Prevalence of Bronchodilator Responsiveness: A Comparison of Old Versus New Criteria

被引:0
|
作者
de la Serna, Solanus [1 ]
Skinner, Becky [2 ]
Schwartz, Andrei [2 ]
Fortis, Spyridon [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Iowa, Dept Internal Med, Hosp & Clin, Iowa City, IA USA
[2] Univ Iowa, Roy J & Lucille Carver Coll Med, Dept Internal Med, Div Pulm Crit Care & Occupat Med, Iowa City, IA USA
[3] Iowa City VA Hlth Care Syst, Ctr Access & Delivery Res & Evaluat, Iowa City, IA USA
关键词
bronchodilator; bronchodilator responsiveness; ERS/ATS guidelines; ASTHMA;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND: In 2021, the European Respiratory Society (ERS)/American Thoracic Society (ATS) guidelines issued a new definition of bronchodilator responsiveness, which is now defined as an increase in FEV1 or FVC by >= 10% of the predicted FEV1 or FVC. The impact of this revised definition on bronchodilator responsiveness prevalence has been relatively understudied. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 2,696 subjects who performed pulmonary function testing at the University of Iowa from 1997 to 2018. We compared the prevalence of bronchodilator responsiveness by using the 2005 (FEV1 or FVC increase >= 12% baseline value and >= 200 mL) and 2021 (FEV1 or FVC increase >= 200 mL and >= 12% of baseline value) ERS/ATS definitions, across several different respiratory diagnosis categories. We compared the prevalence of bronchodilator responsiveness using the 2 definitions by applying the McNemar test and assessed concordance of bronchodilator responsiveness by calculating kappa coefficients for the whole study population and within each diagnosis category. RESULTS: The prevalence of bronchodilator responsiveness increased from 9% when using the 2005 ERS/ATS definition to 16% when using the 2021 definition within the entire cohort and also within each respiratory diagnosis category. In the subjects with normal pre-bronchodilator spirometry, there was a low prevalence of bronchodilator responsiveness (3%) when using the 2005 definition, and the prevalence increased (8%) when using the 2021 definition. In the subjects with normal pre-bronchodilator spirometry and FEV1 Z score >= 0, 2% had bronchodilator responsivness according to the 2005 guidelines, whereas 7% had bronchodilator responsiveness according to the 2021 guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of bronchodilator responsiveness increased when using the new 2021 ERS/ATS definition compared with the 2005 definition. In the subjects with normal pre-bronchodilator spirometry, the prevalence of bronchodilator responsiveness increased when using the 2021 definition, in particular, among those with an FEV1 Z score >= 0, which raises concerns for overdiagnosis. Future investigations should examine the correlation of bronchodilator responsiveness with clinical outcomes in this group of subjects.
引用
收藏
页码:1266 / 1274
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] COMPARISON OF OLD AND NEW CRITERIA FOR ANTERIOR TEMPORAL LOBECTOMY IN PARTIAL COMPLEX EPILEPSY
    ENGEL, J
    CRANDALL, PH
    EPILEPSIA, 1982, 23 (04) : 431 - 431
  • [42] Clinical Implications of the New Criteria for a Positive Bronchodilator Response in Children With Asthma
    Stridsman, Caroline
    Backman, Helena
    Vanfleteren, Lowie E. G. W.
    Asarnoj, Anna
    Ljungberg, Henrik
    Lindberg, Anne
    Bossios, Apostolos
    Konradsen, Jon R.
    ACTA PAEDIATRICA, 2025,
  • [43] Comparison of the New and Old Asbmr Criteria for Atypical Femoral Fractures and the Discovery of New Multifocal Disease
    Sandhu, Supna K.
    Moosavi, Mandana
    Gill, Amninder S.
    Lentle, Brian
    Lian, Kevin
    Trollip, Jacques
    Dian, Larry
    Kendler, David L.
    ENDOCRINE REVIEWS, 2014, 35 (03)
  • [44] COMPARISON OF BROXATEROL, A NEW SELECTIVE BRONCHODILATOR AGENT, WITH SALBUTAMOL
    BLASI, A
    PEZZA, A
    CURRENT THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH-CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL, 1985, 37 (03): : 485 - 492
  • [45] OLD VERSUS NEW
    Bryant, Stephen
    STRAD, 2014, 125 (1490): : 8 - 8
  • [46] New versus old
    Patrick Goymer
    Nature Reviews Cancer, 2006, 6 (2) : 93 - 93
  • [47] OLD VERSUS NEW
    NEUGEBOREN, B
    SOCIAL WORK, 1978, 23 (01) : 84 - 84
  • [48] OLD VERSUS NEW
    WARD, CF
    AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY, 1995, 143 (07): : 6 - 6
  • [49] Old versus new
    Wood-Black, Frankie
    JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL HEALTH & SAFETY, 2011, 18 (05): : 64 - 64
  • [50] New Benchmarks versus Old Benchmarks: A Comparison of the ICSBEP and CSEWG Benchmarks
    Lell, R. M.
    McKnight, R. D.
    JOURNAL OF THE KOREAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, 2011, 59 (02) : 1129 - 1134