| Literature DB >> 32599726 |
Olena Ivanova1, Celso Khosa2,3, Abhishek Bakuli1, Nilesh Bhatt2, Isabel Massango2, Ilesh Jani2, Elmar Saathoff1, Michael Hoelscher1,3,4, Andrea Rachow1,3,4.
Abstract
Background: Local spirometric prediction equations are of great importance for interpreting lung function results and deciding on the management strategies for respiratory patients, yet available data from African countries are scarce. The aim of this study was to collect lung function data using spirometry in healthy adults living in Maputo, Mozambique and to derive first spirometric prediction equations for this population.Entities:
Keywords: Africa; Mozambique; adult; lung function; prediction equation; spirometry
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32599726 PMCID: PMC7344554 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17124535
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Anthropometric, demographic and spirometric characteristics of the participants.
| Characteristics | Male ( | Female ( | Total ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 33.83 (SD 10.74) | 36.13 (SD 11.12) | 35.20 (SD 10.99) |
| Height (meters) | 1.67 (SD 0.08) | 1.60 (SD 0.06) | 1.63 (SD 0.08) |
| Weight (kg s) | 65.52 (SD 9.80) | 69.24 (SD 15.68) | 67.73 (SD 13.69) |
| BMI (kg/sq. meters) | 23.43 (SD 3.70) | 26.95 (SD 5.60) | 25.52 (SD 5.20) |
|
| |||
| <30 years | 27 (42.86%) | 30 (32.61%) | 57 (36.77%) |
| 30–40 years | 20 (31.75%) | 28 (30.43%) | 48 (30.97%) |
| ≥40 years | 16 (25.39%) | 34 (39.96%) | 50 (32.26%) |
|
| |||
| Underweight | 2 (3.17%) | 2 (2.17%) | 4 (2.58%) |
| Normal | 45 (71.43%) | 38 (41.30%) | 83 (53.55%) |
| Overweight | 11 (17.46%) | 28 (30.43%) | 39 (25.16%) |
| Obese | 5 (7.94%) | 24 (26.09%) | 29 (18.71%) |
|
| |||
| Never Smoked | 49 (77.78%) | 87 (94.57%) | 136 (87.74%) |
| Past Smoker | 8 (12.70%) | 5 (5.43%) | 13 (8.39%) |
| Current Smoker | 6 (9.52%) | 0 (0%) | 6 (3.87%) |
|
| |||
| Single | 25 (39.68%) | 39 (42.39%) | 64 (41.29%) |
| Married | 11 (17.46%) | 11 (11.96%) | 22 (14.19%) |
| Living with spouse/partner | 25 (39.68%) | 37 (40.22%) | 62 (40.00%) |
| Widowed | 2 (3.17%) | 5 (5.43%) | 7 (4.52%) |
|
| |||
| No formal education | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.17%) | 2 (1.29%) |
| Grades 1–5 | 5 (7.94%) | 24 (26.09%) | 29 (18.71%) |
| Grades 6–10 | 27 (42.86%) | 43 (46.74%) | 70 (45.16%) |
| Grades 11–12 | 17 (26.98%) | 20 (21.74%) | 37 (23.87%) |
| Vocational | 8 (12.70%) | 2 (2.17%) | 10 (6.45%) |
| University | 6 (9.52%) | 1 (1.09%) | 7 (4.52%) |
| Negative | 27 (72.97%) | 40 (56.34%) | 67 (62.04%) |
| Positive | 10 (27.03%) | 31 (43.66%) | 41 (37.96%) |
|
| |||
| No | 61 (96.83%) | 92 (100%) | 153 (98.71%) |
| Yes | 2 (3.17%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.29%) |
|
| |||
| FVC (L) | 3.77 (SD 0.69) | 2.94 (SD 0.46) | 3.28 (SD 0.70) |
| FVC (% of predicted) | 90.82 (SD 11.43) | 88.62 (SD 11.76) | 89.51 (SD 11.65) |
| FEV1 (L) | 3.12 (SD 0.67) | 2.43 (SD 0.42) | 2.71 (SD 0.63) |
| FEV1 (% of predicted) | 91.28 (SD 13.69) | 95.53 (SD 13.02) | 93.80 (SD 13.41) |
| FEV1/FVC ratio | 0.83 (SD 0.06) | 0.83 (SD 0.06) | 0.83 (SD 0.06) |
Legend: * BMI according to World Health Organization (WHO) classification; ** predicted FVC and FEV1 based on South African reference standards [22].
