Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Early View
  • Archive
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Early View
  • Archive
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

Nasal nitric oxide measurement variability to establish a standard for reliable results

Nicole Beydon
ERJ Open Research 2022 8: 00028-2022; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00028-2022
Nicole Beydon
1APHP Sorbonne Université, Unité Fonctionnelle de Physiologie-Explorations Fonctionnelles Respiratoires, hôpital Armand-Trousseau, Paris, France
2Sorbonne Université INSERM U934, Centre de Recherche Saint Antoine, Paris, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Nicole Beydon
  • For correspondence: nicole.beydon@aphp.fr
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

A repeatability of 10% for NO measurements obtained with the velum closed in the same or both nostrils is relevant, while measurements taken during tidal breathing should aim for a repeatability of 20% and 30%, respectively https://bit.ly/3sMnug6

To the Editor:

Nasal nitric oxide (nNO) measurement is a first-line test used to increase the post-measurement probability of primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) in subjects with symptoms consistent with this diagnosis [1]. The accuracy of nNO measurement is essential since it will orientate the work-up towards tests that are usually highly specialised and sometimes invasive. Accuracy of biological measurements relies on the technical and on the biological variability. While the accuracy of NO analysers is known better for chemiluminescence devices (e.g. <1 ppb with 1% linearity from 0.1 to 5000 ppb for CLD 88 (Eco Medics, Duernten, Switzerland)) than for widely used electrochemical devices (e.g. ±5 ppb for values <50 ppb and 10% for values >50 ppb for Niox Vero (Circassia, Oxford, UK)) [2], little is known on the biological variability of nNO measurements, except for increased nNO output variability in adults with rhinitis compared with healthy subjects and the positive effect of training on the level of nNO taken during expiration against a resistance (nNO-ER) in children [3, 4]. The PCD Foundation Clinical Center Network and Genetic Disorders of Mucociliary Clearance Consortium recommend sampling both nostrils for nNO-ER and to perform at least two measurements per nostril with the aim of obtaining a 10% repeatability [4]. For measurements performed during tidal breathing (nNO-TB) it is recommended to record peak values within 10% and aim for inter-nostril repeatability of 10% [4].

Using, in most cases, the coefficient of variation (CV) of three measurements to assess the variability of nNO in children and adults, small studies (n≤50) reported intra-nostril CV during breath hold (BH) (CV 3.8%, 9% and 12.5%) [5–7], ER (CV 5%) [7] or TB (CV 9.9% and 11%) [7, 8], and inter-nostril CV of nNO-BH (CV 10%) [9, 10]. Two large studies conducted in children and adults established nNO-ER CV at 6.9% (interquartile range 4.1–14.5%) for six nNO-ER measurements performed three in each nostril (n=226) [11], and 10.4% (sd 14.2%) for three measurements performed in same nostril (n=282) [12]. The latter study also established the CV (sd) of nNO-BH at 6.7 (8.8)% and of nNO-TB at 12.3 (15)%. In line with these results, we previously found an inter-nostril repeatability up to 10% more frequently for nNO-ER (93%) and nNO-BH (78%) than for nNO-TB (57% for the mean of five peaks (TB5p), and 68% for the mean of a 10 s period (TB10s)) [13], possibly because of the constantly variable nasal flow associated with the permanent open velum during TB. To date, the frequency of peaks within 10% on nNO-TB traces has never been evaluated.

Since many factors can influence the value of nNO, such as the size and the local airflow aerodynamic of the nostrils, or the degree of velum closure, and because, in large studies, the CV or the 10% repeatability of nNO measurements depended on the methods of measurement, we sought to evaluate in a large paediatric population tested in routine practice the relevance of the 10% repeatability criterion. We studied values obtained using different methods of measurement (two methods with velum closure, i.e. ER and BH, and two TB methods, i.e. TB5p and TB10s, the latter to mimic electrochemical sampling). We also evaluated relationships between nNO repeatability and age (different size of nostrils and ability to close the velum) or level of nNO (more difficulty in reaching % repeatability at low nNO values).

We retrieved, retrospectively, from our database of children referred for nNO measurement between 2009 and 2022, all nNO results checked for trace quality by the author (N.B.). Each child could contribute for one or more visits, and for nNO-ER and/or nNO-BH and/or nNO-TB measurements on one (if repeated) or both nostrils.

nNO was measured using a chemiluminescence NO analyser (NIOX Flex (Aerocrine, Solna, Sweden) until 2014, then a CLD 88 analyser (Eco Medics AG), with a sampling flow of 0.3 L·min−1 and 0.33 L·min−1, respectively) in subjects without an obstructed nose (inspection of the ventilation with one nostril obstructed alternatively).

