title: Can peak expiratory flow measurements reliably identify the presence of airway obstruction and bronchodilator response as assessed by FEV(1) in primary care patients presenting with a persistent cough?
abstract: BACKGROUND
  In general practice airway obstruction and the bronchodilator response are usually assessed using peak expiratory flow (PEF) measurements. A study was carried out in patients presenting with persistent cough to investigate to what extent PEF measurements are reliable when compared with tests using forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)) as the measure of response.
  
  
  METHODS
  Data (questionnaire, physical examination, spirometry, PEF) were collected from 240 patients aged 18-75 years, not previously diagnosed with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), who consulted their general practitioner with cough of at least two weeks duration. The relationship between low PEF (PEF < PEFpred - 1.64RSD) and low FEV(1) (FEV(1) < FEV(1)pred - 1.64RSD) was tested. A positive bronchodilator response after inhaling 400 microg salbutamol was defined as an increase in FEV(1) of > or = 9% predicted and was compared with an absolute increase in PEF with cut off values of 40, 60, and 80 l/min and DeltaPEF % baseline with cut off values of 10%, 15%, and 20%.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Forty eight patients (20%) had low FEV(1), 86 (35.8%) had low PEF, and 32 (13.3%) had a positive bronchodilator response. Low PEF had a positive predictive value (PPV) for low FEV(1) of 46.5% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 95%. DeltaPEF of > or = 10%, > or = 15%, or > or = 20% baseline had PPVs of 36%, 52%, and 67%, respectively, and DeltaPEF of > or = 40, > or = 60, and > or = 80 l/min in absolute terms had PPVs of 39%, 45%, and 57%, respectively, for DeltaFEV(1) > or = 9% predicted; NPVs were high (88-93%).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Although PEF measurements can reliably exclude airway obstruction and bronchodilator response, they are not suitable for use in the assessment of the bronchodilator response in the diagnostic work up of primary care patients with persistent cough. The clinical value of PEF measurements in the diagnosis of reversible obstructive airway disease should therefore be re-evaluated.
authors.affiliation: Department of General Practice, P O Box 2088, 2301 CB Leiden, The Netherlands Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Academical Medical Centre of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: H A
authors.initials: HA
authors.lastname: Thiadens
authors.forename: G H
authors.initials: GH
authors.lastname: De Bock
authors.forename: J C
authors.initials: JC
authors.lastname: Van Houwelingen
authors.forename: F W
authors.initials: FW
authors.lastname: Dekker
authors.forename: M W
authors.initials: MW
authors.lastname: De Waal
authors.forename: M P
authors.initials: MP
authors.lastname: Springer
authors.forename: D S
authors.initials: DS
authors.lastname: Postma
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000402:Airway Obstruction / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000503:physiopathology; D001249:Asthma / Q000175:diagnosis*; D003371:Cough / Q000209:etiology* / Q000503:physiopathology; D005260:Female; D005541:Forced Expiratory Volume / Q000502:physiology; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010366:Peak Expiratory Flow Rate / Q000502:physiology; D010808:Physical Examination; D012650:Self Disclosure; D013147:Spirometry; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires