Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Authors' response
  1. Carolina Cisneros1,
  2. Francisco García-Río2,
  3. Julio Ancochea1
  1. 1Servicio de Neumología, Hospital Universitario La Princesa, IP, Madrid, Spain
  2. 2Servicio de Neumología, Hospital Universitario La Paz, IdiPAZ, Madrid, Spain
  1. Correspondence to Carolina Cisneros Serrano, Servicio de Neumología, Hospital Universitario La Princesa, C/Diego de León 62, Madrid 28006, Spain; carol9199{at}

Statistics from

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.

We read with great interest the comment by Salome and coworkers on our recently published article.1 We are grateful for their interest in our work, although they attribute to us a conclusion that does not appear in our paper. We conclude that bronchial reactivity indices are independent predictors for the health-rated quality of life of patients with asthma and we propose that they might be of use in clinical practice. In our conclusion, however, no comparison is established between bronchial reactivity and sensitivity.

We agree that the analysed indices of bronchial reactivity represent different expressions of the slope of the dose–response curve. Certainly, the differences in their relationship with the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire are attributable to changes in shape or linearity due to the mathematical transformation applied in their calculation.

Nevertheless, we do not agree with the assimilation between the provocative dose causing a 20% fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) (PD20) and dose–response slope (DRS). Both parameters seem to be qualitatively different since the dose–response curves plotted in their determination are also different. PD20 is obtained from curves plotted on a semilogarithmic scale whereas DRS is obtained from a linear dose axis. Moreover, the calculation of PD20 uses the fall in FEV1 between the last and penultimate doses while, for DRS determination, the fall in FEV1 is considered that between the last dose and the post-diluent baseline value. These different approaches provide necessarily different values. In fact, and in contrast to Salome and coworkers, in our patients with asthma the relationship between PD20 and DRS is slight (r=0.416, r=0.042).

We therefore believe that DRS and PD20 are not completely equivalent. DRS allows for airway responsiveness to be assessed in all individuals, including those who do not reach the threshold PD20. Several studies, including some of their own group,2 have already shown that DRS to methacholine or histamine is associated with asthma diagnosis and symptoms. Moreover, DRS allows for a better separation of patients with and without asthma than PD20.3 It has recently been shown that adolescents with asthma remission had a significant decrease in speed of bronchial constriction (bronchial reactivity) whereas the threshold of methacholine (bronchial sensitivity) was not altered.4

Finally, and in agreement with Porsbjerg et al,5 we consider that the differences in the estimation procedure and the non-censored character of the DRS, continuous index of responsiveness and bronchial reactivity index should justify their stronger relationship with health-related quality of life than PD20.


View Abstract


  • Linked articles 151639.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Patient consent Obtained.

  • Ethics approval This study was conducted with the approval of the Hospital Universitario La Princesa y La Paz.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles