Chest · 2025
Lung Function Decline and Airflow Limitation Risk in Preserved Ratio Impaired Spirometry Subtypes by Smoking Status.
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.
Dai Cuiqiong, Wu Fan, Tian Jia, Cui Jiangyu, Deng Zhishan, Tian Heshen, Huang Peiyu, Yang Huajing, Zheng Youlan, Wang Zihui, Xiao Shan, Wen Xiang, Lu Lifei, Zhao Ningning, Yang Changli, Yu Shuqing, Liu Shengming, Wang Dali, Wang Xiaoping, Lv Jiachun, Zhong Nanshan, Zhou Yumin, Ran Pixin
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Preserved ratio impaired spirometry (PRISm) is regarded as a COPD precursor, but whether this varies by smoking status remains unclear.
RESEARCH QUESTION: Are annual lung function decline and the risk of developing airflow limitation different among PRISm subtypes by smoking status?
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 2,850 participants from a 15-year population-based prospective cohort were included in this analysis. Participants were categorized into 3 groups: patients with normal spirometry who do not smoke (normal control), patients with PRISm who do not smoke (NS-PRISm), and patients with PRISm who have ever smoked (ES-PRISm). We compared annual lung function decline and the risk of developing airflow limitation among the 3 groups.
RESULTS: Participants in the normal control group exhibited the fastest decline in annual lung function, followed by the ES-PRISm group, with the NS-PRISm group showing the slowest decline. Participants in the ES-PRISm group had significantly faster annual lung function decline than the NS-PRISm group. Participants in the ES-PRISm group had a significantly increased risk of developing airflow limitation than the NS-PRISm group (95 of 256 [37.1%] vs 69 of 470 [14.7%]; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.90; 95% CI, 1.31-2.77; P = .001) and normal control group (95 of 256 [37.1%] vs 193 of 2,124 [9.1%]; adjusted HR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.96-3.69; P < .001). Participants in the NS-PRISm group also exhibited a higher risk of developing airflow limitation than those in the normal control group (69 of 470 [14.7%] vs 193 of 2,124 [9.1%]; adjusted HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.07-1.87; P = .016). When the ES-PRISm group was further divided into participants with PRISm who currently smoke and those who formerly smoked, both of these PRISm subtypes showed a faster annual lung function decline and a similarly higher risk of airflow limitation than the NS-PRISm group.
INTERPRETATION: These findings suggest that both NS-PRISm and ES-PRISm may be potential precursors to COPD and indicate that PRISm should not be restricted to evaluating individuals with a history of smoking alone.
RESEARCH QUESTION: Are annual lung function decline and the risk of developing airflow limitation different among PRISm subtypes by smoking status?
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 2,850 participants from a 15-year population-based prospective cohort were included in this analysis. Participants were categorized into 3 groups: patients with normal spirometry who do not smoke (normal control), patients with PRISm who do not smoke (NS-PRISm), and patients with PRISm who have ever smoked (ES-PRISm). We compared annual lung function decline and the risk of developing airflow limitation among the 3 groups.
RESULTS: Participants in the normal control group exhibited the fastest decline in annual lung function, followed by the ES-PRISm group, with the NS-PRISm group showing the slowest decline. Participants in the ES-PRISm group had significantly faster annual lung function decline than the NS-PRISm group. Participants in the ES-PRISm group had a significantly increased risk of developing airflow limitation than the NS-PRISm group (95 of 256 [37.1%] vs 69 of 470 [14.7%]; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.90; 95% CI, 1.31-2.77; P = .001) and normal control group (95 of 256 [37.1%] vs 193 of 2,124 [9.1%]; adjusted HR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.96-3.69; P < .001). Participants in the NS-PRISm group also exhibited a higher risk of developing airflow limitation than those in the normal control group (69 of 470 [14.7%] vs 193 of 2,124 [9.1%]; adjusted HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.07-1.87; P = .016). When the ES-PRISm group was further divided into participants with PRISm who currently smoke and those who formerly smoked, both of these PRISm subtypes showed a faster annual lung function decline and a similarly higher risk of airflow limitation than the NS-PRISm group.
INTERPRETATION: These findings suggest that both NS-PRISm and ES-PRISm may be potential precursors to COPD and indicate that PRISm should not be restricted to evaluating individuals with a history of smoking alone.