Reference equations for evaluation of spirometry function tests in South Asia, and among South Asians living in other countries

Implications of the 2022 lung function update and GLI global reference equations among patients with interstitial lung disease

BACKGROUND

Lung function testing remains a cornerstone in the assessment and management of interstitial lung disease (ILD) patients. The clinical implications of the Global Lung function Initiative (GLI) reference equations and the updated interpretation strategies remain uncertain.

METHODS

Adult patients with ILD with baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) were included from the Australasian ILD registry and the National Healthcare Group ILD registry, Singapore.The European Coal and Steel Community and Miller reference equations were compared with the GLI reference equations to assess (a) differences in lung function percent predicted values; (b) ILD risk prediction models and (c) eligibility for ILD clinical trial enrolment.

RESULTS

Among 2219 patients with ILD, 1712 (77.2%) were white individuals. Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), connective tissue disease-associated ILD and unclassifiable ILD predominated.Median FVC was 2.60 (2.01-3.36) L, forced expiratory volume in 1 s was 2.09 (1.67-2.66) L and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) was 13.60 (10.16-17.60) mL/min/mm Hg. When applying the GLI reference equations, the mean FVC percentage predicted was 8.8% lower (87.7% vs 78.9%, p<0.01) while the mean DLCO percentage predicted was 4.9% higher (58.5% vs 63.4%, p<0.01). There was a decrease in 19 IPF and 119 non-IPF patients who qualified for the nintedanib clinical trials when the GLI reference equations were applied. Risk prediction models performed similarly in predicting mortality using both reference equations.

CONCLUSION

Applying the GLI reference equations in patients with ILD leads to higher DLCO percentage predicted values and smaller lung volume percentage predicted values. While applying the GLI reference equations did not impact on prognostication, fewer patients met the clinical trial criteria for antifibrotic agents.

Outcome-based Definition of the Lower Limit of Normal in Spirometry: A Study of 26,000 Young Adult Men

Rationale: The definition of the lower limit of normal (LLN) of spirometric variables is not well established. Objectives: To investigate the relationship between spirometric abnormalities defined with different thresholds of the LLN and clinical outcomes and to explore the possibility of using different LLN thresholds according to the pretest probability of disease. Methods: We studied the associations between prebronchodilator spirometric abnormalities (forced expiratory volume in the first second [FEV1] < LLN, forced vital capacity [FVC] < LLN, airflow obstruction, spirometric restriction) defined with different thresholds of the LLN (10th, 5th, 2.5th, 1st percentile) and multiple outcomes (prevalence of spirometric abnormalities, respiratory symptoms, all-cause and respiratory mortality) in 26,091 30- to 46-year-old men who participated in a general population survey in Norway in 1988-1990 and were followed for 26 years. Analyses were performed with both local and Global Lung Function Initiative (GLI)-2012 reference equations, stratified by pretest risk (presence or absence of respiratory symptoms), and adjusted for age, body mass index, smoking, and education. Results: In the total population, the prevalence of airflow obstruction was 11.6% with GLI-LLN10, 11.0% with Local-LLN5, 6.1% with GLI-LLN5, 7.6% with Local-LLN2.5, and 3.5% with GLI-LLN2.5. The prevalence of spirometric restriction was 5.9% with GLI-LLN10, 5.2% with Local-LLN5, and 2.8% with GLI-LLN5. Increasingly lower thresholds of the LLN were associated with increasingly higher odds of respiratory symptoms and hazard of mortality for all spirometric abnormalities with both reference equations. Spirometric abnormalities defined with Local-LLN2.5 in asymptomatic subjects were associated with lower hazard of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-1.95 for FEV1 < LLN) than those defined with Local-LLN5 in the general population (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.50-1.87 for FEV1 < LLN) and symptomatic subjects (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.46-1.91 for FEV1 < LLN). Overall, the prevalence of spirometric abnormalities and associations with outcomes obtained with Local-LLN5 were comparable to those obtained with GLI-LLN10 and those obtained with Local-LLN2.5 to GLI-LLN5. Conclusions: There is a relationship between statistically based thresholds of the LLN of spirometric variables and clinical outcomes. Different thresholds of the LLN may be used in different risk subgroups of subjects, but the choice of the threshold needs to be evaluated together with the choice of reference equations.

Spirometric Interpretation and Clinical Relevance According to Different Reference Equations

BACKGROUND

Global Lung Function Initiative (GLI)-2012 reference equation is currently suggested for interpretation of spirometry results and a new local reference equation has been developed in South Korea. However, lung function profiles according to the different reference equations and their clinical relevance have not been identified in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients.

METHODS

Our cross-sectional study evaluated Choi's, Korean National Health and National Examination Survey (KNHANES)-VI, and GLI-2012 reference equations. We estimated the percentages of predictive forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and airflow limitation severity according to reference equations and analyzed their associations with patient reported outcomes (PROs): COPD assessment test (CAT) score, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire for COPD patients (SGRQ-C) score, and six minute walk distance (6MWD).

RESULTS

In the eligible 2,180 COPD patients, lower predicted values of FEV1 and forced vital capacity (FVC) were found in GLI-2012 compared to Choi's and KNHANES-VI equations. GLI-2012 equation resulted in a lower proportion of patients being classified as FEV1 < 80% or FVC < 80% compared to the other equations. However, the Z-scores of FEV1 and FVC were similar between the KNHANES-VI and GLI-2012 equations. Three reference equations exhibited significant associations between FEV1 (%) and patient-reported outcomes (CAT score, SGRQ-C score, and 6MWD).

CONCLUSION

GLI-2012 reference equation may not accurately reflect FEV1 (%) in the Korean population, but the Z-score using GLI-2012 equation can be a viable option for assessing FEV1 and airflow limitation in COPD patients. Similar to the other two equations, the GLI-2012 equation demonstrated significant associations with PROs.