Skip to main content
 

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Coming Next Month
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2021
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2022 Open Forum
    • 2021 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • Highlighted Articles
    • The Journal

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Association for Respiratory Care
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
American Association for Respiratory Care

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Coming Next Month
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2021
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2022 Open Forum
    • 2021 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • Highlighted Articles
    • The Journal
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
EditorialEditorials

Diagnosing COPD: High Time for a Paradigm Shift

Philip H Quanjer and Gregg L Ruppel
Respiratory Care November 2011, 56 (11) 1861-1863; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.01590
Philip H Quanjer
Department of Pulmonary Diseases and Department of Paediatrics Erasmus Medical Centre Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
Gregg L Ruppel
Pulmonary Function Laboratory Saint Louis University Hospital St Louis, Missouri
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

In this issue of Respiratory Care, Vaz Fragoso et al1 and Aggarwal et al2 make important contributions to the ongoing discussion on how to properly diagnose COPD. Let us put the problem in perspective.

In the past there was a growing concern that many cases of COPD went undetected and that generally too little effort was spent in diagnosing COPD, a disease syndrome relatively unknown to the public, or to public health and government officials. Because of this, the United States National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the World Health Organization formed the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD),3 which issued recommendations for diagnosing and managing COPD. Spirometrically-determined airflow limitation was proposed as the key measurement for identifying COPD. The definition of airflow limitation, however, still leads to controversy.

An abnormally low ratio of FEV1 to FVC is universally accepted as indicating airflow limitation: the hallmark of COPD. In adults the FEV1, FVC, and FEV1/FVC fall with age, and not at the same rate for men and women. Therefore, various organizations4–7 have recommended using the lower fifth percentile from a population of healthy never-smokers as the lower limit of normal (LLN). Hence, an FEV1/FVC < LLN is compatible with airflow limitation. This approach is scientifically valid and in keeping with the way results from the chemistry laboratory have been interpreted for decades in clinical practice. However, despite the widespread availability of computers that can perform the calculation, the GOLD committee judged that using the LLN was too complicated for doctors and recommended a fixed FEV1/FVC of 0.70 as the cutoff for diagnosing COPD. They also recommended the use of percent-of-predicted FEV1, with 80% separating mild from moderately severe COPD. In healthy subjects the LLN for FEV1/FVC falls well below 0.70 above age 45 years, so the fixed-ratio method (FEV1/FVC < 0.70) is heavily biased by age, and to a lesser extent by height, sex, and, possibly, ethnic group. The use of FEV1 < 80% of predicted, probably first advocated by Bates and Christie,8 has similarly been shown to be highly biased by age.9,10 More than 30 years ago, Sobol wrote: “Nowhere else in medicine is such a naïve view taken of the limit of normal.”11

Hardie et al12 were the first to point out the massive (up to 50%) over-diagnosis of COPD in elderly healthy never-smokers that can occur with the fixed ratio. Many other authors subsequently confirmed this, and pointed out that the fixed ratio also leads to under-diagnosis in younger subjects.13 Essentially, the disagreement is about interpreting an FEV1/FVC < 0.70 but > LLN. If such a ratio could be shown to entail a higher risk of premature death, hospitalization, or other ill health effects, that would end the discussion in favor of the GOLD guidelines. So far, however, all the published evidence points the other way. In a literature review, Hoesein et al14 compared subjects with an FEV1/FVC < 0.70 but > LLN to those with normal lung function, and posited that LLN might miss subjects at risk of hospitalization and death. Their conclusion hinged exclusively on a paper by Mannino et al,15 who found that GOLD stage 1 was associated with higher risk of premature death. However, Mannino et al misinterpreted their own results: the adjusted odds ratio (CI 0.96–1.3) was not different from that in healthy controls. Their reported increased hazard ratio for hospitalization15 also failed under scrutiny, as Mannino et al conceded that “the measure of COPD-related hospitalizations was too inclusive.”16 Thus, Hoesein's conclusion14 also collapses. Recently, this same flaw crept into another study,17 which found that about 34% of a cohort who had at least one hospital admission for COPD did not meet the spirometric definition of COPD prior to hospitalization. Curiously, rather than concluding that this underlines the severe limitations of using administrative data18,19 confounded by cardiovascular and other diseases, Garcia-Aymerich et al concluded that GOLD stage 1 represents an increased risk of COPD hospitalization and subsequent mortality.17 An administrative or hospital diagnosis of COPD can be very biased, again appearing to be too inclusive,16 and does not warrant that conclusion.

