Is the bronchodilator test an useful tool to measure asthma control?

Relationship between the level of asthma control, lung function and bronchodilator response in asthmatic children on inhaled corticosteroids

This study evaluated tools for assessing asthma control in 149 children on inhaled corticosteroids, focusing on the Asthma Control Test (ACT) and the Global Initiative for Asthma criteria (GINAc). It also explored the role of lung function (LF) tests, including spirometry and bronchodilator response (BDR), in identifying uncontrolled asthma. The GINAc identified 65.8% of children as having uncontrolled asthma, compared to 25.9% by the ACT (p<0.001). Spirometry and BDR results did not differ significantly between controlled and uncontrolled asthma groups. However, abnormal LF was more frequent in children with uncontrolled asthma identified by GINAc (18.4%) than in those controlled (5.9%; p = 0.038). In ACT-identified uncontrolled cases, 18.2% had abnormal LF compared to 12.4% with controlled asthma (p=0.360). Similarly, BDR appeared in 17.3% of uncontrolled cases by GINAc and 11.8% in controlled cases, with 25% of ACT-identified uncontrolled cases showing BDR vs. 11.4% in controlled (p=0.037). Findings suggest GINAc detects more cases of uncontrolled asthma than ACT and highlights the potential value of including spirometry and BDR to complement asthma control questionnaires, mainly aiding in identifying controlled asthma cases with underlying abnormal LF or BDR.

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.

GEMA 5.3. Spanish Guideline on the Management of Asthma

The Spanish Guideline on the Management of Asthma, better known by its acronym in Spanish GEMA, has been available for more than 20 years. Twenty-one scientific societies or related groups both from Spain and internationally have participated in the preparation and development of the updated edition of GEMA, which in fact has been currently positioned as the reference guide on asthma in the Spanish language worldwide. Its objective is to prevent and improve the clinical situation of people with asthma by increasing the knowledge of healthcare professionals involved in their care. Its purpose is to convert scientific evidence into simple and easy-to-follow practical recommendations. Therefore, it is not a monograph that brings together all the scientific knowledge about the disease, but rather a brief document with the essentials, designed to be applied quickly in routine clinical practice. The guidelines are necessarily multidisciplinary, developed to be useful and an indispensable tool for physicians of different specialties, as well as nurses and pharmacists. Probably the most outstanding aspects of the guide are the recommendations to: establish the diagnosis of asthma using a sequential algorithm based on objective diagnostic tests; the follow-up of patients, preferably based on the strategy of achieving and maintaining control of the disease; treatment according to the level of severity of asthma, using six steps from least to greatest need of pharmaceutical drugs, and the treatment algorithm for the indication of biologics in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma based on phenotypes. And now, in addition to that, there is a novelty for easy use and follow-up through a computer application based on the chatbot-type conversational artificial intelligence (ia-GEMA).

Differences in clinical significance of bronchodilator responses measured by forced expiratory volume in 1 second and forced vital capacity

BACKGROUND

The clinical implication of bronchodilator response (BDR) is not fully understood. However, BDR is frequently present in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We identified the differences in clinical features regarding BDR. In addition, we divided BDR into BDR for forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and BDR for forced vital capacity (FVC; i.e., BDR-FEV1 and BDR-FVC, respectively) and analyzed clinical significance.

METHODS

We used data from the Korea COPD Subgroup Study, a multicenter cohort study of COPD patients recruited from 54 centers in South Korea since April 2012. We analyzed differences in baseline characteristics, 1-year exacerbation rate, and 3-year FEV1 decline between BDR negative and positive patients. Moreover, we analyzed the differences in clinical features between BDR-FEV1 positive and negative patients and between BDR-FVC positive and negative patients.

RESULTS

Of the 2,181 patients enrolled in this study, 366 (16.8%) were BDR positive. BDR positive patients were more likely to be ever-smokers and to have a lower body mass index and higher symptom scores compared to BDR negative patients. Baseline FEV1 and FEV1/FVC were lower in the BDR positive compared to the BDR negative group (1.7 ± 0.6 and 1.6 ± 0.5, respectively, p < 0.01; 50.9 ± 12.1 and 46.5 ± 14.8, respectively, p < 0.01). BDR positive patients were more likely to have been diagnosed with asthma-COPD overlap and to receive inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) than BDR negative patients. BDR-FVC patients were more likely to be smokers, suffer from worse symptoms and have lower lung function than those with no BDR-FVC. BDR had no significant effect on 1-year moderate to severe or severe exacerbation rates or 3-year annual FEV1 decline. Interactive effects of ICS and BDR on the exacerbation rate were not significant in any group.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, BDR positive patients were more likely to be ever-smokers and to have worse symptoms and lung function than BDR negative patients. BDR-FVC was associated with worse symptom control and lung function compared to BDR-FEV1. However, there were no significant differences in exacerbation rate or decline in lung function in any BDR group. In addition, the effects of ICS on exacerbations were not significant in any group.

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.

Documento de consenso de asma grave en adultos. Actualización 2022

Severe asthma is a heterogeneous syndrome with several clinical variants and often represents a complex disease requiring a specialized and multidisciplinary approach, as well as the use of multiple drugs. The prevalence of severe asthma varies from one country to another, and it is estimated that 50% of these patients present a poor control of their disease. For the best management of the patient, it is necessary a correct diagnosis, an adequate follow-up and undoubtedly to offer the best available treatment, including biologic treatments with monoclonal antibodies. With this objective, this consensus process was born, which began in its first version in 2018, whose goal is to offer the patient the best possible management of their disease in order to minimize their symptomatology. For this 2020 consensus update, a literature review was conducted by the authors. Subsequently, through a two-round interactive Delphi process, a broad panel of asthma experts from SEPAR and the regional pulmonology societies proposed the recommendations and conclusions contained in this document.

