The results of the present study provide further evidence that sex is a major factor determining exhaled nitric oxide (F
ENO) measurements. Without adjusting for other factors such as atopy, current smoking, and diagnosed asthma, the mean F
ENO levels in males were significantly higher than in females (p = 0.0001). However, even after appropriate adjustments, this difference persisted. The magnitude of the difference was approximately 25%. This is clinically as well as statistically significant [
24].
A review of the literature provides somewhat conflicting data regarding this issue. It is important to take account of the different methodologies used for F
ENO measurements when making comparisons
between studies, particularly with regard to expiratory flow rates. However,
within studies, significant differences between males and females will still be valid, and the balance of evidence suggests that sex-related differences in F
ENO are indeed important. In early investigations, both Jilma et al. [
25] and Tsang et al. [
26] reported sex-related differences in F
ENO whose magnitude (50% and 53% higher in males compared to females, respectively) was comparable to the present result. More recently, Olivieri et al. have reported higher levels in males, with an upper limit of normal of 28.8 ppb, compared to 21.5 ppb for females [
27]. Travers et al. [
19] reported that the mean F
ENO in males was 23% higher than in females (95% C.I. 7–43; p = 0.004, n = 191). In that study, the significance of the difference persisted even after controlling for height. In the study by Berry et al. a similar highly significant difference between males and females was recorded [
28]. However, in the largest study to date to focus on factors affecting F
ENO, comprising 2,200 subjects, Olin et al. has presented contrasting results [
18]. Although there was a male-female F
ENO difference in non-smokers amounting to 19%, this was not statistically significant in a multiple linear regression analysis in which adjustments for all other factors were included [
18]. The reasons why the difference failed to reach statistical significance are unclear.
After adjusting for sex, we found that other anthropometric factors such as height and lung function were no longer significant factors affecting F
ENO. Previously it has been argued that sex-related differences in F
ENO result from differences in the surface area of airway epithelium, the major source of exhaled NO, and for which height is an important anthropometric correlate. Thus our results are perhaps surprising. However, given that plasma levels of nitrate, a product of NO metabolism, are similarly different between the sexes [
25,
29], it seems unlikely that NO production in the airways is solely a reflection of differences in airway size, but rather reflects sex-related differences in endogenous NO production. This is consistent with the results of a twin study, which showed that genetic rather than environmental factors are more important in determining F
ENO [
30].
Our findings raise the question as to whether guidelines for the interpretation of F
ENO should be stratified by sex, and that reference ranges for males and females should be different. In the paper by Olivieri et al. the authors propose that reference ranges should be stratified for sex [
27]. Travers et al. [
19] advocate reference ranges based on sex, smoking status and atopy, but not age or height. We concur with this view, and the reference ranges contained in Table of the present paper are based on this approach. In the study by Olin et al. [
18], similar to conventional pulmonary function tests, both age and height but not sex, were deemed to be significant, although reference values as such were not provided. All studies concur that smoking and atopy are important considerations, and both are included in the reference values given here and by Travers et al. [
19].
In fact, interpreting F
ENO levels in clinical practice is even more complex. Reference values which take into account background characteristics such as sex, atopy and smoking may indeed be useful in guiding the diagnosis of airways-related
symptoms. In asymptomatic individuals, it is still possible that increased F
ENO reflects subclinical airway inflammation [
7,
28], but this interpretation is less likely if appropriate reference values which take factors such as sex into account have been used in the first place. The interpretation of F
ENO levels in the context of ongoing management of diagnosed asthma is far from clear. Despite optimal anti-inflammatory treatment, F
ENO levels may remain resolutely high [
31], and it is generally agreed that normalizing F
ENO in relation to reference values for a healthy population is not a desirable therapeutic aim [
8]. This point is perhaps reflected in the results obtained in the present study, which showed that in non-smoking, atopic, male asthmatics, who were all clinically stable, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was 38.8 ppb, considerably higher than the levels obtained in non-smoking, atopic, male, non-asthmatics (28.2 ppb).
One of the weaknesses of our study is that the F
ENO measurements were obtained in individuals who were all aged 32 years. Thus it was not possible to explore the influence of age as a factor in the regression analyses or to conclude whether reference values ought to include it as a factor. Previous studies have reported that F
ENO rises with increasing age in children [
15,
16,
32-
34]. In adults, Olin et al. [
18] have reported that an effect of age also occurs: F
ENO was shown to increase over the age range 35 to 65 years, with the magnitude of effect similar to that of atopy. In contrast, in the study by Travers et al. no significant relationship was noted over a similar age range, but numbers were much smaller [
19]. In children, it is suggested that the changes with age are attributable to increasing airway NO flux, probably reflecting larger airway surface area with growth [
34]. If at all, any increase in F
ENO with age in adults is likely to be due to non-anthropometric factors, and if the results from Olin et al. are repeatable, this may be an important consideration.
In summary, our data confirm that differences in FENO between males and females are of sufficient magnitude that the interpretation of FENO should be stratified by sex. This approach should be incorporated into clinical practice. Other common and easily identified factors such as current smoking and atopy also require to be taken into account when interpreting FENO values in adults. Contrasting results from a number of studies still leave open the question as to whether age and height ought to be included in future reference equations. These outstanding issues add to the current challenges which still remain in the application and interpretation of FENO levels in clinical practice, and require further study.