New spirometric prediction equations obtained from the study sample in comparison to the South African equations.
| Outcome (Sex Specific) | South African (Black) Population | Mozambique (Local) Population |
|---|---|---|
| FVC (Males) | −3.08 − 0.024 × Age + 4.8 × Height; RSS = 0.54 | −2.271 − 0.019 × Age + 3.989 × Height; RSS = 0.43; adj Rsquare = 0.61 |
| FVC (Females) | −3.04 − 0.023 × Age + 4.5 × Height; RSS = 0.41 | −2.761 − 0.019 × Age + 3.989 × Height; RSS = 0.43; adj Rsquare = 0.61 |
| FEV1 (Males) | −0.54 − 0.027 × Age + 2.9 × Height; RSS = 0.46 | −3.504 − 0.023 × Age + 4.426 × Height; RSS = 0.37; adj Rsquare = 0.65 |
| FEV1 (Females) | −1.87 − 0.028 × Age + 3.4 × Height; RSS = 0.39 | −0.170 − 0.023 × Age + 2.150 × Height; RSS = 0.37; adj Rsquare = 0.65 |
| Ratio FEV1/FVC (Not sex specific) | - | 0.921 − 0.0027 × Age; RSS = 0.06; adj Rsquare = 0.22 |
Legend: The regression estimates are smaller in magnitude for Mozambican compared to South African equations, however, the direction of association is the same. We modelled the ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1 s/forced vital capacity (FEV1/FVC). The adjusted, comparably low value for R square (=0.22) indicates that age is only explaining 22% of the observed variability in the ratio of FEV1 and FVC. For the individual outcomes for FEV1 and FVC, both values for R square were higher than 0.6 and hence more than 60% of the variation observed in FEV1 and FVC are explained by the covariates in the regression equation. The Global Lung Initiative (GLI) equations used in this article are based on generalized additive models for location scale and shape (GAMLSS) models and, hence, the regression estimates are not directly comparable and therefore not included in Table 2.
Figure 1Association of FVC and FEV1 values with height and age and according to sex.
Comparison of outcome categories using Mozambican prediction equations versus South African and GLI equations.
| Impairment Type and Severity Grading, N = 155 | Mozambique—Local % (n/N) | GLI—Others % (n/N) | South Africa—Black % (n/N) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | 89.7 (139/155) | 72.9 (113/155) | 74.8 (116/155) |
| Obstruction—Mild | 5.2 (8/155) | 2.6 (4/155) | 5.8 (9/155) |
| Obstruction—Moderate | 0.6 (1/155) | 1.9 (3/155) | 0.6 (1/155) |
| Obstruction—Severe | 0.0 (0/155) | 1.3 (2/155) | 0.0 (0/155) |
| Restriction—Mild | 4.5 (7/155) | 15.5 (24/155) | 12.9 (20/155) |
| Restriction—Moderate | 0.0 (0/155) | 3.2 (5/155) | 3.9 (6/155) |
| Restriction—Severe | 0.0 (0/155) | 0.0 (0/155) | 0.0 (0/155) |
| Mixed—Mild | 0.0 (0/155) | 0.0 (0/155) | 0.0 (0/155) |
| Mixed—Moderate | 0.0 (0/155) | 0.6 (1/155) | 1.3 (2/155) |
| Mixed—Severe | 0.0 (0/155) | 1.9 (3/155) | 0.6 (1/155) |
Legend: While only 16 (10.3%) subjects had abnormal lung function according to the Mozambican reference standard, 42 (27.1%) and 39 (25.2%) subjects had lung impairment if GLI and South African standards, respectively, had been applied. The greatest discrepancies among the three reference standards are present in the restriction- and mixed- categories as well as in severity categories moderate and severe.
Figure 2The density distribution of z-scores from the Mozambican sample based on three different reference standards (prediction equations).