The relative risk of death in GOLD stage 1 in a Swedish population was elevated in female smokers, but not in men, and not in female and male former or never smokers.20 After adjustment for potential confounders, the hazard ratio for all-cause mortality in older participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III was significantly elevated only at an FEV1 < 5th percentile, regardless of GOLD stage,21 and GOLD stage 1 was not associated with a higher prevalence of respiratory symptoms. Compared to the percentile approach, the risk of death and of respiratory symptoms in subjects with GOLD stage 2 was also poorly classified,21 which confirmed a previous report22 that the GOLD criteria were not adequate for correctly placing individual subjects into disease stage categories that relate to survival. GOLD stage 1 in asymptomatic subjects is not associated with dyspnea, accelerated FEV1 decline, respiratory care utilization, or quality-of-life scores, compared to a reference group.23 In a clinical population there is bound to be less misdiagnosis than in a normal population, because of the higher disease prevalence. In Aggarwal et al's study,2 which compares the fixed ratio to the LLN in a large male clinical population, the fixed ratio underestimated the prevalence of airflow limitation by 13% in the 21–40-year age range, and overestimated it by 16% in the 40–95 year age range. In another large clinical study, 24% were misclassified by the fixed ratio.24

There is no high-quality evidence that an FEV1/FVC < 0.7 but > 5th percentile represents disease, or increased risk of death. Conversely, values below the 5th percentile do imply increased risk. Vaz Fragoso et al raised the bar by substituting the biased fixed ratio25 with a novel technique, the lambda-mu-sigma method with the lower limit of normal as the 5th percentile of the distribution of Z scores (LMS-LLN5), pioneered by Stanojevic et al.26,27 This method takes into account that the relationship between the predictor variables (eg, age, height, sex) and spirometry measurements is not linear, and that reference values are not normally distributed and do not have constant variability. They found that only individuals with an FEV1/FVC less than LMS-LLN5 had a higher risk of all-cause mortality and higher prevalence of respiratory symptoms. Vaz Fragoso et al1 found that in 2 cohorts of white older patients within the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III and the Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities study, the cutoffs that were associated with a significantly higher risk of respiratory symptoms and death were an FEV1/FVC below the LMS-LLN5, and a reduced FVC (FEV1/FVC > LMS-LLN5 and FVC < LMS-LLN5), which suggests restrictive-pattern rather than airflow limitation.

Arising from published evidence, a letter from 152 scientists and clinicians and 13 organizations requested that the GOLD guidelines be modified.28,29 The GOLD committee has acknowledged that the fixed ratio leads to over-diagnosis and misclassification,3 but argued that the frequent use of the guidelines justifies leaving them unchanged,30,31 disregarding clinical evidence. If we accept that GOLD stage 1 does not represent respiratory disease (as discussed above), it is not surprising that no evidence has been published to show that any intervention, other than smoking cessation, has any effect. In a recently published guideline, the initiation of inhaled bronchodilator in patients who have respiratory symptoms is therefore recommended only if FEV1 is < 60% of predicted.32 Indeed, the low FEV1—and not FEV1/FVC—has been shown to be a very significant risk factor for death.33–36

That international societies issue disparate guidelines, advocating both the fixed ratio32 and the LLN,4–6 is an important impediment to progress in COPD research, leads to subject-selection bias, and wastes money and resources. More extensive use of spirometry is needed to detect airflow limitation, but guidelines should not cause any patients to be incorrectly diagnosed with COPD, which imposes the psychological burden of a disease with a poor prognosis.

Footnotes

  • Correspondence: Philip H Quanjer MD PhD. E-mail: pquanjer{at}xs4all.nl.
  • The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.

