↓ Skip to main content

Exhaled nitric oxide levels to guide treatment for adults with asthma

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
32 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Exhaled nitric oxide levels to guide treatment for adults with asthma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011440.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helen L Petsky, Kayleigh M Kew, Cathy Turner, Anne B Chang

Abstract

Asthma guidelines aim to guide health practitioners to optimise treatment for patients so as to minimise symptoms, improve or maintain good lung function, and prevent acute exacerbations or flare-ups. The principle of asthma guidelines is based on a step-up or step-down regimen of asthma medications to maximise good health outcomes using minimum medications. Asthma maintenance therapies reduce airway inflammation that is usually eosinophilic. Tailoring asthma medications in accordance with airway eosinophilic levels may improve asthma outcomes such as indices of control or reduce exacerbations or both. Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) is a marker of eosinophilic inflammation, and as it is easy to measure, has an advantage over other measurements of eosinophilic inflammation (for example sputum eosinophils). To evaluate the efficacy of tailoring asthma interventions based on exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), in comparison to not using FeNO, that is management based on clinical symptoms (with or without spirometry/peak flow) or asthma guidelines or both, for asthma-related outcomes in adults. We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and reference lists of articles. The last searches were undertaken in June 2016. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing adjustment of asthma medications based on exhaled nitric oxide levels compared to not using FeNO, that is management based on clinical symptoms (with or without spirometry/peak flow) or asthma guidelines or both. We reviewed results of searches against predetermined criteria for inclusion. We independently selected relevant studies in duplicate. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for further information, receiving responses from four. We included seven adult studies; these studies differed in a variety of ways including definition of asthma exacerbations, FeNO cutoff levels used (15 to 35 ppb), the way in which FeNO was used to adjust therapy, and duration of study (4 to 12 months). Of 1700 randomised participants, 1546 completed the trials. The mean ages of the participants ranged from 28 to 54 years old. The inclusion criteria for the participants in each study varied, but all had a diagnosis of asthma and required asthma medications. In the meta-analysis, there was a significant difference in the primary outcome of asthma exacerbations between the groups, favouring the FeNO group. The number of people having one or more asthma exacerbations was significantly lower in the FeNO group compared to the control group (odds ratio (OR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 0.84). The number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) over 52 weeks was 12 (95% CI 8 to 32). Those in the FeNO group were also significantly more likely to have a lower exacerbation rate than the controls (rate ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.77). However, we did not find a difference between the groups for exacerbations requiring hospitalisation (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.67) or rescue oral corticosteroids (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.48). There was also no significant difference between groups for any of the secondary outcomes (FEV1, FeNO levels, symptoms scores, or inhaled corticosteroid doses at final visit).We considered three included studies that had inadequate blinding to have a high risk of bias. However, when these studies were excluded from the meta-analysis, the difference between the groups for the primary outcomes (exacerbations) remained statistically significant. The GRADE quality of the evidence ranged from moderate (for the outcome 'exacerbations') to very low (for the outcome 'inhaled corticosteroid dose at final visit') based on the lack of blinding and statistical heterogeneity. Six of the seven studies were industry supported, but the company had no role in the study design or data analyses. With new studies included since the last version of this review, which included adults and children, this updated meta-analysis in adults with asthma showed that tailoring asthma medications based on FeNO levels (compared with primarily on clinical symptoms) decreased the frequency of asthma exacerbations but did not impact on day-to-day clinical symptoms, end-of-study FeNO levels, or inhaled corticosteroid dose. Thus, the universal use of FeNO to help guide therapy in adults with asthma cannot be advocated. As the main benefit shown in the studies in this review was a reduction in asthma exacerbations, the intervention may be most useful in adults who have frequent exacerbations. Further RCTs encompassing different asthma severity, ethnic groups in less affluent settings, and taking into account different FeNO cutoffs are required.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 95 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 18%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 13%
Student > Master 12 13%
Other 8 8%
Other 22 23%
Unknown 13 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 17%
Psychology 7 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 6%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 17 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 October 2019.
All research outputs
#474,380
of 14,196,018 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,381
of 10,881 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,647
of 262,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#34
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,196,018 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,881 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 262,571 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.