Changes in Peak Inspiratory Flow After Acute Bronchodilation: An Observational Study of Patients with Stable Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Introduction: Identifying factors influencing peak inspiratory flow (PIF) is essential for aerosol drug delivery in stable patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. While a minimum PIF for dry powder inhalers (DPIs) is established, acute bronchodilator (BD) effects on PIF remain unknown. Materials and Methods: An inspiratory flow meter (In-Check™ DIAL) was used to measure PIF in stable patients during a 24-week observational cross-sectional study. Additionally, bronchodilator responsiveness (BDR) was determined using the In-Check DIAL device and spirometry. Patients received four puffs of albuterol, and pre- and post-BD PIF, forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), and forced vital capacity were measured. Sixty-three patients completed acute BDR data collection from July 31, 2019, to November 9, 2021. Primary endpoints were pre- and post-BD spirometry and PIF. Statistical analyses included PIF correlations with FEV1. BD change was assessed according to inhaler resistance and sex (subgroup analysis). Results: Median patient age was 64.8 years, 85.7% were non-Hispanic White, and 57.1% were female. The median increase in absolute PIF (In-Check DIAL) was 5.0 L/min, and the % PIF change was 8.9%. With albuterol, 57.1% experienced a PIF BD change >5.0%, whereas 49.2% experienced a change >10.0%. Similarly, 55.6% experienced an FEV1 BD change >5.0% and 28.6% had a >10.0% FEV1 BD change with albuterol. PIF was weakly correlated with FEV1 BD change (absolute; % PIF; r = 0.28 [p = 0.02]; r = 0.21 [p = 0.11]). Pre- and post-BD median PIF were 75.5 and 83.5 L/min for low-to-medium-resistance DPI and 45.0 and 52.0 L/min for high-resistance, respectively. The median increases in pre- and post-BD PIF were 9.0 L/min in males and 4.5 L/min in females. In contrast to when using the In-Check DIAL device, we observed no consistent bronchodilatory effects on PIF measured by spirometry. Conclusions: Using the In-Check DIAL device, ∼50% of patients experienced >10% PIF increase after acute BD, potentially enhancing medication lung deposition. Further research is required to understand PIF's impact on medication delivery. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04168775.

[Effects of type 2 inflammation on bronchodilator responsiveness of large and small airways in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease].

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of type 2 inflammation markers blood eosinophils (EOS) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) on bronchodilator responsiveness (BDR) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: This study was conducted among 389 patients with an established diagnosis of COPD in our hospital from October, 2019 to October, 2023, who all underwent bronchial dilation test (BDT) of the large and small airways. Based on smoking history, blood EOS, and FeNO, these patients were divided group A (blood EOS < 300/µL + FeNO < 35 ppb + smoking history < 20 pack-years), group B (blood EOS < 300/µL+FeNO < 35 ppb+smoking history ≥20 pack-years), group C (blood EOS ≥300/µL or FeNO≥35 ppb+smoking history ≥20 pack-years), and group D (blood EOS ≥300/µL or FeNO ≥35 ppb+smoking history < 20 pack-years) for analyzing the relationship between clinical indexes and BDR. RESULTS: BDR evaluation based on forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), and maximum mid-expiratory flow (MMEF) yielded consistent results, all showing a younger mean age, higher FeNO levels, and higher blood EOS counts and percentages in patients positive for BDT (P < 0.05). The improvement value and improvement rate of FEV1 were significantly lower in group A than in group D. The improvement value and improvement rate of FEV1 as well as the improvement rate of MMEF were significantly lower in group B than in group D. In the overall patients, age and FeNO were significantly correlated with the improvement value and improvement rate of FEV1 and the improvement rate of MMEF (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Type 2 inflammation markers have different effects on BDR in the large and small airways of COPD patients, and their clinical significance needs further investigation.

A Longitudinal Study of a Selected Pediatric Asthmatic Population with Normal and Abnormal Spirometry at Baseline: An Emphasis on Treatment Outcomes.

Purpose: It is still unclear whether considering abnormal spirometry as a marker for disease control can help physicians adjust asthma controllers in children because of the scarcity of pediatric studies. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of abnormal spirometry in a selected pediatric asthmatic population and its effect on longitudinal outcomes. Patients and Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at the Songklanagarind Hospital, Thailand. Children with asthma aged <18 years were recruited for review if they attended the clinic and underwent acceptable spirometry with bronchodilator responsiveness (BDR) tests after receiving asthma treatment for at least 3 months between January 2011 and June 2022. Differences in baseline characteristics, atopic factors, asthma treatment, and outcomes were analyzed between the normal and abnormal spirometry groups over a 12-month post-spirometry period. Results: The mean age of the 203 enrolled patients was 10.9 ± 2.6 years. Abnormal spirometry, defined as airflow limitation or the presence of BDR, was observed in 58.1% of patients. No significant differences were observed in baseline characteristics, atopic factors, asthma treatment, or outcomes between the normal and abnormal spirometry groups. Further analysis of 107 patients with abnormal spirometry with symptom control revealed that physicians adjusted the asthma controller based on spirometry and symptoms in 84 and 23 patients, respectively. There was no significant difference in the loss of disease control over the 12-month post-spirometry period between the two groups. Conclusion: Abnormal spirometry was found in 58.1% of treated school-aged patients with asthma. Abnormal spirometry results were not associated with poor asthma outcomes during the 12-month follow-up. Both symptom-based and spirometry-based adjustments of asthma controllers resulted in comparable symptom control over a 12-month follow-up period in the selected population.