  • See the Original Studies on Pages 1771 and 1778

  • Copyright © 2011 by Daedalus Enterprises Inc.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Vaz Fragoso CA,
    2. Gill TM,
    3. McAvay G,
    4. Van Ness PH,
    5. Yaggi HK,
    6. Concato J
    . Use of lambda-mu-sigma-derived z score for evaluating respiratory impairment in middle-aged persons. Respir Care 2011;56(11):1771–1777
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Aggarwal AN,
    2. Gupta D,
    3. Agarwal R,
    4. Jindal SK
    . Comparison of the lower confidence limit to the fixed-percentage method for assessing airway obstruction in routine clinical practice. Respir Care 2011;56(11):1778–1784.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease. Global Strategy for Diagnosis, Management and Prevention of COPD. Update 2010. http://www.goldcopd.org/guidelines-global-strategy-for-diagnosis-management.html. Accessed September 7, 2011.
  4. 4.↵
    American Thoracic Society. Lung function testing: selection of reference values and interpretative strategies. Am Rev Respir Dis 1991;144(5 part 1):1202–1218.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.
    1. Quanjer PH,
    2. Tammeling GJ,
    3. Cotes JE,
    4. Pedersen OF,
    5. Peslin R,
    6. Yernault J-C
    . Lung volumes and forced ventilatory flows. Report Working Party Standardization of Lung Function Tests, European Community for Steel and Coal, Official Statement of the European Respiratory Society. Eur Respir J 1993;6(Suppl 16):5–40.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Miller MR,
    2. Hankinson J,
    3. Brusasco V,
    4. Burgos F,
    5. Casaburi R,
    6. Coates A,
    7. et al
    ; ATS/ERS Task Force. Standardisation of spirometry. Eur Respir J 2005;26(2):319–338.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Levy ML,
    2. Quanjer PH,
    3. Booker R,
    4. Cooper BG,
    5. Holmes S,
    6. Small I
    . Diagnostic spirometry in primary care: proposed standards for general practice compliant with American Thoracic Society and European Respiratory Society recommendations: a General Practice Airways Group (GPIAG) document, in association with the Association for Respiratory Technology & Physiology (ARTP) and Education for Health. Prim Care Respir J 2009;18(3):130–147.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Bates DV,
    2. Christie RV
    . Respiratory function in disease. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1964:91
  9. 9.↵
    1. Sobol BJ
    . Assessment of ventilatory abnormality in the asymptomatic subject: an exercise in futility. Thorax 1966;21(5):445–449.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Miller MR,
    2. Pincock AC
    . Predicted values: how should we use them? (editorial) Thorax 1988;43(4):265–267.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    1. Sobol BJ,
    2. Sobol PG
    . Per cent of predicted as the limit of normal in pulmonary function testing: a statistically valid approach (editorial). Thorax 1979;34(1):1–3.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Hardie JA,
    2. Buist AS,
    3. Vollmer WM,
    4. Ellingsen I,
    5. Bakke PS,
    6. Mørkve O
    . Risk of over-diagnosis of COPD in asymptomatic elderly never-smokers. Eur Respir J 2002;20(5):1117–1122.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Cerveri I,
    2. Corsico AG,
    3. Accordini S,
    4. Niniano R,
    5. Ansaldo E,
    6. Antó JM,
    7. et al
    . Underestimation of airflow obstruction among young adults using FEV1/FVC < 70% as a fixed cut-off; a longitudinal evaluation of clinical and functional outcomes. Thorax 2008;63(12):1040–1045.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Hoesein FAAM,
    2. Zanen P,
    3. Lammers J-WJ
    . Lower limit of normal or FEV1/FVC <0.70 in diagnosing COPD: an evidence-based review. Respir Med 2011;105(6):907–915.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Mannino DM,
    2. Buist AS,
    3. Vollmer WM
    . Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the older adult: what defines abnormal lung function? Thorax 2007;62(3):237–241.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Mannino DM,
    2. Buist AS,
    3. Vollmer WM
    . Authors' reply to two letters to the editor. Thorax 2007;62(12):1108–1109.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Garcia-Aymerich J,
    2. Pons IS,
    3. Mannino DM,
    4. Maas AK,
    5. Miller DP,
    6. Davis KJ
    . Lung function impairment, COPD hospitalisations and subsequent mortality. Thorax 2011;66(7):85–590.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    1. Mannino DM
    . Understanding COPD hospitalizations: the devil is always in the details! Chest 2007;132(60):1731–1732.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Damarla M,
    2. Celli BR,
    3. Mullerova HX,
    4. Pinto-Plata VM
    . Discrepancy in the use of confirmatory tests in patients hospitalized with the diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or congestive heart failure. Respir Care 2006;51(10):1120–1124.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Ekberg-Aronsson M,
    2. Pehrsson K,
    3. Nilsson JÅ,
    4. Nilsson PM,
    5. Löfdahl CG
    . Mortality in GOLD stages of COPD and its dependence on symptoms of chronic bronchitis. Respir Res 2005;6(1):98.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Vaz Fragoso CA,
    2. Concato J,
    3. McAvay G,
    4. Van Ness PH,
    5. Rochester CL,
    6. Klar Yaggi H,
    7. Gill TM
    . Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in older persons: a comparison of two spirometric definitions. Respir Med 2010;104(8):1189–1196.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Miller MR,
