MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4413227646 · doi:10.1111/cea.70135

Bronchodilator Reversibility of Spirometry and Oscillometry Ratios in Severe Refractory Asthma

2025· article· en· W4413227646 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert Greig, Philipp Suter, Rory Chan, Brian J. Lipworth

Notice bibliographique

RevueClinical & Experimental Allergy · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueAdvanced Chemical Sensor Technologies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesUniversity of DundeeSanofiAstraZeneca
Mots-clésSpirometryBronchodilatorMedicineAsthmaBronchodilator AgentsRefractory (planetary science)CardiologyAnesthesiaIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Bronchodilator response (BDR) is a key tenet in the diagnosis of asthma and is defined as an improvement in the forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) of 12% and 200 mL in response to a short acting beta agonist (SABA) such as salbutamol [1]. Oscillometry demonstrates a greater sensitivity to detect BDR when compared to spirometry in more severe asthma patients [2]. Airwave oscillometry (AOS) is an effort independent technique where a vibrating mesh creates soundwaves that are superimposed on normal tidal breathing. This allows measurement of respiratory impedance comprising components of resistance (R) and reactance (X) calculated from the relationship of pressure/flow (kPa/L/s) to frequency (Hz). AOS also facilitates the assessment of the small airways through the heterogeneity in lung resistance between total airways at 5 Hz (R5) and the large airways at 20 Hz (R20) as R5-R20 or as peripheral lung compliance through the area under the reactance curve (AX) between 5 Hz and the resonant frequency (Fres) where the impedance equals zero. Spirometry, in comparison, measures the forced expiratory dynamic lung volumes and flow using effort dependent measurements. Oscillometry derived ratios akin to the FEV1/FVC ratio have been proposed as a method to aid the interpretation of the raw values which clinicians may not be familiar with. An R5-R20/R5 ratio ≥ 19% or an X5/AX ratio < 15% is associated with poorer symptom control and increased exacerbations [3], and such ratios have been shown to identify significant improvements in asthma patients who were commenced on tezepelumab [4]. Here we review bronchodilator effects on both spirometry and oscillometry derived ratios. The screening data from two previous prospective clinical trials (EudraCT No. 2019-003763-22 and EudraCT 2021-005593-25) was reviewed in patients with an abnormal R5-R20/R5 ratio ≥ 19% who were initially identified. Prior to their pulmonary function tests, medications were withheld as follows: inhaled corticosteroid for 12 h, long-acting beta-agonists and muscarinic antagonists for 12 h/24 h depending on dosing frequency, SABA for 6 h, and montelukast for 48 h. None of the patients were taking biologics at the time of BDR assessment. Following the European Respiratory Society guidelines and manufacturer's instructions, fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) was obtained using NIOX Vero (NIOX, Oxford, UK) [5]. Spirometry (Micromedical, Chatham, UK) and AOS (Thorasys Tremoflo, Montreal, Canada) were performed in triplicate [6]. Using a pressurised metered dose inhaler with an Aerochamber spacer device (Trudell Medical, London, Canada) 400 μg of salbutamol was administered to all patients, with oscillometry and spirometry repeated after 20 min. SPSS version 29 was used for statistical analysis. Paired Student's t-tests were applied with a two-tailed alpha error of 5%. Nominal p values are quoted as either p < 0.05, < 0.01, or < 0.001 (two tailed). Correlations were assessed using Pearson's test. Forty-one patients were identified with an R5-R20/R5 ≥ 19% with 24 male and 17 female. The mean (SEM) baseline demographics were: age 55.29 years (2.14), BMI 30.90 kg/m2 (4.49), beclometasone dipropionate inhaled corticosteroid dose equivalent 1415 ug (69) with 20 patients at GINA step 4 and 21 patients at GINA step 5, eosinophils 522 cells/uL (45), FeNO 57.6 ppb (7.7), asthma control questionnaire 3.09 (0.16). The mean (SEM) baseline spirometry and oscillometry ratios were: FEV1/FVC 60.77% (1.93), FEF25-75/FVC 34.33% (2.73), R5-R20/R5 34.01% (1.58), X5/AX 10.75% (0.50). The mean (95% CI) absolute % changes in the ratios in response to salbutamol were: FEV1/FVC 2.52% (1.23, 3.82) p < 0.001, FEF25-75/FVC 3.94% (1.29, 6.60) p < 0.01, R5-R20/R5 8.23% (4.94, 11.49) p < 0.001, X5/AX 5.36% (2.56, 8.17) p < 0.001. Correlations between the spirometry and oscillometry ratios are shown in Table 1. There were no correlations between the change in spirometry or oscillometry ratios and either baseline eosinophils or FeNO. Our data shows both oscillometry derived ratios show a significant correlation with both FEV1/FVC and FEF25-75/FVC, with the stronger correlation being to FEF25-75/FVC. This is as one might expect, given FEF25-75 has been shown to be a reliable marker of small airways dysfunction [7]. We appreciate our study is a single centre study with a relatively limited sample size. As such, further studies with an increased cohort size would be indicated to validate our findings and provide further information on the oscillometry derived ratios in relation to BDR. Further research to compare the oscillometry ratios with Z-scores would also be beneficial given the recently proposed Z-scores for the absolute values to assess significant BDR [8]. In conclusion, both spirometry and oscillometry derived ratios show significant improvements to bronchodilation with significant correlation. Robert Greig: statistical analysis and writing. Philipp Suter: statistical analysis and writing. Rory Chan: trial design and submission, review. Brian Lipworth: trial design, data interpretation and analysis, writing. 07/02/2022, 21/WS/0151, West of Scotland REC 1, EudraCT2021-005593-25 and 09/12/2019, 19/ES/0134 East of Scotland REC, EudraCT 2021–005593-25. Dr. Greig reports personal fees (talks) from AstraZeneca. Dr. Suter reports personal fees (talks) from AstraZeneca, personal fees (talks) from GSK, grants from Lung League Fribourg (Switzerland). Dr. Chan reports personal fees (talks) and support attending ERS from AstraZeneca, personal fees (consulting) from Vitalograph, and personal fees (talks) from Thorasys. Dr. Lipworth reports non-financial support (equipment) from GSK; grants, personal fees (consulting, talks and advisory board), other support (attending ATS and ERS) and from AstraZeneca; personal fees (talks and consulting) from Sanofi, personal fees (consulting, talks and advisory board) from Circassia in relation to the submitted work; grants, personal fees (consulting, talks, advisory board), other support (attending ERS) from Teva, personal fees (talks and consulting), grants, and other support (attending ERS and BTS) from Chiesi, personal fees (consulting) from Lupin, personal fees (consulting) from Glenmark, personal fees (consulting) from Dr. Reddy, personal fees (consulting) from Sandoz; grants, personal fees (consulting, talks, advisory board), other support (attending BTS) from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants and personal fees (advisory board and talks) from Mylan outside of the submitted work; and the son of BJL is presently an employee of AstraZeneca. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: Expérimental (laboratoire)
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,021
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,705

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,318
Écart entre enseignants0,301 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueClinical & Experimental AllergyMême sujetAdvanced Chemical Sensor TechnologiesTravaux en français237 207