Nebulization versus metered-dose inhaler and spacer in bronchodilator responsiveness testing: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: The recommended delivery mode for bronchodilators in bronchodilator responsiveness (BDR) testing remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of salbutamol administration using a nebulizer versus a metered-dose inhaler (MDI) with spacer in BDR testing. DESIGN: A retrospective study. METHODS: This study examined the data of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who completed BDR testing between 1 December 2021 and 30 June 2022, at Xiangya Hospital, Central South University. After administering 400 µg of salbutamol through an MDI with spacer or 2.5 mg using a nebulizer, the changes in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC) were analyzed in patients with moderate-to-very severe spirometric abnormalities [pre-bronchodilator FEV1 percentage predicted values (FEV1%pred) ⩽59%]. Significant responsiveness was assessed as >12% and >200 mL improvement in FEV1 and/or FVC or >10% increase in FEV1%pred or FVC percentage predicted values (FVC%pred) from pre- to post-bronchodilator administration. RESULTS: Of the enrolled 894 patients, 83.2% were male (median age, 63 years). After propensity score matching, 240 pairs of patients were selected. The increment in FEV1 and increased FEV1 relative to the predicted value (ΔFEV1%pred) were significantly higher in patients <65 years and those with severe spirometric abnormalities in the nebulization group than patients in the MDI group (all p < 0.05). Compared with MDI with spacer, patients who used nebulization had a 30 mL greater increase in ΔFEV1 (95% CI: 0.01-0.05, p = 0.004) and a 1.09% greater increase in ΔFEV1%pred (95% CI: 0.303-1.896, p = 0.007) from baseline. According to the > 12% and >200 mL increase criterion, the significant BDR rate with nebulization was 1.67 times higher than that with an MDI with spacer (OR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.13-2.47, p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: Salbutamol delivered using a nebulizer may be preferable to an MDI with spacer in certain circumstances. Nebulization has the potential to increase responsiveness to salbutamol in BDR testing.

Nebulization versus metered-dose inhaler and spacer in bronchodilator responsiveness testingBronchodilator responsiveness testing is commonly undertaken as an important part of spirometry testing to determine the degree of volume and airflow improvement after bronchodilator administration. BDR testing results may affect patients' diagnosis and treatment. This study compared the effects of two delivery models (a metered dose inhaler (MDI) with spacer and nebulization) on responsiveness to bronchodilators and the results of bronchodilator responsiveness testing among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We found that the increment in forced expiratory volume in one second were significantly higher in patients aged <65 years and in those with severe spirometric abnormalities in the nebulization group than in those in the MDI group. The study provides evidence that salbutamol delivered by a nebulizer is preferable to an MDI with spacer in patients <65 years and in those with severe spirometric abnormalities and could increase positive responsiveness to bronchodilators. The study will assist in clinical decision-making by selecting the appropriate dosing regimen for different patients.

Bronchodilator responsiveness testing with inhaled budesonide/formoterol in asthma.

BACKGROUND: The choice of bronchodilators for responsiveness testing (BRT) is a clinical decision according to ATS/ERS. Since January 2019 we use budesonide/formoterol for BRT in asthma at our center in Argentina. The aim was to compare budesonide/formoterol with salbutamol for BRT in stable asthmatic patients that were followed up in a short-acting beta2 agonist (SABA)-free asthma center. METHODS: From the Hospital database, we found for the same patient at least one BRT using salbutamol 200 µg and another with budesonide/formoterol 320/9 µg. RESULTS: We found similar BRT between salbutamol and budesonide/formoterol in 101 asthmatic individuals (26 males) aged 38.14 ± 16.1 yrs (mean ± Standard deviation). The absolute response was 0.18 ± 0.21 L in FEV1 after salbutamol and 0.20 ± 0.22 L in FEV1 after budesonide/formoterol. Afterwards, we showed 202 patients tested with budesonide/formoterol; the mean absolute response was 0.21 ± 0.22 L in FEV1. There were no unexpected safety findings. CONCLUSIONS: In asthmatic patients, we demonstrated similar efficacy between Budesonide/formoterol and salbutamol for BRT.