    2. Pedersen OF,
    3. Dirksen A
    . A new staging strategy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2007;2(4):657–663.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Bridevaux PO,
    2. Gerbase MW,
    3. Probst-Hensch NM,
    4. Schindler C,
    5. Gaspoz JM,
    6. Rochat T
    . Long-term decline in lung function, utilisation of care and quality of life in modified GOLD stage 1 COPD. Thorax 2008;63(9):768–774.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Miller MR,
    2. Quanjer PH,
    3. Swanney MP,
    4. Ruppel G,
    5. Enright PL
    . Interpreting lung function data using 80% predicted and fixed thresholds misclassifies more than 20% of patients. Chest 2011;139(1):52–59.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Vaz Fragoso CA,
    2. Concato J,
    3. McAvay G,
    4. Van Ness PH,
    5. Rochester C,
    6. Klar Yaggi H,
    7. Gill TM
    . The ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1-second to forced vital capacity as a basis for establishing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2010;181(5):446–451.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Stanojevic S,
    2. Wade A,
    3. Stocks J,
    4. Hankinson J,
    5. Coates AL,
    6. Pan H,
    7. et al
    . Reference ranges for spirometry across all ages. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2008;177(3):253–260.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Stanojevic S,
    2. Wade A,
    3. Stocks J
    . Reference values for lung function: past, present and future. Eur Respir J 2010;36(1):12–19.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    1. Quanjer PH,
    2. Enright PL,
    3. Ruppel G
    . The GOLD guidelines definition of mild airway obstruction. Respir Care 2010;55(10):1397–1398.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Quanjer PH,
    2. Enright PL,
    3. Miller MR,
    4. Stocks J,
    5. Ruppel G,
    6. Swanney MR,
    7. et al
    . The need to change the method for defining mild airway obstruction. Eur Respir J 2011;37(3):720–722.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. Vestbo J,
    2. Rodriguez-Roisin R
    . GOLD and the fixed ratio. Eur Respir J 2011;38(2):481–482.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. Quanjer PH,
    2. Enright PL,
    3. Ruppel G,
    4. Miller MR,
    5. Vaz Fragoso CA,
    6. Cooper BG,
    7. et al
    . GOLD and the fixed ratio. Eur Respir J 2011;38(2):482–483.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Qaseem A,
    2. Wilt TJ,
    3. Weinberger SE,
    4. Hanania NA,
    5. Criner G,
    6. van der Molen T,
    7. et al
    . Diagnosis and management of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a clinical practice guideline update from the American College of Physicians, American College of Chest Physicians, American Thoracic Society, and European Respiratory Society. Ann Intern Med 2011;155(3):179–191.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Sorlie PD,
    2. Kannel WB,
    3. O'Connor G
    . Mortality associated with respiratory function and symptoms in advanced age. The Framingham Study. Am Rev Respir Dis 1989;140(2):379–384.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  34. 34.
    1. Hole DJ,
    2. Watt GCM,
    3. Davey-Smith G,
    4. Hart CL,
    5. Gillis CR,
    6. Hawthorne VM
    . Impaired lung function and mortality risk in men and women: findings from the Renfrew and Paisley prospective population study. BMJ 1996;313(7059):711–715.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.
    1. Knuiman MW,
    2. James AL,
    3. Divitini ML,
    4. Ryan G,
    5. Bartholomew HC,
    6. Musk AW
    . Lung function, respiratory symptoms, and mortality: results from the Busselton health study. Ann Epidemiol 1999;9(5):297–306.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Sin DD,
    2. Wu LL,
    3. Paul Man SFP
    . The relationship between reduced lung function and cardiovascular mortality. A population-based study and a systematic review of the literature. Chest 2005;127(6):1952–1959.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Respiratory Care: 56 (11)
Respiratory Care
Vol. 56, Issue 11
1 Nov 2011
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author

 

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Association for Respiratory Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Diagnosing COPD: High Time for a Paradigm Shift
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Association for Respiratory Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Association for Respiratory Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Diagnosing COPD: High Time for a Paradigm Shift
Philip H Quanjer, Gregg L Ruppel
Respiratory Care Nov 2011, 56 (11) 1861-1863; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.01590

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Diagnosing COPD: High Time for a Paradigm Shift
Philip H Quanjer, Gregg L Ruppel
Respiratory Care Nov 2011, 56 (11) 1861-1863; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.01590
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

Info For

  • Subscribers
  • Institutions
  • Advertisers

About Us

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Reprints/Permissions

AARC

  • Membership
  • Meetings
  • Clinical Practice Guidelines

More

  • Contact Us
  • RSS
American Association for Respiratory Care

Print ISSN: 0020-1324        Online ISSN: 1943-3654

© Daedalus Enterprises, Inc.

Powered by HighWire