International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2022
Influences of Two FEV1 Reference Equations (GLI-2012 and GIRH-2017) on Airflow Limitation Classification Among COPD Patients.
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.
Wei Dafei, Wang Qi, Liu Shasha, Tan Xiaowu, Chen Lin, Tu Rongfang, Liu Qing, Jia Yuanhang, Liu Sha
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To explore the clinical effects of different forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV1) reference equations on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) airflow limitation (AFL) classification.
METHODS: We conducted a COPD screening program for residents over 40 years old from 2019 to 2021. All residents received the COPD screening questionnaire (COPD-SQ) and spirometry. Postbronchodilator FEV1/FVC (forced vital capacity) <0.7 was used as the diagnostic criterion of COPD and two reference equations of FEV1 predicted values were used for AFL severity classification: the European Respiratory Society Global Lung Function Initiative reference equation in 2012 (GLI-2012) and the Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health reference equation in 2017 (GIRH-2017). Clinical characteristics of patients in GOLD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease) 1-4 grades classified by the two reference equations were compared.
RESULTS: Among 3524 participants, 659 subjects obtained a COPD-SQ score of 16 or more and 743 participants were found to have AFL. The COPD-SQ showed high sensitivity (59%) and specificity (91%) in primary COPD screening. Great differences in COPD severity classification were found when applying the two equations (p < 0.001). Compared with GIRH-2017, patients with AFL classified by GLI-2012 equations were significantly severer. The relationship between symptom scores, acute exacerbation (AE) history distributions and COPD severities classified by the two equations showed a consistent trend of positive but weak correlation. Group A, B, C and D existed in all GOLD 1 to 3 COPD patients, but in GOLD 4, only Groups B and D existed. However, no clear significant differences were found in symptoms, AE risk assessments, risk factors exposure and even the combined ABCD grouping under the two equations.
CONCLUSION: There were significant differences in COPD AFL severity classification with GLI-2012 and GIRH-2017 FEV1 reference equations. But these severity estimation differences did not affect symptoms, AE risk assessments and ABCD grouping of patients at all GOLD grades.
METHODS: We conducted a COPD screening program for residents over 40 years old from 2019 to 2021. All residents received the COPD screening questionnaire (COPD-SQ) and spirometry. Postbronchodilator FEV1/FVC (forced vital capacity) <0.7 was used as the diagnostic criterion of COPD and two reference equations of FEV1 predicted values were used for AFL severity classification: the European Respiratory Society Global Lung Function Initiative reference equation in 2012 (GLI-2012) and the Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health reference equation in 2017 (GIRH-2017). Clinical characteristics of patients in GOLD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease) 1-4 grades classified by the two reference equations were compared.
RESULTS: Among 3524 participants, 659 subjects obtained a COPD-SQ score of 16 or more and 743 participants were found to have AFL. The COPD-SQ showed high sensitivity (59%) and specificity (91%) in primary COPD screening. Great differences in COPD severity classification were found when applying the two equations (p < 0.001). Compared with GIRH-2017, patients with AFL classified by GLI-2012 equations were significantly severer. The relationship between symptom scores, acute exacerbation (AE) history distributions and COPD severities classified by the two equations showed a consistent trend of positive but weak correlation. Group A, B, C and D existed in all GOLD 1 to 3 COPD patients, but in GOLD 4, only Groups B and D existed. However, no clear significant differences were found in symptoms, AE risk assessments, risk factors exposure and even the combined ABCD grouping under the two equations.
CONCLUSION: There were significant differences in COPD AFL severity classification with GLI-2012 and GIRH-2017 FEV1 reference equations. But these severity estimation differences did not affect symptoms, AE risk assessments and ABCD grouping of patients at all GOLD grades.