Bronchodilator Responsiveness in Tobacco-Exposed People With or Without COPD.

BACKGROUND: Bronchodilator responsiveness (BDR) in obstructive lung disease varies over time and may be associated with distinct clinical features. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is consistent BDR over time (always present) differentially associated with obstructive lung disease features relative to inconsistent (sometimes present) or never (never present) BDR in tobacco-exposed people with or without COPD? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 2,269 tobacco-exposed participants in the Subpopulations and Intermediate Outcome Measures in COPD Study with or without COPD. We used various BDR definitions: change of ≥ 200 mL and ≥ 12% in FEV1 (FEV1-BDR), change in FVC (FVC-BDR), and change in in FEV1, FVC or both (ATS-BDR). Using generalized linear models adjusted for demographics, smoking history, FEV1 % predicted after bronchodilator administration, and number of visits that the participant completed, we assessed the association of BDR group: (1) consistent BDR, (2) inconsistent BDR, and (3) never BDR with asthma, CT scan features, blood eosinophil levels, and FEV1 decline in participants without COPD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease [GOLD] stage 0) and the entire cohort (participants with or without COPD). RESULTS: Both consistent and inconsistent ATS-BDR were associated with asthma history and greater small airways disease (%parametric response mapping functional small airways disease) relative to never ATS-BDR in participants with GOLD stage 0 disease and the entire cohort. We observed similar findings using FEV1-BDR and FVC-BDR definitions. Eosinophils did not vary consistently among BDR groups. Consistent BDR was associated with FEV1 decline over time relative to never BDR in the entire cohort. In participants with GOLD stage 0 disease, both the inconsistent ATS-BDR group (OR, 3.20; 95% CI, 2.21-4.66; P < .001) and consistent ATS-BDR group (OR, 9.48; 95% CI, 3.77-29.12; P < .001) were associated with progression to COPD relative to the never ATS-BDR group. INTERPRETATION: Demonstration of BDR, even once, describes an obstructive lung disease phenotype with a history of asthma and greater small airways disease. Consistent demonstration of BDR indicated a high risk of lung function decline over time in the entire cohort and was associated with higher risk of progression to COPD in patients with GOLD stage 0 disease.

Airwave oscillometry and spirometry in children with asthma or wheeze.

OBJECTIVE: Lung function testing is used in diagnosing asthma and assessing asthma control. Spirometry is most commonly used, but younger children can find performing this test challenging. Non-volitional tests such as airwave oscillometry (AOS) may be helpful in that population. We compared the success of spirometry and AOS in assessing bronchodilator responsiveness in children. METHODS: AOS was conducted alongside routine lung function testing. Resistance at 5 Hz (R5), the difference between the resistance at 5 and 20 Hz (R5-20) and the area under the reactance curve (AX) were assessed. Patients between 5 and 16 years old attending clinic with wheeze or asthma were assessed. Patients performed AOS, followed by spirometry and were then given 400 µg salbutamol; the tests were repeated 15 minutes later. RESULTS: Lung function testing was performed in 47 children of whom 46 (98%) and 32 (68%) performed acceptable baseline oscillometry and spirometry, respectively (p < 0.001). Children unable to perform acceptable spirometry were younger (7.35, range: 5.4-10.3 years) than those who could (10.4, range: 5.5-16.9 years), p < 0.001. The baseline z-scores of AOS R5 correlated with FEV1 (r = 0.499, p = 0.004), FEF75 (r = 0.617, p < 0.001), and FEV1/FVC (r = 0.618, p < 0.001). There was a positive bronchodilator response assessed by spirometry (change in FEV1 ≥ 12%) in eight children which corresponded to a change in R5 of 36% (range: 30%-50%) and a change in X5 of 39% (range: 15%-54%). CONCLUSIONS: Oscillometry is a useful adjunct to spirometry in assessing young asthmatic children's lung function. The degree of airway obstruction, however, might affect the comparability of the results of the two techniques.

