Use FEV1/FVC <i>Z</i> -Score Staging to Minimize Sex and Age Bias in Staging Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): STaging of Airflow obstruction by Ratio (STAR), an FEV 1 /FVC-based stratification approach (using FEV 1 /FVC thresholds of >0.60 to ,0.70, >0.50 to ,0.60, >0.40 to ,0.50, and ,0.40, respectively, for stages 1-4).The predictive performance for 10-year mortality of STAR grades was comparable with that of the conventional FEV 1 % predicted (ppFEV 1 )-based stratification, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) grades (2).Moreover, STAR showed a more uniform gradation of disease severity, as it provided better ability to discriminate survival between mild COPD (stage 1) and non-COPD compared with the GOLD stages.Recently, several studies have shown the clinical importance of preserved ratio impaired spirometry (PRISm; FEV 1 /FVC > 0.70 and ppFEV 1 , 0.80), especially for its high incidence of COPD and poor prognosis (3, 4).Nonetheless, subjects with PRISm may be often overlooked, as it does not meet the conventional criterion for COPD (FEV 1 /FVC , 0.70) (2).Given the rising interest in the epidemiologic issues of PRISm, physicians today may have to investigate the implications of impaired ppFEV 1 , including PRISm, together with COPD in clinical research.In the study by Bhatt and colleagues (1), non-COPD was defined as FEV 1 /FVC > 0.70 regardless the value of ppFEV 1 , which is in line with GOLD standards; subjects with PRISm were included in the non-COPD group.According to Figure 1 in Bhatt and colleagues' paper, ppFEV 1 in subjects without COPD was distributed unfavorably to that in GOLD stage 1 subjects, whereas ppFEV 1 was higher in subjects without COPD than in STAR stage 1.As a decrease in ppFEV 1 has been known to be a strong risk factor for COPD morbidity and mortality (5, 6), the discrepancy in overall survival between STAR stage 1 and GOLD stage 1 was considered sensible to the difference in ppFEV 1 between them.Therefore, to assess the impact of ppFEV 1 on all-cause mortality, it is crucial to stratify the entire cohort regardless of the values of FEV 1 /FVC (not only subjects with COPD) according to ppFEV 1 (i.e., ppFEV 1 thresholds of >0.80, >0.50 to ,0.80, >0.30 to ,0.50, and ,0.30) and to assess the mortality of each subgroup.In addition, a comparison of prognostic performance between ppFEV 1 and FEV 1 /FVC among all subjects might make physicians reconsider not only the severity grading but also the diagnostic criteria for COPD, as the cutoff points for the diagnosis of other major noncommunicable diseases (e.g., hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia) were established on the evidence of morbidity and mortality.In conclusion, the work by Bhatt and colleagues (1) is intriguing, in that FEV 1 /FVC-a simply calculable biomarker without age-, gender-, height-, and race-dependent predicted values-could be helpful in evaluating disease severity as well as diagnosing COPD.We believe that this new STAR can create a STIR in clinical practice and the management of COPD.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.