Abstract
Introduction Chronic airflow obstruction is key for COPD diagnosis but strategies for its early detection are limited. We aimed to define the optimal z-score thresholds for spirometry parameters to discriminate chronic airflow obstruction incidence.
Methods The Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease study is a multinational cohort study. Information on respiratory symptoms was collected and pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry was performed at baseline. Eighteen study sites were followed up with repeat measurements after a median of 8.4 years. We converted lung function measurements into z-scores using the Third National Health and Nutrition Survey reference equations. We used the Youden index to calculate the optimal z-score thresholds for discriminating chronic airflow obstruction incidence. We further examined differences by smoking status.
Results We analysed data from 3057 adults (57% females, mean age: 51 years at baseline). Spirometry parameters were good at discriminating chronic airflow obstruction incidence (AUC 0.80–0.84), while respiratory symptoms performed poorly. The optimal z-score threshold was identified for pre-bronchodilator FEV1/FVC <-1.336, equivalent to the 9th percentile (sensitivity: 78%, specificity: 72%). All z-score thresholds associated with a lower post-bronchodilator FEV1/FVC and greater odds of chronic airflow obstruction at follow-up. The risk of chronic airflow obstruction was slightly greater for current smokers and, to some extent, never smokers with a pre-bronchodilator FEV1/FVC less than the 9th/10th percentiles at baseline, particularly among males.
Conclusions Spirometry is better than respiratory symptoms at predicting chronic airflow obstruction incidence. A pre-bronchodilator FEV1/FVC <9th/10th percentiles, particularly among current smokers, could suggest early airflow obstruction or pre-COPD.
Footnotes
This manuscript has recently been accepted for publication in the ERJ Open Research. It is published here in its accepted form prior to copyediting and typesetting by our production team. After these production processes are complete and the authors have approved the resulting proofs, the article will move to the latest issue of the ERJOR online. Please open or download the PDF to view this article.
Conflict of Interest: A. H. S. Lam has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of Interest: S. A. Alhajri has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of Interest: J. Potts has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of Interest: I. Harrabi has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of Interest: M. P. Anand has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of Interest: C. Janson has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of Interest: R. Nielsen reports support for the present study from AstraZeneca.
Conflict of Interest: D. Agarwal has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of Interest: A. Malinovschi has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of Interest: S. Juvekar has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of Interest: M. Denguezli has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of Interest: T. Gislason has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of Interest: R. Jõgi has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of Interest: V. Garcia-Larsen has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of Interest: R. Ahmed has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of Interest: A. A. Nafees has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of Interest: P. A. Koul has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of Interest: A. Aquat-Stewart has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of Interest: P. Burney has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of Interest: B. Knox-Brown has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of Interest: A. F. S. Amaral has nothing to disclose.
This is a PDF-only article. Please click on the PDF link above to read it.
- Received June 20, 2024.
- Accepted August 30, 2024.
- Copyright ©The authors 2024
This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0. For commercial reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions{at}ersnet.org