Bronchodilator Reversibility in the GAN Severe Asthma Cohort.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Positive bronchodilator reversibility (BDR) is a diagnostic criterion for asthma. However, patients with asthma may exhibit a negative BDR response. Aim: To describe the frequency of positive and Negative BDR response in patients with severe asthma and study associations with phenotypic characteristics. METHODS: A positive BDR response was defined as an increase in FEV1 >200 mL and >12% upon testing with a short-acting ß-agonist. RESULTS: BDR data were available for 793 of the 2013 patients included in the German Asthma Net (GAN) severe asthma registry. Of these, 250 (31.5%) had a positive BDR response and 543 (68.5%) a egative BDR response. Comorbidities significantly associated with a negative response were gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) (28.0% vs 40.0%, P<.01) and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (0.4% vs 3.0%; P<.05), while smoking history (active: 2.8% vs 2.2%; ex: 40.0% vs 41.7%) and comorbid chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (5.2% vs 7.2%) were similar in both groups. Patients with a positive BDR response had worse asthma control (median Asthma Control Questionnaire 5 score, 3.4 vs 3.0, P<.05), more frequently reported dyspnea at rest (26.8% vs 16.4%, P<.001) and chest tightness (36.4% vs 26.2%, P<.001), and had more severe airway obstruction at baseline (FEV1% predicted, 56 vs 64, P<.001) and higher fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) levels (41 vs 33 ppb, P<0.05). There were no differences in diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide, single breath (% pred, 70% vs 71%). Multivariate linear regression analysis identified an association between positive BDR response and lower baseline FEV1% (P<.001) and chest tightness (P<.05) and a negative association between BDR and GERD (P<.05). CONCLUSION: In this real-life setting, most patients with severe asthma had a negative BDR response. Interestingly, this was not associated with smoking history or COPD, but with lower FeNO and presence of GERD.

Bronchodilator Reversibility in the GAN Severe Asthma Cohort

Background: Positive bronchodilator reversibility (BDR) is a diagnostic criterion for asthma. However, patients with asthma may exhibit a negative BDR response. Aim: To describe the frequency of positive and negative BDR response in patients with severe asthma and study associations with phenotypic characteristics. Methods: A positive BDR response was defined as an increase in FEV1 >200 mL and >12% upon testing with a short-acting ß-agonist. Results: BDR data were available for 793 of the 2013 patients included in the German Asthma Net (GAN) severe asthma registry. Of these, 250 (31.5%) had a positive BDR response and 543 (68.5%) a negative BDR response. Comorbidities significantly associated with a negative response were gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) (28.0% vs 40.0%, P<.01) and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (0.4% vs 3.0%; P<.05), while smoking history (active: 2.8% vs 2.2%; ex: 40.0% vs 41.7%) and comorbid chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (5.2% vs 7.2%) were similar in both groups. Patients with a positive BDR response had worse asthma control (median Asthma Control Questionnaire 5 score, 3.4 vs 3.0, P<.05), more frequently reported dyspnea at rest (26.8% vs 16.4%, P<.001) and chest tightness (36.4% vs 26.2%, P<.001), and had more severe airway obstruction at baseline (FEV1% predicted, 56 vs 64, P<.001) and higher fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) levels (41 vs 33 ppb, P<0.05). There were no differences in diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide, single breath (% pred, 70% vs 71%). Multivariate linear regression analysis identified an association between positive BDR response and lower baseline FEV1% (P<.001) and chest tightness (P<.05) and a negative association between BDR and GERD (P<.05). Conclusion: In this real-life setting, most patients with severe asthma had a negative BDR response. Interestingly, this was not associated with smoking history or COPD, but with lower FeNO and presence of GERD. (AU)

Antecedentes: La reversibilidad broncodilatadora (RB) positiva es un criterio diagnóstico para el asma. Sin embargo, los pacientes con asma pueden presentar una prueba RB negativa. Objetivos: Describir la frecuencia de RB positivas y negativas en pacientes con asma grave y sus asociaciones con características fenotípicas. Métodos: La RB positiva se definió como un aumento del FEV1 > 200 ml y > 12% tras la inhalación de un agonista beta de acción corta (SABA). Resultados: De 2013 pacientes incluidos en el registro de asma grave del German Asthma Net (GAN), 793 tenían datos sobre RB. De estos, 250 (31,5%) tuvieron una prueba RB positiva y 543 (68,5%) negativa. Las comorbilidades significativamente asociadas con RB negativa fueron el reflujo gastroesofágico (ERGE) (28,0% frente a 40,0%, p<0,01) y EGPA (0,4% frente a 3,0%; p<0,05), mientras que el antecedente de tabaquismo (activo: 2,8% frente a 2,2%; exfumador: 40,0% vs. 41,7%) y la comorbilidad de la EPOC (5,2% vs. 7,2%) fueron similares en ambos grupos. Los pacientes con RB positiva tenían peor control del asma (mediana ACQ-5 3,4 vs. 3,0, p<0,05), más disnea en reposo (26,8% vs. 16,4%, p<0,001) y mayor opresión torácica (36,4% vs. 26,2%, p<0,001), además presentaban una obstrucción de las vías respiratorias más grave al inicio del estudio (FEV1% pred: 56 frente a 64, p<0,001) y niveles más altos de FeNO (41 frente a 33 ppb, p<0,05), mientras que la capacidad de difusión fue similar (DLCO-SB% pred. 70% vs. 71%). El análisis de regresión lineal multivariable identificó una asociación de FEV1% basal inferior (p<0,001) y opresión torácica (p<0,05) con RB positiva y ERGE (p<0,05) con RB negativa. Conclusión: En este entorno en vida real, la mayoría de los pacientes con asma grave tuvieron una RB negativa. Curiosamente, esto no se asoció con antecedentes de tabaquismo o EPOC, sino con FeNO más bajo y presencia de ERGE. (AU)

