You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Editorial
Improving asthma prescribing: is FeNO the answer?
  1. Jo Congleton
  1. Respiratory Department, University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust, Worthing, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Jo Congleton, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Worthing, BN11 2DH, UK; jo.congleton{at}nhs.net

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/dtb.2023.000013

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Various prescribing measures for asthma suggest suboptimal control (eg, excess prescribing of short-acting beta2 agonist inhalers) and it is reported that the diagnosis of asthma is incorrect in up to one-third of patients.1 There is, therefore, a strong case to be made for using objective tests before starting or escalating asthma treatment. Measurement of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) has been proposed as a quick, easy to perform, noninvasive, diagnostic tool. Raised FeNO levels indicate eosinophil airway inflammation and support a diagnosis of asthma.2

    The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published evidence-based recommendations on FeNO in 2014 and included FeNO measurement in its diagnostic algorithms for asthma in 2017.2 3 Currently, FeNO devices cost around £3000 and the cost of a test varies depending on the number carried out each year but is estimated at £10 per test. NICE suggests that the use of …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests None declared. Refer to the online supplementary files to view the ICMJE form(s).

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.