What is the Best Way to Diagnose Possible Asthma Patients with Negative Bronchodilator Reversibility Tests?

Buket Ba&scedil;a Akdo&gbreve;an, Ilkay Koca Kalkan, Gözde Köycü Buhari, Özlem Özdedeo&gbreve;lu, Hale Ate&scedil;, Kurtulu&scedil; Aksu, Ferda Öner Erkekol Department of Chest Diseases, Division of Immunology and Allergy, University of Health Sciences Ataturk Chest Diseases and Chest Surgery Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, TurkeyCorrespondence: Buket Ba&scedil;a Akdo&gbreve;an, Department of Chest Diseases, Division of Immunology and Allergy, University of Health Sciences Ataturk Chest Diseases and Chest Surgery Education and Research Hospital, Incirlist, No: 57 Floor:3, 34147 Bakirkoy/Istanbul, Ankara, Turkey, Tel +90 5053518861 ; +90 850 4339393, Email [email protected]: The best method and strategy for the diagnosis of asthma remains unclear, especially in patients with negative bronchodilator reversibility test (BDRT). In our study, we aimed to investigate the diagnostic yield of peak expiratory flow (PEF) variability for this patient group.Methods: A total of 50 patients with suspected asthma, all with negative BDR test, were included in the study. Demographic information and symptoms were recorded and PEF variability was monitored for 2 weeks. Metacolinbronchial provocation test (mBPT) was performed. Asthma was diagnosed when PEF variability ≥ 20% and/or positive mBPT was observed.Results: 30 of 50 patients were diagnosed with asthma. After 1 month, 17 patients were evaluated for treatment outcomes. The sensitivity and specificity of PEF variability for different cut-off values (≥ 20%, > 15% and > 10%) were 61.5– 83.3, 88.5– 62.5 and 100– 16.7, respectively. One of the most important findings of our study was the absence of variable airflow limitation or airway hyper reactivity in 39% patients with a previous diagnosis of asthma. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that a low baseline FEF25-75 value was an independent predictive factor for the diagnosis of asthma (p= 0.05).Conclusion: The most efficient diagnostic test for asthma is still unclear due to many factors. Our study is one of the few studies on this subject. Although current diagnostic recommendations generally recommend a PEF variability of 10% for the diagnosis of asthma, this threshold may not be appropriate for the BDR-negative patient group. Our results suggest using a threshold value of < 15% for PEF variability when excluding asthma and ≥ 20% when confirming the diagnosis of asthma in patients with clinically suspected but unproven reversibility. Furthermore, FEF25-75 is considered to be an important diagnostic parameter that should be included in diagnostic recommendations for asthma.Keywords: diagnosis of asthma, reversibility, peak expiratory flow (PEF) variability, bronchial challenge test, forced expiratory flow (25-75%

Post-implant neuropathy of the trigeminal nerve. A case series.

Background The incidence of implant-related inferior alveolar nerve injuries (IANI) is steadily increasing within the UK population. Aims This study prospectively reviewed thirty cases (35% male; 65% female) of implant-related IANI seen in a specialist nerve injury clinic. Methods Neurosensory examinations were carried out to ascertain a quantifiable rating of the perception, pain profiling and functional difficulties. Data were analysed using SPSS software. Results Patients were aware of signing consent forms for the surgery in 11 cases and 8 of those felt they were not explicitly warned about nerve injury. Over 70% of patients were referred after six months post injury. Implant surgery planning involved intra-oral films only (30%), CBCT (10%), dental pantomograph (50%) and long cone peri-apical radiographs (48%). However, no radiographic evidence pre- or postoperatively was provided by the referring practitioner in 15% of cases. Intra-operative problems included bleeding and neurological symptoms. Proximity of the implant bed or implant to the inferior alveolar canal was evident radiographically. This showed contact with roof inferior alveolar nerve canal in 44% of cases, protrusion into the canal in 20% of cases, crossing of the canal in 20% cases and distance in one case, presumed to be due to local anaesthetic injury. All patients presented with a demonstrable neuropathy, which included neuropathic pain (50%) that interfered with speaking, kissing and socialising. Conclusions Consent, preoperative planning and appropriate referral were inadequate in provision of mandibular implants in this patient group. Recommendations have been proposed to improve practice and possible novel strategies are suggested for the prevention and improved management of these complications