The prevalence of bronchodilator responsiveness of the small airway (using mid-maximal expiratory flow) in COPD - a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Bronchodilator responsiveness (BDR) using FEV1 is often utilised to separate COPD patients from asthmatics, although it can be present in some COPD patients. With the advent of treatments with distal airway deposition, BDR in the small airways (SA) may be of value in the management of COPD. We aimed to identify the prevalence of BDR in the SA, utilizing maximal mid-expiratory flow (MMEF) as a measure of SA. We further evaluated the prevalence of BDR in MMEF with and without BDR in FEV1 and its association with baseline demographics, including conventional airflow obstruction severity and smoking history. METHODS: Lung function data of ever-smoking COPD patients were retrospectively analysed. BDR was evaluated 20 min after administering 2.5 mg of salbutamol via jet nebulizer. Increase in percent change of ≥ 12% and absolute change of ≥ 200 ml was used to define a BDR in FEV1, whereas an increase percent change of MMEF ≥ 30% was used to define a BDR in MMEF. Patients were classified as one of three groups according to BDR levels: group 1 (BDR in MMEF and FEV1), group 2 (BDR in MMEF alone) and group 3 (no BDR in either measure). RESULT: BDR in MMEF was present in 59.2% of the patients. Of note, BDR in MMEF was present in all patients with BDR in FEV1 (group 1) but also in 37.9% of the patients without BDR in FEV1 (group 2). Patients in group 1 were younger than in groups 2 and 3. BMI was higher in group 1 than in group 3. Baseline FEV1% predicted and FVC % predicted were also higher in groups 1 and 2 than in group 3. CONCLUSION: BDR in the SA (evaluated by MMEF) is common in COPD, and it is also feature seen in all patients with BDR in FEV1. Even in the absence of BDR in FEV1, BDR in MMEF is detected in some patients with COPD, potentially identifying a subgroup of patients who may benefit from different treatment strategies.

Infant pulmonary function tests in individuals with Down syndrome.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Down syndrome is associated with significant respiratory morbidity. The available pulmonary function testing data in school aged children and adults with Down show evidence of restrictive lung disease. We aimed to evaluated infant pulmonary function tests (iPFTs) in individuals with Down. METHODS: An observational case-control study evaluating iPFTs results from a registry of patients assessed at the Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center between 2008 and 2018. iPFTs results in Infants with Down were compared to a spirometry control group of infants with normal expiratory airflows, using the Mann-Whitney U and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: iPFT data from 66 infants (20 Down and 46 control) were evaluated in the study. Most infants with Down showed abnormalities of an obstructive lung disease with mildly increased lung volumes and significantly decreased expiratory flows, mostly unresponsive to bronchodilators. Airflow limitations were most prominent at low lung volumes (median (IQR); maximal expiratory flow at functional residual capacity, V˙max FRC = 48 (26-78) %predicted in Down Vs. V˙max FRC = 100 (93-114) %predicted in controls, p < 0.001). We further observed an alteration in breathing mechanics with significantly decreased respiratory system compliance and increased airway resistance associated with decreased tidal volumes but similar minute ventilation. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that infants with have a fixed airflow obstruction phenotype. These results add comprehensive data to allow better understanding of the lung disease present early in life of infants with Down syndrome. Further studies are required to improve management of respiratory disease in individuals with Down.

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 BDRFEV1 was negatively associated with the degree of airflow obstruction, while BDRFVC 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.

Overall Response to Anti-IL-5/Anti-IL5-Rα Treatment in Severe Asthma Does Not Depend on Initial Bronchodilator Responsiveness.

