Gerald Stanley Zavorsky, Giovanni Barisione, Thomas Gille, Roberto W Dal Negro, Marta Núñez-Fernández, Leigh Seccombe, Gianluca Imeri, Fabiano Di Marco, Jann Mortensen, Elisabetta Salvioni, Piergiuseppe Agostoni, Vito Brusasco
{"title":"Enhanced detection of patients with previous COVID-19: superiority of the double diffusion technique.","authors":"Gerald Stanley Zavorsky, Giovanni Barisione, Thomas Gille, Roberto W Dal Negro, Marta Núñez-Fernández, Leigh Seccombe, Gianluca Imeri, Fabiano Di Marco, Jann Mortensen, Elisabetta Salvioni, Piergiuseppe Agostoni, Vito Brusasco","doi":"10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002561","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Persistent pulmonary dysfunction is common after COVID-19, yet traditional assessments using carbon monoxide diffusing capacity (DLCO) alone may miss alveolar-capillary impairment.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine whether combining nitric oxide (DLNO<sub>5s</sub>) and carbon monoxide (DLCO<sub>5s</sub>) diffusing capacities enhances detection of post-COVID-19 lung impairment and whether summed <i>z</i>-scores outperform individual measures in classifying affected individuals.</p><p><strong>Design and methods: </strong>We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis using hierarchical mixed-effects modelling. The dataset included 572 COVID-19 survivors and 72 matched controls from six European centres. Lung function metrics-including spirometry, total lung capacity, DLNO<sub>5s</sub> and DLCO<sub>5s</sub>-were standardised into <i>z</i>-scores. Logistic models were compared using Bayesian Information Criterion and Leave-One-Out Information Criterion. Classification accuracy was assessed with Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC) and net reclassification improvement (NRI). Principal Component Analysis examined score structures, and dyspnoea severity was correlated with z-scores. Assessments were conducted 32-575 days post-infection (median=130 days).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The number of days between SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis and testing did not affect any of the measured z-scores. Summed DLNO<sub>5s</sub> + DLCO<sub>5s</sub> <i>z</i>-scores consistently outperformed individual metrics. The combined model improved MCC by 0.06 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.11) and NRI by 37% (95% CI 13 to 62%) over DLCO<sub>5s</sub> alone. The top model summed DLNO<sub>5s</sub> + DLCO<sub>5s</sub> model explained 10% of fixed and 59% of random variance. DLCO<sub>5s</sub> alone failed to identify reduced membrane diffusion in approximately 16% of cases. Dyspnoea severity was significantly associated with all diffusion indices (p<0.001), though combined scores showed no stronger correlation than single predictors.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Summed DLNO<sub>5s</sub> + DLCO<sub>5s</sub> <i>z</i>-scores enhance classification of post-COVID-19 pulmonary impairment beyond DLCO<sub>5s</sub> alone. The NO-CO double diffusion approach offers improved diagnostic discrimination between previously infected individuals and controls and aligns with symptom severity. These findings support broader clinical integration of combined diffusion metrics in post-COVID assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":9048,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Respiratory Research","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12382503/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Respiratory Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002561","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Persistent pulmonary dysfunction is common after COVID-19, yet traditional assessments using carbon monoxide diffusing capacity (DLCO) alone may miss alveolar-capillary impairment.
Objective: To determine whether combining nitric oxide (DLNO5s) and carbon monoxide (DLCO5s) diffusing capacities enhances detection of post-COVID-19 lung impairment and whether summed z-scores outperform individual measures in classifying affected individuals.
Design and methods: We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis using hierarchical mixed-effects modelling. The dataset included 572 COVID-19 survivors and 72 matched controls from six European centres. Lung function metrics-including spirometry, total lung capacity, DLNO5s and DLCO5s-were standardised into z-scores. Logistic models were compared using Bayesian Information Criterion and Leave-One-Out Information Criterion. Classification accuracy was assessed with Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC) and net reclassification improvement (NRI). Principal Component Analysis examined score structures, and dyspnoea severity was correlated with z-scores. Assessments were conducted 32-575 days post-infection (median=130 days).
Results: The number of days between SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis and testing did not affect any of the measured z-scores. Summed DLNO5s + DLCO5sz-scores consistently outperformed individual metrics. The combined model improved MCC by 0.06 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.11) and NRI by 37% (95% CI 13 to 62%) over DLCO5s alone. The top model summed DLNO5s + DLCO5s model explained 10% of fixed and 59% of random variance. DLCO5s alone failed to identify reduced membrane diffusion in approximately 16% of cases. Dyspnoea severity was significantly associated with all diffusion indices (p<0.001), though combined scores showed no stronger correlation than single predictors.
Conclusion: Summed DLNO5s + DLCO5sz-scores enhance classification of post-COVID-19 pulmonary impairment beyond DLCO5s alone. The NO-CO double diffusion approach offers improved diagnostic discrimination between previously infected individuals and controls and aligns with symptom severity. These findings support broader clinical integration of combined diffusion metrics in post-COVID assessment.
期刊介绍:
BMJ Open Respiratory Research is a peer-reviewed, open access journal publishing respiratory and critical care medicine. It is the sister journal to Thorax and co-owned by the British Thoracic Society and BMJ. The journal focuses on robustness of methodology and scientific rigour with less emphasis on novelty or perceived impact. BMJ Open Respiratory Research operates a rapid review process, with continuous publication online, ensuring timely, up-to-date research is available worldwide. The journal publishes review articles and all research study types: Basic science including laboratory based experiments and animal models, Pilot studies or proof of concept, Observational studies, Study protocols, Registries, Clinical trials from phase I to multicentre randomised clinical trials, Systematic reviews and meta-analyses.