Helen Ward1, Brendan G Cooper1, Martin R Miller2. 1. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, England. 2. Institute of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England. Electronic address: m.r.miller@bham.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Consensus on how best to express bronchodilator reversibility (BDR) is lacking. We tested different BDR criteria against the null hypotheses that BDR should show no sex or size bias. To determine the best criterion for defining BDR, we hypothesized that clinically important BDR should be associated with better survival in respiratory patients compared with that of patients without BDR. METHODS: We used the first BDR test of 4,231 patients who had known subsequent survival status (50.8% male sex; mean age, 60.9 years; mean survival, 5.2 years [range, 0.1-16.5 years]). BDR for FEV1 was expressed as absolute change, % baseline change, and change as % predicted FEV1. RESULTS: Having BDR defined from absolute change was biased toward men (male to female ratio, 2.70) and toward those with larger baseline FEV1. BDR defined by % change from baseline was biased toward those with lower baseline values. BDR defined by % predicted had no sex or size bias. Multivariate Cox regression found those with FEV1 BDR > 8% predicted (33% of the subjects) had an optimal survival advantage (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.45-0.69) compared with those with FEV1 BDR ≤ 8% predicted. The survival of those with FEV1 BDR > 8% predicted was not significantly different from that of those with FEV1 BDR > 14% predicted but was significantly better than that of those with FEV1 BDR < 0. CONCLUSIONS: We have shown that expressing FEV1 BDR as % predicted avoids sex and size bias. FEV1 BDR > 8% predicted showed optimal survival advantage and may be the most appropriate criterion to define clinically important reversibility.
BACKGROUND: Consensus on how best to express bronchodilator reversibility (BDR) is lacking. We tested different BDR criteria against the null hypotheses that BDR should show no sex or size bias. To determine the best criterion for defining BDR, we hypothesized that clinically important BDR should be associated with better survival in respiratory patients compared with that of patients without BDR. METHODS: We used the first BDR test of 4,231 patients who had known subsequent survival status (50.8% male sex; mean age, 60.9 years; mean survival, 5.2 years [range, 0.1-16.5 years]). BDR for FEV1 was expressed as absolute change, % baseline change, and change as % predicted FEV1. RESULTS: Having BDR defined from absolute change was biased toward men (male to female ratio, 2.70) and toward those with larger baseline FEV1. BDR defined by % change from baseline was biased toward those with lower baseline values. BDR defined by % predicted had no sex or size bias. Multivariate Cox regression found those with FEV1 BDR > 8% predicted (33% of the subjects) had an optimal survival advantage (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.45-0.69) compared with those with FEV1 BDR ≤ 8% predicted. The survival of those with FEV1 BDR > 8% predicted was not significantly different from that of those with FEV1 BDR > 14% predicted but was significantly better than that of those with FEV1 BDR < 0. CONCLUSIONS: We have shown that expressing FEV1 BDR as % predicted avoids sex and size bias. FEV1 BDR > 8% predicted showed optimal survival advantage and may be the most appropriate criterion to define clinically important reversibility.
Authors: Andrea M Coverstone; Leonard B Bacharier; Bradley S Wilson; Anne M Fitzpatrick; William Gerald Teague; Wanda Phipatanakul; Sally E Wenzel; Benjamin M Gaston; Eugene R Bleecker; Wendy C Moore; Sima Ramratnam; Nizar N Jarjour; Ngoc P Ly; John V Fahy; David T Mauger; Kenneth B Schechtman; Huiqing Yin-DeClue; Jonathan S Boomer; Mario Castro Journal: Pediatr Pulmonol Date: 2019-08-19
Authors: Karl Peter Sylvester; Nigel Clayton; Ian Cliff; Michael Hepple; Adrian Kendrick; Jane Kirkby; Martin Miller; Alan Moore; Gerrard Francis Rafferty; Liam O'Reilly; Joanna Shakespeare; Laurie Smith; Trefor Watts; Martyn Bucknall; Keith Butterfield Journal: BMJ Open Respir Res Date: 2020-07
Authors: Anne M Fitzpatrick; Stanley J Szefler; David T Mauger; Brenda R Phillips; Loren C Denlinger; Wendy C Moore; Ronald L Sorkness; Sally E Wenzel; Peter J Gergen; Eugene R Bleecker; Mario Castro; Serpil C Erzurum; John V Fahy; Benjamin M Gaston; Elliot Israel; Bruce D Levy; Deborah A Meyers; W Gerald Teague; Leonard B Bacharier; Ngoc P Ly; Wanda Phipatanakul; Kristie R Ross; Joe Zein; Nizar N Jarjour Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2019-10-08 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Loren C Denlinger; Brenda R Phillips; Sima Ramratnam; Kristie Ross; Nirav R Bhakta; Juan Carlos Cardet; Mario Castro; Stephen P Peters; Wanda Phipatanakul; Shean Aujla; Leonard B Bacharier; Eugene R Bleecker; Suzy A A Comhair; Andrea Coverstone; Mark DeBoer; Serpil C Erzurum; Sean B Fain; Merritt Fajt; Anne M Fitzpatrick; Jonathan Gaffin; Benjamin Gaston; Annette T Hastie; Gregory A Hawkins; Fernando Holguin; Anne-Marie Irani; Elliot Israel; Bruce D Levy; Ngoc Ly; Deborah A Meyers; Wendy C Moore; Ross Myers; Maria Theresa D Opina; Michael C Peters; Mark L Schiebler; Ronald L Sorkness; W Gerald Teague; Sally E Wenzel; Prescott G Woodruff; David T Mauger; John V Fahy; Nizar N Jarjour Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Spyridon Fortis; Alejandro Comellas; Barry J Make; Craig P Hersh; Sandeep Bodduluri; Dimitris Georgopoulos; Victor Kim; Gerard J Criner; Mark T Dransfield; Surya P Bhatt Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2019-07
Authors: Wanda Phipatanakul; David T Mauger; Ronald L Sorkness; Jonathan M Gaffin; Fernando Holguin; Prescott G Woodruff; Ngoc P Ly; Leonard B Bacharier; Nirav R Bhakta; Wendy C Moore; Eugene R Bleecker; Annette T Hastie; Deborah A Meyers; Mario Castro; John V Fahy; Anne M Fitzpatrick; Benjamin M Gaston; Nizar N Jarjour; Bruce D Levy; Stephen P Peters; W Gerald Teague; Merritt Fajt; Sally E Wenzel; Serpil C Erzurum; Elliot Israel Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Octavian C Ioachimescu; Jose A Ramos; Michael Hoffman; Kevin McCarthy; James K Stoller Journal: J Investig Med Date: 2021-02-11 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: James E Hansen; Asli G Dilektasli; Janos Porszasz; William W Stringer; Youngju Pak; Harry B Rossiter; Richard Casaburi Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2019-12