BACKGROUND: Positive bronchodilator responsiveness (BDR) (change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second [ΔFEV1] ≥ +200 mL and ≥ +12%) after inhalation of a short-acting beta-2 agonist has been an inclusion criterion in licensing trials of anti-interleukin 5/anti-interleukin 5 receptor alpha (anti-IL-5/anti-IL-5Rα) biologics in severe asthma. However, in clinical practice, patients with severe uncontrolled asthma frequently show a negative BDR. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the response to anti-IL5/anti-IL5Rα therapies differs between patients with positive and negative BDR at baseline. METHODS: Retrospective multicenter analysis of treatment outcomes in patients with severe asthma receiving anti-IL-5/anti-IL-5Rα stratified for baseline BDR. RESULTS: Of 133 patients included, 37 had a positive and 96 had a negative BDR at baseline. Following anti-IL-5/anti-IL-5Rα treatment, FEV1 improved significantly in both groups compared with baseline (P < .0001), with no significant difference between patients with positive and negative BDR (ΔFEV1 +493 mL vs +306 mL; P = .06). Forced vital capacity (FVC) increased (ΔFVC: +85 mL vs +650 mL; P < .01) and residual volume (RV) decreased (ΔRV +113 mL vs -307 mL; P < .01) significantly in patients with negative BDR. Median annualized exacerbations (0 vs 0; P = .7), reduction of exacerbation rate (Δexacerbations 0 vs -2; P = .07), continuous oral corticosteroids (OCS) use (Δpatients on OCS -35% vs -39%; P = .99) and improvement of Asthma Control Test (ACT) score (ΔACT 6 vs 5; P = .7) were similar in both groups. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed no significant correlations of positive versus negative BDR with response parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Both groups improved following treatment with similar responses concerning reduction of OCS therapy, exacerbations, and improvement of symptom control. Pulmonary function also improved in both groups during anti-IL-5/anti-IL-5Rα treatment, with differences in response patterns noted.

Spirometric Response to Bronchodilator and Eucapnic Voluntary Hyperpnea in Adults With Asthma.

BACKGROUND: The spirometric response to fast-acting bronchodilator is used clinically to diagnose asthma and in clinical research to verify its presence. However, bronchodilator responsiveness does not correlate with airway hyper-responsiveness measured with the direct-acting stimulus of methacholine, demonstrating that bronchodilator responsiveness is a problematic method for diagnosing asthma. The relationship between bronchodilator responsiveness and airway hyper-responsiveness assessed with indirect-acting stimuli is not known. METHODS: Retrospectively, the spirometric responses to inhaled bronchodilator and a eucapnic voluntary hyperpnea challenge (EVH) were compared in 39 non-smoking adult subjects with asthma (26 male, 13 female; mean ± SD age 26.9 ± 7.8 y; mean ± SD body mass index 26.3 ± 4.7 kg/m2). All subjects met one or both of 2 criteria: ≥ 12% and 200 mL increase in FEV1 after inhaled bronchodilator, and ≥ 10% decrease in FEV1 after an EVH challenge. RESULTS: Overall, FEV1 increased by 9.9 ± 7.9% after bronchodilator (3.93 ± 0.97 to 4.28 ± 0.91 L, P < .001) and decreased by 23.9 ± 15.0% after the EVH challenge (3.89 ± 0.89 to 2.96 ± 0.88 L, P < .001). However, the change in FEV1 after bronchodilator did not correlate with the change after EVH challenge (r = 0.062, P = .71). Significant bronchodilator responsiveness predicted a positive response to EVH challenge in 9 of 33 subjects (sensitivity 27%). Following EVH, the change in FEV1 strongly correlated with the change in FVC (FEV1 percent change vs FVC percent change, r = 0.831, P < .001; FEV1 ΔL vs FVC ΔL, r = 0.799, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: These results extend previous findings that demonstrate a lack of association between bronchodilator responsiveness and methacholine responsiveness. Given the poor concordance between the spirometric response to fast-acting bronchodilator and the EVH challenge, these findings suggest that the airway response to inhaled ß2-agonist must be interpreted with caution and in the context of its determinants and limitations.

Role of the Bronchodilator Test Defined by the Forced Vital Capacity in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Phenotyping.

Purpose: In clinical practice, some chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients experienced a remarkable increase in forced vital capacity (FVC) after bronchodilator administration, whereas forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) remains substantially unchanged. We assume this may relate to airway inflammatory type. We aim to analyze the clinical characteristics and explore the usefulness of the bronchodilator test, especially FVC, in this new COPD phenotype. Patients and Methods: A total of 346 COPD patients with exacerbation who underwent bronchodilator tests, fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) measurements and blood eosinophil counts were analyzed. The characteristics, FeNO levels, and blood eosinophil counts were compared between patients with and without significant bronchodilator responsiveness in terms of FVC. Results: Patients with significant FVC responsiveness displayed poorer lung function and higher FeNO levels compared with those without considerable FVC responsiveness (Z= -5.042 to -0.375, p=0.000-0.022). There is a discernible linear relationship between FeNO levels and FVC responsiveness to bronchodilator use (r=0.251, P=0.001). The application of bronchodilator responsiveness of FVC for detecting high FeNO levels in COPD patients exhibited relatively high sensitivity (61.8%) and specificity (86.7%). Conclusion: We demonstrated that COPD patients with significant FVC responsiveness had higher FeNO levels than non-responders and established a simple method for detecting high FeNO values. FVC responders may be identified as a separate group of COPD patients.

Forced expiratory volumes in 3 s is a sensitive clinical measure for assessment of bronchodilator reversibility in elderly Chinese with severe lung function impairment.

