Reduction of FENO by tap water and carbonated water mouthwashes: magnitude and time course

Parallel gradients in FENO and in the prevalences of asthma and atopy in adult general populations of Sweden, Finland and Estonia - A Nordic EpiLung study

The prevalence of asthma is higher in Sweden and Finland than in neighbouring eastern countries including Estonia. Corresponding difference in bronchial eosinophilic inflammation could be studied by F_ENO measurements. We aimed to compare F_ENO in adult general populations of Sweden, Finland, and Estonia, to test the plausibility of the west-east disparity hypothesis of allergic diseases. We conducted clinical interviews (N = 2658) with participants randomly selected from the general populations in Sweden (Stockholm and Örebro), Finland (Helsinki), and Estonia (Narva and Saaremaa), and performed F_ENO (n = 1498) and skin prick tests (SPT) in 1997-2003. The median (interquartile range) of F_ENO (ppb) was 15.5 (9.3) in Sweden, 15.4 (13.6) in Finland and 12.5 (9.6) in Estonia. We found the lowest median F_ENO values in the Estonian centres Saaremaa 13.1 (9.5) and Narva 11.8 (8.6). In the pooled population, asthma was associated with F_ENO ≥25 ppb, odds ratio (OR) 3.91 (95% confidence intervals: 2.29-6.32) after adjusting for SPT result, smoking, gender and study centre. A positive SPT test increased the likelihood of asthma OR 3.19 (2.02-5.11). Compared to Saaremaa, the likelihood of having asthma was higher in Helsinki OR 2.40 (1.04-6.02), Narva OR 2.45 (1.05-6.19), Örebro OR 3.38 (1.59-8.09), and Stockholm OR 5.54 (2.18-14.79). There was a higher prevalence of asthma and allergic airway inflammation in adult general populations of Sweden and Finland compared to those of Estonia. Atopy and elevated F_ENO level were independently associated with an increased risk of asthma. In conclusion, the findings support the earlier west-east disparity hypothesis of allergic diseases.

Converting FENO by different flows to standard flow FENO

In clinical practice, assessment of expiratory nitric oxide (FENO ) may reveal eosinophilic airway inflammation in asthmatic and other pulmonary diseases. Currently, measuring of FENO is standardized to exhaled flow level of 50 ml s-1 , since the expiratory flow rate affects the FENO results. To enable the comparison of FENO measured with different expiratory flows, we firstly aimed to establish a conversion model to estimate FENO at the standard flow level, and secondly, validate it in five external populations. FENO measurements were obtained from 30 volunteers (mixed adult population) at the following multiple expiratory flow rates: 50, 30, 100 and 300 ml s-1 , after different mouthwash settings, and a conversion model was developed. We tested the conversion model in five populations: healthy adults, healthy children, and patients with COPD, asthma and alveolitis. FENO conversions in the mixed adult population, in healthy adults and in children, showed the lowest deviation between estimatedF ^ ENO from 100 ml s-1 and measured FENO at 50 mL s-1 : -0·28 ppb, -0·44 ppb and 0·27 ppb, respectively. In patients with COPD, asthma and alveolitis, the deviation was -1·16 ppb, -1·68 ppb and 1·47 ppb, respectively. We proposed a valid model to convert FENO in healthy or mixed populations, as well as in subjects with obstructive pulmonary diseases and found it suitable for converting FENO measured with different expiratory flows to the standard flow in large epidemiological data, but not on individual level. In conclusion, a model to convert FENO from different flows to the standard flow was established and validated.

Influence of mouthwashes on extended exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) analysis

Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (F_ENO) is used to assess eosinophilic inflammation of the airways. F_ENO values are influenced by the expiratory flow rate and orally produced NO. We measured F_ENO at four different expiratory flow levels after two different mouthwashes: tap water and carbonated water. Further, we compared the alveolar NO concentration (C_ANO), maximum airway NO flux (J'_awNO) and airway NO diffusion (D_awNO) after these two mouthwashes. F_ENO was measured in 30 volunteers (healthy or asthmatic) with a chemiluminescence NO-analyser at flow rates of 30, 50, 100 and 300 mL/s. A mouthwash was performed before the measurement at every flow rate. The carbonated water mouthwash significantly reduced F_ENO compared to the tap water mouthwash at all expiratory flows: 50 mL/s (p < .001), 30 mL/s (p = .001), 100 mL/s (p < .001) and 300 mL/s (p = .004). J'_awNO was also significantly reduced (p = .017), however, there were no significant differences in C_ANO and D_awNO. In conclusion, a carbonated water mouthwash can significantly reduce oropharyngeal NO compared to a tap water mouthwash at expiratory flows of 30-300 mL/s without affecting the C_ANO and D_awNO. Therefore, mouthwashes need to be taken into account when comparing F_ENO results.