Journal of asthma and allergy · 2021
The Usefulness of FEF25-75 in Predicting Airway Hyperresponsiveness to Mannitol.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kim Youlim, Lee Hyun, Chung Sung Jun, Yeo Yoomi, Park Tai Sun, Park Dong Won, Min Kyung Hoon, Kim Sang-Heon, Kim Tae-Hyung, Sohn Jang Won, Moon Ji-Yong, Yoon Ho Joo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Despite the usefulness of airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) testing in diagnosing and monitoring asthma, it is challenging to perform in a real-world setting. Forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of vital capacity (FEF25-75), a pulmonary measurement that can be obtained easily during routine spirometry, represents the status of medium-sized and small airways. However, the performance of FEF25-75 in predicting AHR has not been well elucidated. Therefore, we investigated whether FEF25-75 can predict AHR to mannitol.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 428 patients who visited a single clinic due to cough, wheezing, or dyspnea. All patients underwent spirometry with a mannitol provocation test. We compared the area under the curve (AUC) of the percentage of the predicted values of FEF25-75 (FEF25-75 %pred) with that of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1%pred), FEV1/forced vital capacity (FVC), and FEF25-75/ FVC for predicting AHR.
RESULTS: The rate of AHR to mannitol was 20.3%. In the overall study population, the AUC of FEF25-75 %pred for predicting AHR (0.772; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.729-0.811) was significantly higher than that of FEV1%pred (0.666; 95% CI, 0.619-0.710; p < 0.001), FEV1/FVC (0.741; 95% CI, 0.697-0.782; p = 0.047), and FEF25-75/FVC (0.741, 95% CI = 0.696-0.782, p = 0.046). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of FEF25-75 %pred <81% for predicting AHR in the overall study population were 77.0% (95% CI = 66.8-85.4%), 63.9% (95% CI = 58.6-69.0), 35.3%, and 91.6%, respectively. When we restricted the study group to subjects with normal lung function, the results were similar.
CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that FEF25-75 %pred can be used as a surrogate for predicting AHR in patients with respiratory symptoms.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 428 patients who visited a single clinic due to cough, wheezing, or dyspnea. All patients underwent spirometry with a mannitol provocation test. We compared the area under the curve (AUC) of the percentage of the predicted values of FEF25-75 (FEF25-75 %pred) with that of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1%pred), FEV1/forced vital capacity (FVC), and FEF25-75/ FVC for predicting AHR.
RESULTS: The rate of AHR to mannitol was 20.3%. In the overall study population, the AUC of FEF25-75 %pred for predicting AHR (0.772; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.729-0.811) was significantly higher than that of FEV1%pred (0.666; 95% CI, 0.619-0.710; p < 0.001), FEV1/FVC (0.741; 95% CI, 0.697-0.782; p = 0.047), and FEF25-75/FVC (0.741, 95% CI = 0.696-0.782, p = 0.046). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of FEF25-75 %pred <81% for predicting AHR in the overall study population were 77.0% (95% CI = 66.8-85.4%), 63.9% (95% CI = 58.6-69.0), 35.3%, and 91.6%, respectively. When we restricted the study group to subjects with normal lung function, the results were similar.
CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that FEF25-75 %pred can be used as a surrogate for predicting AHR in patients with respiratory symptoms.