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.

Value of bronchial reversibility to salbutamol, exhaled nitric oxide and responsiveness to methacholine to corroborate the diagnosis of asthma in children

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Functional and inflammatory measures have been recommended to corroborate asthma diagnosis in schoolchildren, but the evidence in this regard is conflicting. We aimed to determine, in real-life clinical situation, the value of spirometry, spirometric bronchial reversibility to salbutamol (BDR), bronchial responsiveness to methacholine (MCT) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO), to corroborate the diagnosis of asthma in children on regular inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) referred from primary care.

METHODS

One hundred and seventy-seven schoolchildren with mild-moderate persistent asthma, on treatment with regular ICS, participated in the study. Abnormal tests were defined as FENO ≥ 27 ppb, BDR (FEV1 ≥ 12%) and methacholine PC20 ≤ 4 mg/mL.

RESULTS

The proportions of positive BDR, FENO and MCT, were 16.4%, 33.3%, and 87.0%, respectively. MCT was associated with FENO (p < 0.03) and BDR (p = 0.001); FENO was associated with BDR (p = 0.045), family history of asthma (p = 0.003) and use of asthma medication in the first two years of life (p = 0.004). BDR was significantly related with passive tobacco exposure (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Spirometry, BDR and BDR had a poor performance for corroborating diagnosis in our asthmatic children on ICS treatment; on the contrary, MCT was positive in most of them, which agrees with previous reports. Although asthma tests are useful to corroborate asthma when positive, clinical diagnosis remains the best current approach for asthma diagnosis, at least while better objective and feasible measurements at the daily practice are available. At present, these tests may have a better role for assessing the management and progression of the condition.

Bronchodilator Response Assessed by the Forced Oscillation Technique Identifies Poor Asthma Control With Greater Sensitivity Than Spirometry

BACKGROUND

Persistent bronchodilator response (BDR) following diagnosis of asthma is an underrecognized treatable trait, associated with worse lung function and asthma control. The forced oscillation technique (FOT) measures respiratory system impedance, and BDR cutoffs have been proposed for healthy adults; however, the relevance in asthma is unknown. We compared BDR cutoffs, using FOT and spirometry, in asthma and the relationship with asthma control.

METHODS

Data from patients with asthma who withheld bronchodilator medication for at least 8 h before a tertiary airway clinic visit were reviewed. All subjects performed FOT and spirometry before and after salbutamol administration, and completed the Asthma Control Test. FOT parameters examined included respiratory system resistance (R5) and reactance (X5) at 5 Hz, and area under the reactance curve (AX). BDR was defined by standard recommendations for spirometry and based on the 95th percentile of BDR in healthy adults for FOT.

RESULTS

Fifty-two subjects (18 men; mean age, 53 ± 18 years) were included. BDR was identified more frequently by FOT than spirometry (54% vs 27% of subjects). BDR assessed by X5 and AX, but not R5, was associated with spirometric BDR (χ², P < .01) and correlated with asthma control (X5: r_s = -0.36, P < .01; AX: r_s = 0.34, P = .01). BDR measured by reactance parameters identified more subjects with poor asthma control than did spirometry (AX, 69% vs spirometry, 41%).

CONCLUSIONS

BDR assessed by FOT can identify poor asthma control. Reactance parameters were more sensitive in identifying poor asthma control than spirometry, supporting the use of FOT to complement spirometry in the clinical management of asthma.

Forced oscillation technique as a predictor for loss of control in asthmatic children

Background

A reliable objective tool using as a predictor of asthma control status could assist asthma management.

Objective

To find the parameters of forced oscillation technique (FOT) as predictors for the future loss of asthma symptom control.

Methods

Children with well-controlled asthma symptom, aged 6–12 years, were recruited for a 12-week prospective study. FOT and spirometer measures and their bronchodilator response were evaluated at baseline. The level of asthma symptom control was evaluated according to Global Initiative for Asthma.

Results

Among 68 recruited children, 41 children (60.3%) maintain their asthma control between 2 visits (group C-C), and 27 children (39.7%) lost their asthma control on the follow-up visit (group C-LC). Baseline FOT parameters, including the values of respiratory resistance at 5 Hz (R5), respiratory resistance at 20 Hz (R20), respiratory reactance at 5 Hz, area of reactance, %predicted of R5 and percentage of bronchodilator response (%∆) of R5 and R20 were significantly different between C-C and C-LC groups. In contrast, only %∆ of forced vital capacity, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), and FEF_25%–75% (forced expiratory flow 25%–75%) were significantly different between groups. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that %predicted of R5, %∆R5, %predicted of FEV₁ and %∆FEV₁ were the predictive factors for predicting the future loss of asthma control. The following cutoff values demonstrated the best sensitivity and specificity for predicting loss of asthma control: %predicted of R5=91.28, %∆R5=21.2, %predicted of FEV₁=89.5, and %∆FEV₁=7.8. The combination of these parameters predicted the risk of loss of asthma control with area under the curve of 0.924, accuracy of 83.8%.

Conclusion

Resistance FOT measures have an additive role to spirometric parameter in predicting future loss of asthma control.