Most of the data showed a non-Gaussian distribution. Results are medians (25th; 75th percentiles) and numbers (%). nNO results are displayed in concentration (ppb). The inter- or intra-nostril repeatability is the difference between two measurements expressed as percentage of the maximal inter- or intra-nostril value, respectively. The nNO-TB between-peak variability is the CV of five peaks and the minimum peak as a percentage of the maximum peak (Min%Max). We used non-parametric tests to study correlations (Spearman correlation) and to compare values (Mann–Whitney, Kruskal–Wallis, Friedman and Wilcoxon matched-pairs sign rank tests), and the Chi-squared or Fisher's exact test to compare proportions of children (GraphPad Prism version 6.01; San Diego, CA, USA). Families were informed of the possible retrospective use of their children's nNO results and gave consent electronically.

We included 409 children, 238 (58.2%) males, who had repeated nNO measurements in both nostrils and/or in the same nostril using the same method (ER, BH or TB) and who contributed 550 visits (186 children had one visit, 148 had two visits, 216 had three visits or more) at a median age of 7.9 (5.7; 11.5) years. We assessed the inter- and intra-nostril repeatability using, respectively, 271 and 237 nNO-ER measurements, 227 and 141 nNO-BH measurements, 395 and 140 nNO-TB5p measurements, and 337 and 96 nNO-TB10s measurements. Children tested with the TB method were significantly younger than children tested with ER or BH methods (6.3 (4.2; 9.6), 8.6 (6.4; 12.3), and 9.9 (7.4; 13.2) years, respectively; p<0.0001). Median nNO-ER, nNO-BH, nNO-TB5p and nNO-TB10s were 325.0 (76.2; 652.6), 280.0 (87.4; 596.0), 162.4 (44.0; 354.2) and 120.4 (32.6; 287.3) ppb, respectively.

Inter-nostril repeatability was significantly different among the four methods of measurements (nNO-ER 5.1 (2.0; 10.0)%, nNO-BH 5.6 (2.3; 13.4)%, nNO-TB5p 17.1 (7.2; 37.4)%, and nNO-TB10s 19.4 (7.8; 36.4)%; p<0.0001) with no difference within the two velum closure methods (p=0.21) or the two TB methods (p=0.55). There was no significant correlation between the inter-nostril repeatability and age or maximal nNO value for all methods (all r between −0.12 and 0.08, all p>0.08), except for a poor but significant correlation between inter-nostril nNO-TB variability and age (nNO-TB5p, r=0.11, p=0.025 and nNO-TB10s, r=0.15, p=0.005).

Intra-nostril repeatability was different according to the method of measurement (nNO-ER: 5.7 (2.6; 11.8)%, nNO-BH: 5.6 (1.8; 11.0)%, nNO-TB5p 9.6 (3.4; 19.2)%, nNO-TB10s 10.0 (4.0; 22.6)%, p<0.0001), without any difference within the two velum closure methods or the two TB methods (p=0.33 and p=0.47, respectively). There was no significant correlation between the intra-nostril repeatability and age or maximal nNO value for all methods (all r between −0.13 and 0.05, all p>0.13) except for poor but significant correlations between intra-nostril nNO-TB5p repeatability and age (r=0.23, p=0.007) or maximal value (r=0.17, p=0.042).

The distributions of nNO-ER, nNO-BH and nNO-TB repeatability, and the between-peak variability of nNO-TB according to different criteria are shown in table 1.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Proportions of repeatable nasal nitric oxide (nNO) measurements according to different criteria of repeatability and between-peak variability in the 409 study children

This study showed that velum closure methods had better within-occasion repeatability than TB methods, while both velum closure methods and both TB methods had similar repeatability. The proportion of children with nNO inter-nostril repeatability lower than 10% was slightly lower than that previously published [12], but acceptable for velum closure methods. Conversely, 30% inter-nostril repeatability for nNO-TB measurements would be necessary to achieve proportions of successful measurements similar to those of nNO with velum closure. Results were similar for intra-nostril repeatability, with 20% repeatability of nNO-TB needed to achieve similar repeatable measurement frequency as velum closure methods (table 1). However, between a third and a quarter of repeated measurements failed the repeatability criterion, in favour of testing both nostrils and twice each.

In conclusion, in a large cohort of patients with a wide range of nNO values, we confirmed that an inter-measurement repeatability of 10% is acceptable for inter- or intra-nostril nNO-ER or nNO-BH measurements. These results cannot be extended to nNO-TB (except for between peaks variability), which would require 30% inter-nostril repeatability or 20% intra-nostril repeatability to achieve similar frequencies of repeatable measurements. However, since these repeatability criteria are not met in about a quarter of cases, a second measurement on the same side or on the other side can deviate significantly from the first, in favour of sampling both nostrils and at least twice each, in order to record the best value. This standard could change the interpretation of nNO in children with low/borderline results on a single measure.

Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to Jessica Assouline, Michèle Boulé, Houda Guillo, Marie-Claude La Rocca, Marc Koskas, Fatma Lacin, Lucia Maingot and Noria Medjahdi for their help in supervising the children's nasal nitric oxide measurements, and to Claire Goaguen, Pascale Jacquemart, Fanny Koëth, Valérie Le Bail, Isabelle Schmitt, and Françoise Vallée for their technical assistance, all working in Unité d'Exploration Fonctionnelle Respiratoire, Hôpital Armand Trousseau, Paris, France.

Footnotes

  • Provenance: Submitted article, peer reviewed.

  • Conflict of interest: N. Beydon has nothing to disclose.

  • Received December 26, 2021.
  • Accepted May 16, 2022.
  • Copyright ©The authors 2022
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0. For commercial reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions{at}ersnet.org

References

  1. ↵
    1. Lucas JS,
    2. Barbato A,
    3. Collins SA, et al.
    European Respiratory Society guidelines for the diagnosis of primary ciliary dyskinesia. Eur Respir J 2017; 49: 1601090. doi:10.1183/13993003.01090-2016
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Beydon N,
    2. Ferkol T,
    3. Harris AL, et al.
    An international survey on nasal nitric oxide measurement practices for the diagnosis of primary ciliary dyskinesia. ERJ Open Res 2022; 8: 00708-02021. doi:10.1183/23120541.00708-2021
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Djupesland PG,
    2. Chatkin JM,
    3. Qian W, et al.
    Aerodynamic influences on nasal nitric oxide output measurements. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh) 1999; 119: 479–485. doi:10.1080/00016489950181035
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Shapiro AJ,
    2. Dell SD,
    3. Gaston B, et al.
    Nasal nitric oxide measurement in primary ciliary dyskinesia. A technical paper on standardized testing protocols. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2020; 17: e1–e12. doi:10.1513/AnnalsATS.201904-347OT
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Kharitonov SA,
    2. Walker L,
    3. Barnes PJ
    . Repeatability of standardised nasal nitric oxide measurements in healthy and asthmatic adults and children. Respir Med 2005; 99: 1105–1114. doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2005.02.019
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Harris A,
    2. Bhullar E,
    3. Gove K, et al.
    Validation of a portable nitric oxide analyzer for screening in primary ciliary dyskinesias. BMC Pulm Med 2014; 14: 18. doi:10.1186/1471-2466-14-18
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. de Winter-de Groot KM,
    2. van der Ent CK
    . Measurement of nasal nitric oxide: evaluation of six different sampling methods. Eur J Clin Invest 2009; 39: 72–77. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2362.2008.02064.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Holgersen MG,
    2. Marthin JK,
    3. Nielsen KG
    . Proof of concept: very rapid tidal breathing nasal nitric oxide sampling discriminates primary ciliary dyskinesia from healthy subjects. Lung 2019; 197: 209–216. doi:10.1007/s00408-019-00202-x
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Karadag B,
    2. James AJ,
    3. Gültekin E, et al.
    Nasal and lower airway level of nitric oxide in children with primary ciliary dyskinesia. Eur Respir J 1999; 13: 1402–1405. doi:10.1183/09031936.99.13614069
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Struben VMD,
    2. Wieringa MH,
    3. Mantingh CJ, et al.
    Nasal NO measurement by direct sampling from the nose during breathhold: aspiration flow, nasal resistance and reproducibility. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2006; 263: 723–728. doi:10.1007/s00405-006-0059-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Boon M,
    2. Meyts I,
    3. Proesmans M, et al.
    Diagnostic accuracy of nitric oxide measurements to detect primary ciliary dyskinesia. Eur J Clin Invest 2014;44: 477–485. doi:10.1111/eci.12254
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Marthin JK,
    2. Nielsen KG
    . Choice of nasal nitric oxide technique as first-line test for primary ciliary dyskinesia. Eur Respir J 2011; 37: 559–565. doi:10.1183/09031936.00032610
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Beydon N,
    2. Chambellan A,
    3. Alberti C, et al.
    Technical and practical issues for tidal breathing measurements of nasal nitric oxide in children. Pediatr Pulmonol 2015; 50: 1374–1382. doi:10.1002/ppul.23167
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 8 Issue 2 Table of Contents
ERJ Open Research: 8 (2)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Nasal nitric oxide measurement variability to establish a standard for reliable results
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
Nasal nitric oxide measurement variability to establish a standard for reliable results
Nicole Beydon
ERJ Open Research Apr 2022, 8 (2) 00028-2022; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00028-2022

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Nasal nitric oxide measurement variability to establish a standard for reliable results
Nicole Beydon
ERJ Open Research Apr 2022, 8 (2) 00028-2022; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00028-2022
Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • A 3D-engineered silicone stent
  • Obesity does not modify effect of CPAP on insulin resistance
  • Asthma prevalence and medication dispensation
Show more Research letters

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About ERJ Open Research

  • Editorial board
  • Journal information
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Online ISSN: 2312-0541

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society