Purpose: Sensitively assessing bronchial reversibility by spirometry is difficult in patients with serious airflow limitation and the elderly. Some patients cannot exhale for ≥6 s to achieve FVC testing criteria. The aim of this study was to assess if FEV3 could be a more sensitive and an acceptable surrogate for evaluating bronchial reversibility in such patients. Patients and methods: Subjects who had undergone pulmonary function examination in Beijing hospital from July 2003 to April 2015 were included in the study. Patients with FEV1<50% of the predicted value were classified as the severely lung function-impaired group. Correlation between the severity of lung function impairment and changes in FEV1, FEV3 and FVC in response to a bronchodilator was estimated. Results: A total of 7745 tests on elderly subjects with a median age of 71 years were reviewed. The severely lung function-impaired group of 1728 accounted for 22.3% of the total number of subjects. There were significantly more patients in the severely lung function-impaired group who exhibited positive response in FEV3 or FVC and negative response in FEV1 after bronchodilator test (FEV1 negative response but FVC positive response, χ2=626.97, P<0.001; FEV1 negative response but FEV3 positive response, χ2=372.83, P<0.001). With the progressive increase in lung function impairment, ΔFEV1 increased and then declined, while ΔFVC and ΔFEV3 increased progressively. Changes in FEV3 or FVC significantly exceeded the change in FEV1 in the severely lung function-impaired groups (P<0.001). Conclusion: In elderly subjects, especially those with severe lung function impairment, FEV3 combined with FVC is a more effective and sensitive primary clinical outcome measure to detect bronchial reversibility. In subjects who cannot complete ≥6 s forced expiration and whose FVC is unreliable, FEV3 combined with FEV1 might be clinically more valuable in detecting bronchial reversibility.

A New Bronchodilator Response Grading Strategy Identifies Distinct Patient Populations.

Rationale: A positive bronchodilator response (BDR) according to American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society (ATS/ERS) guidelines require both 200 ml and 12% increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) or forced vital capacity (FVC) after bronchodilator inhalation. This dual criterion is insensitive in those with high or low FEV1.Objectives: To establish BDR criteria with volume or percentage FEV1 change.Methods: The largest FEV1 and FVC were identified from three pre- and three post-bronchodilator maneuvers in COPDGene (Genetic Epidemiology of COPD) participants. A total of 7,741 individuals with coefficient of variation less than 15% for both FEV1 and FVC formed bronchodilator categories of FEV1 response: negative (≤0.00% or ≤0.00 L), minimal (>0.00% to ≤9.00% or >0.00 L to ≤0.09 L), mild (>9.00% to ≤16.00% or >0.09 L to ≤0.16 L), moderate (>16.00% to ≤26.00% or >0.16 L to ≤0.26 L), and marked (>26.00% or >0.26 L). These response size categories are based on empirical limits considering average FEV1 increase of approximately 160 ml and the clinically important difference for FEV1. To compare flow and volume response characteristics, BDR-FEV1 category assignments were applied for the BDR-FVC response.Results: Twenty percent met mild and 31% met moderate or marked BDR-FEV1 criteria, whereas 12% met mild and 33% met moderate or marked BDR-FVC criteria. In contrast, only 20.6% met ATS/ERS positive criteria. Compared with the negative BDR-FEV1 category, the minimal, mild, moderate, and marked BDR-FEV1 categories were associated with greater 6-minute-walk distance and lower St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire and modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale scores. Compared with negative BDR, moderate and marked BDR-FEV1 categories were associated with fewer exacerbations, and minimal BDR was associated with lower computed tomography airway wall thickness. Compared with the negative category, all BDR-FVC categories were associated with increasing emphysema percentage and gas trapping percentage. Moderate and marked BDR-FVC categories were associated with higher St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire scores but fewer exacerbations and lower dyspnea scores.Conclusions: BDR grading by FEV1 volume or percentage response identified subjects otherwise missed by ATS/ERS criteria. BDR grades were associated with functional exercise performance, quality of life, exacerbation frequency, dyspnea, and radiological airway measures. BDR grades in FEV1 and FVC indicate different clinical and radiological characteristics.

Bronchodilator responsiveness in children with asthma is not influenced by spacer device selection.

