Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAlobaidi, Nowaf Y
dc.contributor.authorAlmeshari, Mohammed A
dc.contributor.authorStockley, James A
dc.contributor.authorStockley, Robert A
dc.contributor.authorSapey, Elizabeth
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-12T14:04:05Z
dc.date.available2024-02-12T14:04:05Z
dc.date.issued2022-12-30
dc.identifier.citationAlobaidi NY, Almeshari MA, Stockley JA, Stockley RA, Sapey E. The prevalence of bronchodilator responsiveness of the small airway (using mid-maximal expiratory flow) in COPD - a retrospective study. BMC Pulm Med. 2022 Dec 30;22(1):493. doi: 10.1186/s12890-022-02235-0en_US
dc.identifier.eissn1471-2466
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12890-022-02235-0
dc.identifier.pmid36585669
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14200/3647
dc.description.abstractBackground: Bronchodilator responsiveness (BDR) using FEV1 is often utilised to separate COPD patients from asthmatics, although it can be present in some COPD patients. With the advent of treatments with distal airway deposition, BDR in the small airways (SA) may be of value in the management of COPD. We aimed to identify the prevalence of BDR in the SA, utilizing maximal mid-expiratory flow (MMEF) as a measure of SA. We further evaluated the prevalence of BDR in MMEF with and without BDR in FEV1 and its association with baseline demographics, including conventional airflow obstruction severity and smoking history. Methods: Lung function data of ever-smoking COPD patients were retrospectively analysed. BDR was evaluated 20 min after administering 2.5 mg of salbutamol via jet nebulizer. Increase in percent change of ≥ 12% and absolute change of ≥ 200 ml was used to define a BDR in FEV1, whereas an increase percent change of MMEF ≥ 30% was used to define a BDR in MMEF. Patients were classified as one of three groups according to BDR levels: group 1 (BDR in MMEF and FEV1), group 2 (BDR in MMEF alone) and group 3 (no BDR in either measure). Result: BDR in MMEF was present in 59.2% of the patients. Of note, BDR in MMEF was present in all patients with BDR in FEV1 (group 1) but also in 37.9% of the patients without BDR in FEV1 (group 2). Patients in group 1 were younger than in groups 2 and 3. BMI was higher in group 1 than in group 3. Baseline FEV1% predicted and FVC % predicted were also higher in groups 1 and 2 than in group 3. Conclusion: BDR in the SA (evaluated by MMEF) is common in COPD, and it is also feature seen in all patients with BDR in FEV1. Even in the absence of BDR in FEV1, BDR in MMEF is detected in some patients with COPD, potentially identifying a subgroup of patients who may benefit from different treatment strategies.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherBMCen_US
dc.relation.urlhttps://bmcpulmmed.biomedcentral.com/en_US
dc.rights© 2022. The Author(s).
dc.subjectRespiratory medicineen_US
dc.titleThe prevalence of bronchodilator responsiveness of the small airway (using mid-maximal expiratory flow) in COPD - a retrospective study.en_US
dc.typeArticle
dc.source.journaltitleBMC Pulmonary Medicine
dc.source.volume22
dc.source.issue1
dc.source.beginpage493
dc.source.endpage
dc.source.countryUnited Kingdom
dc.source.countryEngland
rioxxterms.versionNAen_US
dc.contributor.trustauthorStockley, James A
dc.contributor.trustauthorStockley, Robert A
dc.contributor.trustauthorSapey, Elizabeth
dc.contributor.departmentOutpatient Departmenten_US
dc.contributor.departmentMedicineen_US
dc.contributor.roleMedical and Dentalen_US
oa.grant.openaccessnaen_US


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record