Journal Information
Vol. 42. Issue 1.
Pages 33-38 (January 2006)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Vol. 42. Issue 1.
Pages 33-38 (January 2006)
Techniques and Procedures
Full text access
Nasal Potential Difference Test to Diagnose Cystic Fibrosis
Visits
8496
C. Domingo-Ribasa,
Corresponding author
cdomingo@cspt.es

Correspondence: Dr. C. Domingo-Ribas. Servicio de Neumología. Corporació Parc Taulí. Parc Taulí, s/n. 08208 Sabadell. Barcelona. España
, M. Bosque-Garcíab
a Servicio de Neumología, Corporació Parc Taulí-Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Sabadell, Barcelona, Spain
b Unidad de Neumología, Servicio de Pediatría, Corporació Parc Taulí-Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Sabadell, Barcelona, Spain
This item has received
Article information
Abstract
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics

Cystic fibrosis is usually diagnosed based on suspicion arising from a typical clinical picture and must be confirmed by either a finding of high chloride concentrations in sweat tests on 2 separate days or detection of 2 gene mutations. The nasal potential difference (NPD) test has been proposed to provide evidence of abnormal function of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR), a receptor that forms a chloride ion channel. The test is especially useful for patients who have normal chloride concentrations in sweat tests and in whom 2 gene mutations related to cystic fibrosis have not been detected. The NPD test requires 2 electrodes connected to a voltmeter (a Tholy-Medicap® device). One is placed on the nasal mucosa of the inferior turbinate and the other is placed subcutaneously on the forearm. A reading less than —40 mV is considered abnormal, as values under that cut point are never found in healthy individuals. Two abnormal NPD findings on separate days are required for a diagnosis of CFTR dysfunction. False negatives arise when the integrity of the epithelium is altered. After application of amiloride, NPD decreases more markedly in cystic fibrosis patients than in healthy individuals and applying isoproterenol or fenoterol after amiloride provokes no response in patients with the genetic defect that prevents chloride ion channel activation.

Key words:
Cystic fibrosis
Diagnosis
Nasal potential difference

En la gran mayoría de los pacientes con fibrosis quística (FQ), el diagnóstico se sospecha por unos síntomas clínicos típicos y debe confirmarse mediante la determinación en su-dor de una concentración de cloro elevada en 2 días separa-dos o mediante la identificación de 2 mutaciones en un estu-dio genético. Para evidenciar el anormal comportamiento de la proteína de membrana CFTR (cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator), encargada del transporte de cloro, se ha ideado la prueba de la diferencia de potencial nasal (DPN), especialmente útil en pacientes con concentra-ciones de cloro normales y en los que no se identifican las 2 mutaciones del gen de la FQ. Para la realización de la DPN se requieren 2 electrodos conectados a un voltímetro (dispo-sitivo de medida Tholy-Medicap®), uno colocado sobre la mucosa nasal del cornete inferior, y otro en el tejido celular subcutáneo del antebrazo. Un valor inferior a —40 mV se considera patológico. Los valores obtenidos en sujetos sanos no sobrepasan nunca este valor. Se precisan 2 determinacio-nes anormales de DPN registradas en 2 días separados para aceptar la disfunción de la CFTR. Pueden observarse falsos negativos cuando la integridad del epitelio está alterada. En la FQ, tras la aplicación de amilorida la diferencia de potencial se reduce de modo más llamativo que en sanos, y la aplicación de isoproterenol o fenoterol después de amilorida no provoca respuesta debido al defecto genético que impide la activación de los canales de cloro.

Palabras clave:
Fibrosis quística
Diagnóstico
Diferencia de potencial nasal
Full text is only aviable in PDF
REFERENCES
[1]
C Domingo Ribas, J Roig Cutillas.
Discinesia ciliar primaria.
Med Clin (Barc), 97 (1991), pp. 144-146
[2]
BJ Rosenstein.
What is cystic fibrosis diagnosis?.
Clin Chest Med, 19 (1998), pp. 423-441
[3]
S Garner, N Cobos, O Asensio, M Bosque, JL Seculi.
Newborn screening in Catalonia.
Ped Pulmonol, 35 (2003), pp. 325
[4]
Cystic Fibrosis Genetic Analysis Consortium: population variation of common cystic fibrosis mutations.
Hum Mutat, 4 (1994), pp. 167-177
[5]
C Domingo, RM Mirapeix, B Encabo, J Roig, D López, J Ruiz.
Clínica y ultraestructura de la discinesia biliar primaria y el síndrome de Young.
Rev Clin Esp, 197 (1997), pp. 100-103
[6]
BJ Rosenstein, M Langbaum.
Diagnosis.
Cystic fibrosis, pp. 85-114
[7]
WB Wheeler, HR Colton.
Cystic fibrosis: current approach to diagnosis and management.
Pediatr Rev, 9 (1988), pp. 241-248
[8]
RE Wood, TF Boat, CF Doershuk.
Cystic fibrosis: state of the art.
Am Rev Respir Dis, 113 (1976), pp. 833-878
[9]
VA leGrys.
Sweat testing for the diagnosis of cystic fibrosis: practical considerations.
J Pediatr, 129 (1996), pp. 892-897
[10]
BJ Rosenstein, G Cutting, for the cystic fibrosis foundation consensus panel.
The diagnosis of cystic fibrosis: a consensus statement.
J Pediatr, 132 (1998), pp. 589-595
[11]
M Bosque, H Larramona, O Asensio, C Montón, M Luján, C Domingo.
Papel del potencial diferencial nasal en el diagnóstico de fibrosis quística con test del sudor negativo.
Arch Bronconeumol, 39 (2003), pp. 137
[12]
M Knowles, J Gatzy, R Boucher.
Relative ion permeability of normal and cystic fibrosis nasal epithelium.
Science, 221 (1983), pp. 1067-1069
[13]
CW Gowen, EE Lawson, J Gingras-Leatherman, JT Gatsy, RC Boucher, MR Knowles.
Increased nasal potential difference and amiloride sensitivity in neonates with cystic fibrosis.
J Pediatr, 108 (1986), pp. 517-521
[14]
O Duperrex, PY Berclaz, D Bertrand, JS Lacroix, N Pochon, D Belli, et al.
A new device for in vivo measurement of nasal transepithelial potential difference in cystic fibrosis patients and normal subjects.
Eur Respir J, 10 (1997), pp. 1631-1636
[15]
PG Middleton, DM Geddes, EW Alton.
Protocols for in vivo measurement of the ion transport defects in cystic fibrosis nasal epithelium.
Eur Respir J, 7 (1994), pp. 2050-2056
[16]
M Knowles, AM Paradiso, RC Boucher.
In vivo nasal potential difference: techniques and protocols for assessing efficacy of gene transfer in cystic fibrosis.
Hum Gene Ther, 6 (1995), pp. 445-455
[17]
T Hofmann, O Böhmer, G Hüls, HG Terbrack, P Bittner, V Klingmüller, et al.
Conventional and modified nasal potential-difference measurement in cystic fibrosis.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 155 (1997), pp. 1908-1913
[18]
RC Ahrens, TA Standaert, J Launspach, SH Han, ME Teresi, ML Aitken, et al.
Use of nasal potential difference and sweet chloride as outcome measures in multicenter clinical trials in subjects with cystic fibrosis.
Ped Pulmonol, 33 (2002), pp. 142-150

This study was funded through an Òscar Ravà grant from the Catalan Foundation of Pneumology (FUCAP), 1999.

Copyright © 2006. Sociedad Española de Neumología y Cirugía Torácica (SEPAR)
Archivos de Bronconeumología
Article options
Tools

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?