Parameter D new metric for measuring airflow obstruction
Parameter D may be new metric for measuring airflow obstruction suggests a new study published in the Annals of the American Thoracic Society.
Currently used spirometry measures of airflow obstruction are influenced by demographics, predominantly by age, complicating selection of diagnostic thresholds for the presence of airflow obstruction.
A study was done to develop diagnostic thresholds for Parameter D, a new metric for detection of airflow obstruction, which quantifies the rate of rise of expiratory volume over time.
Researchers analyzed spirometry data of normal subjects enrolled in the 2007–2008, 2009–2010, and 2011–2012 NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) cohorts and calculated Parameter D using the expiratory volume–time curve. Relationships between demographics and lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1], FEV1/forced vital capacity [FVC], and Parameter D) were tested using generalized linear models in NHANES and UK Biobank. The variation in lung function explained by demographics was estimated using R2. A diagnostic threshold was developed for Parameter D using population-based percentiles. Based on concordance between the lower limit of normal (LLN) for FEV1/FVC and the Parameter D threshold, four groups were identified: normal (no airflow obstruction by either criterion), D+chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (D+COPD; positive by Parameter D only), D−COPD (positive by LLN only), and COPD (positive by both criteria), and associations with structural lung disease, exacerbations, and mortality were tested using multivariable analyses.
Results
In contrast to FEV1 and FEV1/FVC, demographics cumulatively explained only 9% of the variance in Parameter D in NHANES (n = 4,945) and 3% in UK BioBank (n = 109,623). In COPDGene (Genetic Epidemiology of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease) (n = 9,542), a diagnostic threshold of −3.15 resulted in the identification of an additional 10.8% of participants with airflow obstruction. A total of 3.7% had FEV1/FVC < LLN but were missed by the Parameter D threshold. Compared with subjects in the normal group, after adjustment for age, sex, race, body mass index, pack-years of smoking, and current smoking status, D+COPD was associated with worse structural lung disease (odds ratio [OR] for ⩾5% emphysema, 1.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37–2.12; OR for functional small airway disease ⩾ 15%, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.79–2.67) and significant symptoms (OR for modified Medical Research Council dyspnea score ⩾ 2, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.07–1.47; OR for St. George’s respiratory questionnaire ⩾ 25, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.13–1.53), a greater frequency of exacerbations (incidence rate ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.10–1.46), and higher mortality (hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.10–1.57). Over 5 years, 28% of the D+COPD group versus 8% of normal group progressed to COPD by traditional criteria.
Parameter D is not affected by age, and a normal population-based diagnostic threshold results in the early identification of additional individuals with airflow obstruction with a substantial amount of structural lung disease and respiratory symptoms.
Reference:
Eric Gartman, Matthew Jankowich. (2023) D for Destiny? Parameter D and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Annals of the American Thoracic Society 20:7, 953-954.
Online publication date: 30 June 2023.
Keywords:
Parameter D, new, metric, measuring, airflow, obstruction, Annals of the American Thoracic Society, Eric Gartman, Matthew Jankowich
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.