National survey evaluates perceived clinical value and real-world use of FeNO in allergy-immunology, highlighting barriers.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate real-life use, perceived clinical value, and barriers to the implementation of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) among allergy-immunology specialists in Türkiye. METHODS: This nationwide online survey, developed by the Asthma Working Group of the Turkish National Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, included 35 multiple-choice questions administered to pediatric and adult allergy-immunology specialists and fellows after the 30th National Congress. RESULTS: Of the 200 respondents, 75% (n = 150) were female, 54% (n = 108) were early-career physicians, and the majority (n = 125, 62.5%) worked in a university or training and research hospital. Asthma was identified as the primary indication for FeNO measurement by 95% (n = 190), of participants. FeNO was most frequently perceived as useful for phenotyping patients before biologic therapy initiation (n = 150,75.0%), monitoring treatment response (n = 141,70.5%), assessing asthma severity (n = 105, 52.5%), and supporting diagnosis (n = 85, 42.5%). In asthma management, FeNO was considered valuable for guiding decisions before biologic therapy (n = 173, 86.5%), assessing treatment adherence (n = 147, 73.5%), estimating exacerbation risk (n = 134, 67.0%), and adjusting inhaled corticosteroid doses (n = 119, 59.5%). Nearly all participants (n = 195, 97.5%) agreed that FeNO should be used as a complementary tool. However, only 7.0% (n = 14) reported routine FeNO use in daily practice. Limited device access, high cost, lack of reimbursement, and insufficient training were identified as major barriers. Knowledge gaps were prominent, with 61% reporting little or no practical knowledge of FeNO. CONCLUSION: This first national survey demonstrates a marked gap between clinicians' recognition of FeNO's clinical value and its limited real-world use in Türkiye, largely due to cost, access, and educational barriers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Öztürk et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: