James E Hansen1, Asli G Dilektasli1,2, Janos Porszasz1, William W Stringer1, Youngju Pak3, Harry B Rossiter1,4, Richard Casaburi1. 1. Rehabilitation Clinical Trials Center and. 2. Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Uludağ University, Bursa, Turkey; and. 3. UCLA Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California. 4. Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Abstract
Rationale: A positive bronchodilator response (BDR) according to American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society (ATS/ERS) guidelines require both 200 ml and 12% increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) or forced vital capacity (FVC) after bronchodilator inhalation. This dual criterion is insensitive in those with high or low FEV1. Objectives: To establish BDR criteria with volume or percentage FEV1 change. Methods: The largest FEV1 and FVC were identified from three pre- and three post-bronchodilator maneuvers in COPDGene (Genetic Epidemiology of COPD) participants. A total of 7,741 individuals with coefficient of variation less than 15% for both FEV1 and FVC formed bronchodilator categories of FEV1 response: negative (≤0.00% or ≤0.00 L), minimal (>0.00% to ≤9.00% or >0.00 L to ≤0.09 L), mild (>9.00% to ≤16.00% or >0.09 L to ≤0.16 L), moderate (>16.00% to ≤26.00% or >0.16 L to ≤0.26 L), and marked (>26.00% or >0.26 L). These response size categories are based on empirical limits considering average FEV1 increase of approximately 160 ml and the clinically important difference for FEV1. To compare flow and volume response characteristics, BDR-FEV1 category assignments were applied for the BDR-FVC response. Results: Twenty percent met mild and 31% met moderate or marked BDR-FEV1 criteria, whereas 12% met mild and 33% met moderate or marked BDR-FVC criteria. In contrast, only 20.6% met ATS/ERS positive criteria. Compared with the negative BDR-FEV1 category, the minimal, mild, moderate, and marked BDR-FEV1 categories were associated with greater 6-minute-walk distance and lower St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire and modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale scores. Compared with negative BDR, moderate and marked BDR-FEV1 categories were associated with fewer exacerbations, and minimal BDR was associated with lower computed tomography airway wall thickness. Compared with the negative category, all BDR-FVC categories were associated with increasing emphysema percentage and gas trapping percentage. Moderate and marked BDR-FVC categories were associated with higher St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire scores but fewer exacerbations and lower dyspnea scores.Conclusions: BDR grading by FEV1 volume or percentage response identified subjects otherwise missed by ATS/ERS criteria. BDR grades were associated with functional exercise performance, quality of life, exacerbation frequency, dyspnea, and radiological airway measures. BDR grades in FEV1 and FVC indicate different clinical and radiological characteristics.
Rationale: A positive bronchodilator response (BDR) according to American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society (ATS/ERS) guidelines require both 200 ml and 12% increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) or forced vital capacity (FVC) after bronchodilator inhalation. This dual criterion is insensitive in those with high or low FEV1. Objectives: To establish BDR criteria with volume or percentage FEV1 change. Methods: The largest FEV1 and FVC were identified from three pre- and three post-bronchodilator maneuvers in COPDGene (Genetic Epidemiology of COPD) participants. A total of 7,741 individuals with coefficient of variation less than 15% for both FEV1 and FVC formed bronchodilator categories of FEV1 response: negative (≤0.00% or ≤0.00 L), minimal (>0.00% to ≤9.00% or >0.00 L to ≤0.09 L), mild (>9.00% to ≤16.00% or >0.09 L to ≤0.16 L), moderate (>16.00% to ≤26.00% or >0.16 L to ≤0.26 L), and marked (>26.00% or >0.26 L). These response size categories are based on empirical limits considering average FEV1 increase of approximately 160 ml and the clinically important difference for FEV1. To compare flow and volume response characteristics, BDR-FEV1 category assignments were applied for the BDR-FVC response. Results: Twenty percent met mild and 31% met moderate or marked BDR-FEV1 criteria, whereas 12% met mild and 33% met moderate or marked BDR-FVC criteria. In contrast, only 20.6% met ATS/ERS positive criteria. Compared with the negative BDR-FEV1 category, the minimal, mild, moderate, and marked BDR-FEV1 categories were associated with greater 6-minute-walk distance and lower St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire and modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale scores. Compared with negative BDR, moderate and marked BDR-FEV1 categories were associated with fewer exacerbations, and minimal BDR was associated with lower computed tomography airway wall thickness. Compared with the negative category, all BDR-FVC categories were associated with increasing emphysema percentage and gas trapping percentage. Moderate and marked BDR-FVC categories were associated with higher St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire scores but fewer exacerbations and lower dyspnea scores.Conclusions: BDR grading by FEV1 volume or percentage response identified subjects otherwise missed by ATS/ERS criteria. BDR grades were associated with functional exercise performance, quality of life, exacerbation frequency, dyspnea, and radiological airway measures. BDR grades in FEV1 and FVC indicate different clinical and radiological characteristics.
Entities:
Keywords:
airflow obstruction; bronchodilator responsiveness; forced expiratory volume in 1 second
Authors: Philip H Quanjer; Gregg L Ruppel; Arnulf Langhammer; Abhishek Krishna; Frans Mertens; Ane Johannessen; Ana M B Menezes; Fernando C Wehrmeister; Rogelio Perez-Padilla; Maureen P Swanney; Wan C Tan; Jean Bourbeau Journal: Chest Date: 2016-12-28 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Jørgen Vestbo; Suzanne S Hurd; Alvar G Agustí; Paul W Jones; Claus Vogelmeier; Antonio Anzueto; Peter J Barnes; Leonardo M Fabbri; Fernando J Martinez; Masaharu Nishimura; Robert A Stockley; Don D Sin; Roberto Rodriguez-Roisin Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2012-08-09 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Jordan Alexander Zach; John D Newell; Joyce Schroeder; James R Murphy; Douglas Curran-Everett; Eric A Hoffman; Philip M Westgate; MeiLan K Han; Edwin K Silverman; James D Crapo; David A Lynch Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Paul Albert; Alvar Agusti; Lisa Edwards; Ruth Tal-Singer; Julie Yates; Per Bakke; Bartolome R Celli; Harvey O Coxson; Courtney Crim; David A Lomas; William Macnee; Bruce Miller; Stephen Rennard; Edwin K Silverman; Jørgen Vestbo; Emiel Wouters; Peter Calverley Journal: Thorax Date: 2012-06-13 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Victor Kim; Parag Desai; John D Newell; Barry J Make; George R Washko; Edwin K Silverman; James D Crapo; Surya P Bhatt; Gerard J Criner Journal: Respir Res Date: 2014-08-08
Authors: Emily S Wan; John E Hokanson; Elizabeth A Regan; Kendra A Young; Barry J Make; Dawn L DeMeo; Stefanie E Mason; Raul San Jose Estepar; James D Crapo; Edwin K Silverman Journal: Chest Date: 2021-09-27 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Trisha M Parekh; Erika S Helgeson; John Connett; Helen Voelker; Sharon X Ling; Stephen C Lazarus; Surya P Bhatt; David M MacDonald; Takudzwa Mkorombindo; Ken M Kunisaki; Spyridon Fortis; David Kaminsky; Mark T Dransfield Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2022-10
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: Mohammed A Almeshari; Nowaf Y Alobaidi; Elizabeth Sapey; Omar Usmani; Robert A Stockley; James A Stockley Journal: Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis Date: 2021-11-11