge guidelines stated that the 5-breath dosimeter method of methacholine administration is similar to the 2-minute tidal breath method. Recent data has disputed this assertion. We examined the differences in the diagnosis of asthma using these two methods. Methods. Data were abstracted from a prospectively generated pulmonary function database over 4 years. During the first 2 years the 5-breath dosimeter method was used, and the subsequent 2 years the 2-minute tidal breath method was used. The effect of the delivery technique was assessed by crude and adjusted odds ratios, controlling for known confounders and group differences. Results. A total of 907 subjects underwent methacholine challenge testing during the 4-year study period: 19.3% of the subjects tested with the 5-breath dosimeter method and 31.2% of those tested with the 2-minute tidal breathing method had a PC20 ≤ 8.0 mg/mL (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.4 to 2.58, p < 0.001). The ability to reliably exclude airway hyper-responsiveness (PC20 > 16.0 mg/mL) was also altered by the differences between the testing techniques. Using the 5-breath dosimeter method, 72.4% of subjects were ruled out for airway hyper-responsiveness, whereas only 59.9% of subjects were ruled out with the 2-minute tidal breathing technique (p < 0.001). Conclusion. The two recommended protocols for the diagnosis of asthma are not equivalent and significantly alter the rate of diagnosis of asthma as well as the severity. The differences were seen across all PC20 levels, from those with strongly positive tests (PC20 ≤ 1.0 mg/mL) as well as those with negative tests for airway hyper-responsiveness (PC20 > 16.0 mg/mL).