EIB triggers may involve an accelerated exchange of heat, water vapor, or both between airway mucosa and inspired air.2 The prevalence and severity of bronchoconstriction increases with the inspiration of colder and dryer air, and with the intensity of ventilatory response.2 Different techniques for EIB testing exist. The more commonly used methods are exercise (treadmill, cycle ergometer, or field-based exercise), current procedural terminology (CPT) 94620, 94621; and bronchoprovocation (methacholine, cold air), CPT 94070. Test selection should be individualized to the patient's history and/or needs, replicating the activity or exposure when patients experience EIB. Consideration of these factors increases the efficacy and reliability of the selected test method. For example, exercise in the field has proven to be a better EIB predictor than laboratory-based exercise, yet field testing has limitations such as environmental variability, and uncontrolled variations in exercise intensity.3 The financial implications and space limitations for some private practices may affect the type of equipment used during exercise testing (eg, treadmill vs exercise bicycle) that can impact ventilatory response. In fact, some studies4 have proven the inferiority of cycle testing despite its cost-effectiveness. Pharmacologic challenge tests, such as methacholine or histamine, have shown a lower sensitivity than eucapnic voluntary hyperventilation (EVH) for the detection of EIB in elite athletes.5 However, EVH produces a ventilation higher than most individuals would normally achieve during exercise and may overdiagnose EIB in nonathletes. Therefore, methacholine or histamine challenges are more sensitive and preferred for the average individual3,4,6 Ultimately, cost and reimbursement comparisons may dictate the bronchoprovocation method employed.