Shawn D Aaron1, Wan C Tan2, Jean Bourbeau3, Don D Sin2, Robyn H Loves1, Jenna MacNeil1, George A Whitmore1,4. 1. 1 The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 2. 2 Department of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; and. 3. 3 Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, and. 4. 4 Desautels Faculty of Management, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic, progressive disease, and reversal of COPD diagnosis is thought to be uncommon. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a spirometric diagnosis of mild or moderate COPD is subject to variability and potential error. METHODS: We examined two prospective cohort studies that enrolled subjects with mild to moderate post-bronchodilator airflow obstruction. The Lung Health Study (n = 5,861 subjects; study duration, 5 yr) and the Canadian Cohort of Obstructive Lung Disease (CanCOLD) study (n = 1,551 subjects; study duration, 4 yr) were examined to determine frequencies of (1) diagnostic instability, represented by how often patients initially met criteria for a spirometric diagnosis of COPD but then crossed the diagnostic threshold to normal and then crossed back to COPD over a series of annual visits, or vice versa; and (2) diagnostic reversals, defined as how often an individual's COPD diagnosis at the study outset reversed to normal by the end of the study. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Diagnostic instability was common and occurred in 19.5% of the Lung Health Study subjects and 6.4% of the CanCOLD subjects. Diagnostic reversals of COPD from the beginning to the end of the study period occurred in 12.6% and 27.2% of subjects in the Lung Health Study and CanCOLD study, respectively. The risk of diagnostic instability was greatest for subjects whose baseline FEV1/FVC value was closest to the diagnostic threshold, and the risk of diagnostic reversal was greatest for subjects who quit smoking during the study. CONCLUSIONS: A single post-bronchodilator spirometric assessment may not be reliable for diagnosing COPD in patients with mild to moderate airflow obstruction at baseline.
RATIONALE: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic, progressive disease, and reversal of COPD diagnosis is thought to be uncommon. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a spirometric diagnosis of mild or moderate COPD is subject to variability and potential error. METHODS: We examined two prospective cohort studies that enrolled subjects with mild to moderate post-bronchodilator airflow obstruction. The Lung Health Study (n = 5,861 subjects; study duration, 5 yr) and the Canadian Cohort of Obstructive Lung Disease (CanCOLD) study (n = 1,551 subjects; study duration, 4 yr) were examined to determine frequencies of (1) diagnostic instability, represented by how often patients initially met criteria for a spirometric diagnosis of COPD but then crossed the diagnostic threshold to normal and then crossed back to COPD over a series of annual visits, or vice versa; and (2) diagnostic reversals, defined as how often an individual's COPD diagnosis at the study outset reversed to normal by the end of the study. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Diagnostic instability was common and occurred in 19.5% of the Lung Health Study subjects and 6.4% of the CanCOLD subjects. Diagnostic reversals of COPD from the beginning to the end of the study period occurred in 12.6% and 27.2% of subjects in the Lung Health Study and CanCOLD study, respectively. The risk of diagnostic instability was greatest for subjects whose baseline FEV1/FVC value was closest to the diagnostic threshold, and the risk of diagnostic reversal was greatest for subjects who quit smoking during the study. CONCLUSIONS: A single post-bronchodilator spirometric assessment may not be reliable for diagnosing COPD in patients with mild to moderate airflow obstruction at baseline.
Entities:
Keywords:
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; diagnosis; lung function variability; spirometry
Authors: Rafael E de la Hoz; Xiaoyu Liu; John T Doucette; Anthony P Reeves; Laura A Bienenfeld; Juan P Wisnivesky; Juan C Celedón; David A Lynch; Raúl San José Estépar Journal: Lung Date: 2018-05-24 Impact factor: 2.584
Authors: William Z Zhang; Kazunori Gomi; Seyed Babak Mahjour; Fernando J Martinez; Renat Shaykhiev Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Daniel Hoesterey; Nilakash Das; Wim Janssens; Russell G Buhr; Fernando J Martinez; Christopher B Cooper; Donald P Tashkin; Igor Barjaktarevic Journal: Respir Med Date: 2019-08-09 Impact factor: 3.415
Authors: Jonathan Weber; Anthony P Reeves; John T Doucette; Yunho Jeon; Akshay Sood; Raúl San José Estépar; Juan C Celedón; Rafael E de la Hoz Journal: Lung Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 2.584
Authors: Kendra A Young; Matthew Strand; Margaret F Ragland; Gregory L Kinney; Erin E Austin; Elizabeth A Regan; Katherine E Lowe; Barry J Make; Edwin K Silverman; James D Crapo; John E Hokanson Journal: Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis Date: 2019-11
Authors: Benjamin M Smith; Miranda Kirby; Eric A Hoffman; Richard A Kronmal; Shawn D Aaron; Norrina B Allen; Alain Bertoni; Harvey O Coxson; Chris Cooper; David J Couper; Gerard Criner; Mark T Dransfield; MeiLan K Han; Nadia N Hansel; David R Jacobs; Joel D Kaufman; Ching-Long Lin; Ani Manichaikul; Fernando J Martinez; Erin D Michos; Elizabeth C Oelsner; Robert Paine; Karol E Watson; Andrea Benedetti; Wan C Tan; Jean Bourbeau; Prescott G Woodruff; R Graham Barr Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 56.272