INTRODUCTION: Spacer devices optimize delivery of aerosol therapies and maximize therapeutic efficacy. We assessed the impact of spacer device on the prevalence and magnitude of bronchodilator response (BDR) in children with asthma. METHODS: Children with physician confirmed asthma and parentally reported symptoms in the last 12 months were recruited for this study. Each participant completed two separate visits (5-10 days apart) with spirometry performed at baseline and following cumulative doses of salbutamol (200, 400, 800, and 200 µg) delivered by either a small volume disposable spacer or a large volume multi-use spacer. Spacer type was alternated for each participant during each visit. The primary outcome was the effect of spacer type on bronchodilator responsiveness. The secondary outcome was to assess the relationships between spacer device, salbutamol dose and the proportion of children with a clinically relevant BDR. RESULTS: Thirty-two children (mean age 11.8 years) completed both visits. Change in lung function following bronchodilators was increased using the large volume spacer, for relative but not absolute increase in FEV1 [mean difference (95% confidence intervals): 1.28% (0.02, 2.54; P = 0.047) and 0.013 L (-0.01, 0.04; P = 0.288)], respectively. There was no observed difference in FVC by spacer type. Overall, 59% (n = 19) of children exhibited a clinically relevant BDR at 400 µg of salbutamol for any spacer and was independent of spacer type. CONCLUSION: Spacer device was not associated with clinically important differences in lung function following bronchodilator inhalation in children with asthma. At a recommended dose of 400 µg, some children with asthma may have their bronchodilator responsiveness misclassified.

Clinical Significance of Bronchodilator Responsiveness Evaluated by Forced Vital Capacity in COPD: SPIROMICS Cohort Analysis.

Objective: Bronchodilator responsiveness (BDR) is prevalent in COPD, but its clinical implications remain unclear. We explored the significance of BDR, defined by post-bronchodilator change in FEV1 (BDRFEV1) as a measure reflecting the change in flow and in FVC (BDRFVC) reflecting the change in volume. Methods: We analyzed 2974 participants from a multicenter observational study designed to identify varying COPD phenotypes (SPIROMICS). We evaluated the association of BDR with baseline clinical characteristics, rate of prospective exacerbations and mortality using negative binomial regression and Cox proportional hazards models. Results: A majority of COPD participants exhibited BDR (52.7%). BDRFEV1 occurred more often in earlier stages of COPD, while BDRFVC occurred more frequently in more advanced disease. When defined by increases in either FEV1 or FVC, BDR was associated with a self-reported history of asthma, but not with blood eosinophil counts. BDRFVC was more prevalent in subjects with greater emphysema and small airway disease on CT. In a univariate analysis, BDRFVC was associated with increased exacerbations and mortality, although no significance was found in a model adjusted for post-bronchodilator FEV1. Conclusion: With advanced airflow obstruction in COPD, BDRFVC is more prevalent in comparison to BDRFEV1 and correlates with the extent of emphysema and degree of small airway disease. Since these associations appear to be related to the impairment of FEV1, BDRFVC itself does not define a distinct phenotype nor can it be more predictive of outcomes, but it can offer additional insights into the pathophysiologic mechanism in advanced COPD. Clinical trials registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01969344T4.

A specific subtype of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease classified by forced vital capacity.

BACKGROUND: Forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) is widely used in grading the severity of the airflow limitation observed in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, the characteristics of COPD classified by forced vital capacity (FVC) remain unknown. Hence, the characteristics of pulmonary function test (PFT) and clinical features of COPD patients classified by FVC were investigated. METHODS: COPD patients were classified into three groups by FVC: (I) large consistent FVC (LC-FVC): before bronchodilator (BBD) and after bronchodilator (ABD) FVC ≥80%pred; (II) inconsistent FVC (I-FVC): BBD FVC <80%pred, while ABD FVC ≥80%pred; (III) small consistent FVC (SC-FVC): BBD and ABD FVC <80%pred. The characteristics of pulmonary function and clinical features of 1,329 retrospective patients and 403 prospective patients were analyzed in different FVC subgroups. RESULTS: The percentages of LC-FVC, I-FVC and SC-FVC were 25.4%, 13.8% and 60.9%, respectively in the retrospective cohort, and were 34.0%, 15.6%, 50.4%, respectively in the prospective cohort. For the 1,329 retrospective patients, I-FVC showed the best responsiveness to bronchodilator when compared with those of LC-FVC and SC-FVC, no matter evaluated by FEV1 (0.21 vs. 0.14 vs. 0.10 L, P<0.001) or FVC (0.47 vs. 0.15 vs. 0.23 L, P<0.001), and similar results were found in the 403 prospective patients. Of the 405 retrospective patients who finished lung volume tests, I-FVC and SC-FVC demonstrated higher residual volume than that of LC-FVC (3.43 vs. 3.15 vs. 2.89 L, P<0.05), while I-FVC and LC-FVC showed higher total lung capacity than that of SC-FVC (5.92 vs. 6.06 vs. 5.18 L, P<0.05). In the prospective cohort, LC-FVC and I-FVC experienced more asthma comorbidity than that of SC-FVC (30.7% vs. 30.2% vs. 16.7%, P=0.005); I-FVC group tended to experience more exacerbation events than the other two groups (1.7 vs. 1.2 vs. 1.5, P=0.114). CONCLUSIONS: COPD patients classified by BBD and ABD FVC showed obviously different clinical characteristics, which could assist in distinguishing I-FVC patients who may benefit most from bronchodilators.