Influences of Two FEV1 Reference Equations (GLI-2012 and GIRH-2017) on Airflow Limitation Classification Among COPD Patients

• Published in: International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease Vol. 17; pp. 2053 - 2065
• Main Authors: Wei, Dafei, Wang, Qi, Liu, Shasha, Tan, Xiaowu, Chen, Lin, Tu, Rongfang, Liu, Qing, Jia, Yuanhang, Liu, Sha
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Dove Medical Press Ltd 01.01.2022; Dove; Dove Medical Press
• Subjects: acute exacerbation; airflow limitation; Biomass energy; Body mass index; Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; Classification; copd; Coronaviruses; COVID-19; Family medical history; fev1%pred; Medical research; Original Research; Questionnaires; Respiratory diseases; Risk factors; Spirometry; symptoms assessment; China
• ISSN: 1178-2005; 1176-9106; 1178-2005
• DOI: 10.2147/COPD.S373834

Objective: To explore the clinical effects of different forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV1) reference equations on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) airflow limitation (AFL) classification. Methods: We conducted a COPD screening program for residents over 40 years old from 2019 to 2021. All residents received the COPD screening questionnaire (COPD-SQ) and spirometry. Postbronchodilator FEV1/FVC (forced vital capacity) < 0.7 was used as the diagnostic criterion of COPD and two reference equations of FEV1 predicted values were used for AFL severity classification: the European Respiratory Society Global Lung Function Initiative reference equation in 2012 (GLI-2012) and the Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health reference equation in 2017 (GIRH-2017). Clinical characteristics of patients in GOLD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease) 1– 4 grades classified by the two reference equations were compared. Results: Among 3524 participants, 659 subjects obtained a COPD-SQ score of 16 or more and 743 participants were found to have AFL. The COPD-SQ showed high sensitivity (59%) and specificity (91%) in primary COPD screening. Great differences in COPD severity classification were found when applying the two equations (p < 0.001). Compared with GIRH-2017, patients with AFL classified by GLI-2012 equations were significantly severer. The relationship between symptom scores, acute exacerbation (AE) history distributions and COPD severities classified by the two equations showed a consistent trend of positive but weak correlation. Group A, B, C and D existed in all GOLD 1 to 3 COPD patients, but in GOLD 4, only Groups B and D existed. However, no clear significant differences were found in symptoms, AE risk assessments, risk factors exposure and even the combined ABCD grouping under the two equations. Conclusion: There were significant differences in COPD AFL severity classification with GLI-2012 and GIRH-2017 FEV1 reference equations. But these severity estimation differences did not affect symptoms, AE risk assessments and ABCD grouping of patients at all GOLD grades.