Bronchodilator response does not associate with asthma control or symptom burden among patients with poorly controlled asthma

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine how four different definitions of bronchodilator response (BDR) relate to asthma control and asthma symptom burden in a large population of participants with poorly controlled asthma.

PROCEDURES

We examined the baseline change in FEV1 and FVC in response to albuterol among 931 participants with poorly controlled asthma pooled from three clinical trials conducted by the American Lung Association - Airways Clinical Research Centers. We defined BDR based on four definitions and analyzed the association of each with asthma control as measured by the Asthma Control Test or Asthma Control Questionnaire, and asthma symptom burden as measured by the Asthma Symptom Utility Index.

MAIN FINDINGS

A BDR was seen in 31-42% of all participants, depending on the definition used. There was good agreement among responses (kappa coefficient 0.73 to 0.87), but only 56% of participants met all four definitions for BDR. A BDR was more common in men than women, in Blacks compared to Whites, in non-smokers compared to smokers, and in non-obese compared to obese participants. Among those with poorly controlled asthma, 35% had a BDR compared to 25% of those with well controlled asthma, and among those with a high symptom burden, 34% had a BDR compared to 28% of those with a low symptom burden. After adjusting for age, sex, height, race, obesity and baseline lung function, none of the four definitions was associated with asthma control or symptom burden.

CONCLUSION

A BDR is not associated with asthma control or symptoms in people with poorly controlled asthma, regardless of the definition of BDR used. These findings question the clinical utility of a BDR in assessing asthma control and symptoms.

Assessing bronchodilator response by changes in per cent predicted forced expiratory volume in one second

In pulmonary function testing by spirometry, bronchodilator responsiveness (BDR) evaluates the degree of volume and airflow improvement in response to an inhaled short-acting bronchodilator (BD). The traditional, binary categorization (present vs absent BDR) has multiple pitfalls and limitations. To overcome these limitations, a novel classification that defines five categories (negative, minimal, mild, moderate and marked BDR), and based on % and absolute changes in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), has been recently developed and validated in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and against multiple objective and subjective measurements. In this study, working on several large spirometry cohorts from two different institutions (n=31 598 tests), we redefined the novel BDR categories based on delta post-BD–pre-BD FEV₁ % predicted values. Our newly proposed BDR partition is based on several distinct intervals for delta post-BD–pre-BD % predicted FEV₁ using Global Lung Initiative predictive equations. In testing, training and validation cohorts, the model performed well in all BDR categories. In a validation set that included only normal baseline spirometries, the partition model had a higher rate of misclassification, possibly due to unrestricted BD use prior to baseline testing. A partition that uses delta % predicted FEV₁ with the following intervals ≤0%, 0%–2%, 2%–4%, 4%–8% and >8% may be a valid and easy-to-use tool for assessing BDR in spirometry. We confirmed in our cohorts that these thresholds are characterized by low variance and that they are generally gender-independent and race-independent. Future validation in other cohorts and in other populations is needed.

Area Under the Expiratory Flow-Volume Curve (AEX): Assessing Bronchodilator Responsiveness

Background

Area under expiratory flow–volume curve (AEX) is a useful spirometric tool in stratifying respiratory impairment. The AEX approximations based on isovolumic flows can be used with reasonable accuracy when AEX is unavailable. We assessed here pre- to post-bronchodilator (BD) variability of AEX₄ as a functional assessment tool for lung disorders.

Methods

The BD response was assessed in 4330 subjects by changes in FEV₁, FVC, and AEX₄, which were derived from FVC, peak expiratory flow, and forced expiratory flow at 25%, 50%, and 75% FVC. Newly proposed BD response categories (negative, minimal, mild, moderate and marked) have been investigated in addition to standard criteria.

Results

Using standard BD criteria, 24% of subjects had a positive response. Using the new BD response categories, only 23% of subjects had a negative response; 45% minimal, 18% mild, 9% moderate, and 5% had a marked BD response. Mean percent change of the square root AEX₄ was 0.3% and 14.3% in the standard BD-negative and BD-positive response groups, respectively. In the new BD response categories of negative, minimal, mild, moderate, and marked, mean percent change of square root AEX₄ was − 8.2%, 2.9%, 9.2%, 15.0%, and 24.8%, respectively.

Conclusions

Mean pre- to post-BD variability of AEX₄ was < 6% and stratified well between newly proposed categories of BD response (negative, minimal, mild, moderate and marked). We suggest that AEX₄ (AEX) could become a useful measurement for stratifying dysfunction in obstructive lung disease and invite further investigation into indications for using bronchodilator agents or disease-modifying, anti-inflammatory therapies.

A New Bronchodilator Response Grading Strategy Identifies Distinct Patient Populations

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.

Priorities for future research into asthma diagnostic tools: A PAN-EU consensus exercise from the European asthma research innovation partnership (EARIP)

The diagnosis of asthma is currently based on clinical history, physical examination and lung function, and to date, there are no accurate objective tests either to confirm the diagnosis or to discriminate between different types of asthma. This consensus exercise reviews the state of the art in asthma diagnosis to identify opportunities for future investment based on the likelihood of their successful development, potential for widespread adoption and their perceived impact on asthma patients. Using a two-stage e-Delphi process and a summarizing workshop, a group of European asthma experts including health professionals, researchers, people with asthma and industry representatives ranked the potential impact of research investment in each technique or tool for asthma diagnosis and monitoring. After a systematic review of the literature, 21 statements were extracted and were subject of the two-stage Delphi process. Eleven statements were scored 3 or more and were further discussed and ranked in a face-to-face workshop. The three most important diagnostic/predictive tools ranked were as follows: "New biological markers of asthma (eg genomics, proteomics and metabolomics) as a tool for diagnosis and/or monitoring," "Prediction of future asthma in preschool children with reasonable accuracy" and "Tools to measure volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in exhaled breath."