Bronchodilator response cut-off points and FEV 0.75 reference values for spirometry in preschoolers

Assessment of bronchodilator response in preschoolers: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Several techniques can be used to assess bronchodilator response (BDR) in preschool-aged children, including spirometry, respiratory oscillometry, the interrupter technique, and specific airway resistance. However, there has not been a systematic comparison of BDR thresholds across studies yet.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed on all studies up to May 2023 measuring a bronchodilator effect in children 2-6 years old using one of these techniques (PROSPERO CRD42021264659). Studies were identified using MEDLINE, Cochrane, EMBASE, CINAHL via EBSCO, Web of Science databases, and reference lists of relevant manuscripts.

RESULTS

Of 1224 screened studies, 43 were included. Over 85% were from predominantly European ancestry populations, and only 22 studies (51.2%) calculated a BDR cutoff based on a healthy control group. Five studies included triplicate testing with a placebo to account for the within-subject intrasession repeatability. A relative BDR was most consistently reported by the included studies (95%) but varied widely across all techniques. Various statistical methods were used to define a BDR, with six studies using receiver operating characteristic analyses to measure the discriminative power to distinguish healthy from wheezy and asthmatic children.

CONCLUSION

A BDR in 2- to 6-year-olds cannot be universally defined based on the reviewed literature due to inconsistent methodology and cutoff calculations. Further studies incorporating robust methods using either distribution-based or clinical anchor-based approaches to define BDR are required.

Bronchodilator Responsiveness Defined by the 2005 and 2021 ERS/ATS Criteria in Patients with Asthma as Well as Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Background

In the 2021 ERS/ATS interpretive strategies for routine lung function tests, a positive bronchodilator response (BDR) was updated as a change of >10% relative to the predicted value in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) or forced vital capacity (FVC). We aimed to explore the differences between the 2005 and 2021 ERS/ATS criteria applied to patients with asthma as well as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Methods

BDR test data about asthma patients aged 6–80 years and COPD patients aged 18–80 years were derived from the National Respiratory Medicine Center, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, from January 2017 to March 2022. BDR results defined by the 2005 and 2021 ERS/ATS criteria were named 2005-BDR and 2021-BDR, respectively. We compared differences between 2005-BDR and 2021-BDR and analyzed the trend in the proportion of positive BDR (BDR+) with the level of airflow obstruction.

Results

A total of 4457 patients with asthma and 7764 patients with COPD were included in the analysis. The percentages of 2005-BDR+ and 2021-BDR+ were 63.32% and 52.84% for asthma, 30.92% and 22.94% for COPD, respectively. Of patients with 2005-BDR+, 81.86% for asthma and 70.18% for COPD showed 2021-BDR+ results, and these patients had higher FEV₁%pred, FVC%pred (all P<0.05). Whichever BDR criterion was adopted, the proportion of BDR+ had an upward linear trend with the increased degree of airflow obstruction in COPD, but exhibited an approximate inverted U-shaped curve in asthma. In COPD, the proportion of BDR_FEV1 was negatively associated with the degree of airflow obstruction, while BDR_FVC was positively associated (all P<0.05).

Conclusion

Compared with 2005-BDR+, the proportion of 2021-BDR+ reduced markedly in patients with asthma and COPD, but their trends with the degree of airflow obstruction did not change. Patients with consistent BDR+ had higher initial FEV₁%pred and FVC%pred.

ERS/ATS technical standard on interpretive strategies for routine lung function tests

BACKGROUND

Appropriate interpretation of pulmonary function tests (PFTs) involves the classification of observed values as within/outside the normal range based on a reference population of healthy individuals, integrating knowledge of physiological determinants of test results into functional classifications and integrating patterns with other clinical data to estimate prognosis. In 2005, the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and European Respiratory Society (ERS) jointly adopted technical standards for the interpretation of PFTs. We aimed to update the 2005 recommendations and incorporate evidence from recent literature to establish new standards for PFT interpretation.

METHODS

This technical standards document was developed by an international joint Task Force, appointed by the ERS/ATS with multidisciplinary expertise in conducting and interpreting PFTs and developing international standards. A comprehensive literature review was conducted and published evidence was reviewed.

RESULTS

Recommendations for the choice of reference equations and limits of normal of the healthy population to identify individuals with unusually low or high results are discussed. Interpretation strategies for bronchodilator responsiveness testing, limits of natural changes over time and severity are also updated. Interpretation of measurements made by spirometry, lung volumes and gas transfer are described as they relate to underlying pathophysiology with updated classification protocols of common impairments.

CONCLUSIONS

Interpretation of PFTs must be complemented with clinical expertise and consideration of the inherent biological variability of the test and the uncertainty of the test result to ensure appropriate interpretation of an individual's lung function measurements.