沙丁胺醇致支气管扩张后乙酰胆碱激发试验PEF和FEV1变化的关系。

IF 2.1 Q3 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Pulmonary Medicine Pub Date : 2025-07-07 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1155/pm/7675935
Leon L Csonka, Antti Tikkakoski, Liisa Vuotari, Jussi Karjalainen, Lauri Lehtimäki
{"title":"沙丁胺醇致支气管扩张后乙酰胆碱激发试验PEF和FEV1变化的关系。","authors":"Leon L Csonka, Antti Tikkakoski, Liisa Vuotari, Jussi Karjalainen, Lauri Lehtimäki","doi":"10.1155/pm/7675935","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Asthma diagnosis can be confirmed by observing significant bronchodilator response (BDR) through peak expiratory flow (PEF) at home or forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV<sub>1</sub>) via spirometry in a clinical setting. We aimed to use the administration of salbutamol after a methacholine challenge test as a model of bronchodilation to study how accurately the change in PEF predicts improvement in lung function, as defined by an increase in FEV<sub>1</sub>. We analyzed 869 adult patients who were administered salbutamol after a methacholine challenge. To compare relative changes in PEF and FEV<sub>1</sub> during bronchodilation, we used regression analysis and constructed a Bland and Altman plot. ROC analysis, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and kappa coefficient assessed how precisely increases in PEF detected a 12% and 0.2-L improvement in FEV<sub>1</sub>. The average relative increase in FEV<sub>1</sub> was significantly greater than that in PEF. The area under the curve in the ROC analysis was 0.844 for PEF change to detect a 12% and 0.2-L increase in FEV<sub>1</sub>. The kappa values for changes in PEF and FEV<sub>1</sub> ranged from fair to moderate. BDR detected by the recommended 15% and 60 L/min cut-off for PEF identified less than half of true positives, while a 10% cut-off correctly identified close to 75% of them. PEF increase is not a reliable measure of BDR in comparison to FEV<sub>1</sub> increase, and a 10% improvement in PEF was the least inaccurate cut-off. Substituting the PEF meter with a handheld spirometer should be further investigated for asthma home monitoring.</p>","PeriodicalId":46434,"journal":{"name":"Pulmonary Medicine","volume":"2025 ","pages":"7675935"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12259322/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Relation of Changes in PEF and FEV<sub>1</sub> During Salbutamol-Induced Bronchodilation After Methacholine Challenge Test.\",\"authors\":\"Leon L Csonka, Antti Tikkakoski, Liisa Vuotari, Jussi Karjalainen, Lauri Lehtimäki\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/pm/7675935\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Asthma diagnosis can be confirmed by observing significant bronchodilator response (BDR) through peak expiratory flow (PEF) at home or forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV<sub>1</sub>) via spirometry in a clinical setting. We aimed to use the administration of salbutamol after a methacholine challenge test as a model of bronchodilation to study how accurately the change in PEF predicts improvement in lung function, as defined by an increase in FEV<sub>1</sub>. We analyzed 869 adult patients who were administered salbutamol after a methacholine challenge. To compare relative changes in PEF and FEV<sub>1</sub> during bronchodilation, we used regression analysis and constructed a Bland and Altman plot. ROC analysis, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and kappa coefficient assessed how precisely increases in PEF detected a 12% and 0.2-L improvement in FEV<sub>1</sub>. The average relative increase in FEV<sub>1</sub> was significantly greater than that in PEF. The area under the curve in the ROC analysis was 0.844 for PEF change to detect a 12% and 0.2-L increase in FEV<sub>1</sub>. The kappa values for changes in PEF and FEV<sub>1</sub> ranged from fair to moderate. BDR detected by the recommended 15% and 60 L/min cut-off for PEF identified less than half of true positives, while a 10% cut-off correctly identified close to 75% of them. PEF increase is not a reliable measure of BDR in comparison to FEV<sub>1</sub> increase, and a 10% improvement in PEF was the least inaccurate cut-off. Substituting the PEF meter with a handheld spirometer should be further investigated for asthma home monitoring.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46434,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pulmonary Medicine\",\"volume\":\"2025 \",\"pages\":\"7675935\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12259322/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pulmonary Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/pm/7675935\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pulmonary Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/pm/7675935","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

哮喘诊断可以通过在家中通过呼气峰流量(PEF)或在临床环境中通过肺活量测定法观察1 s内用力呼气量(FEV1)观察明显的支气管扩张剂反应(BDR)来证实。我们的目的是在甲胆碱激发试验后使用沙丁胺醇作为支气管扩张的模型,研究PEF的变化预测肺功能改善的准确性(由FEV1增加定义)。我们分析了869例在甲胆碱刺激后给予沙丁胺醇的成年患者。为了比较支气管扩张期间PEF和FEV1的相对变化,我们使用回归分析并构建Bland和Altman图。ROC分析、敏感性、特异性、阳性和阴性预测值以及kappa系数评估了PEF增加对FEV1改善12%和0.2 l的准确性。FEV1的平均相对增幅明显大于PEF。在ROC分析中,PEF变化检测到FEV1增加12%和0.2 l的曲线下面积为0.844。PEF和FEV1变化的kappa值范围从一般到中等。推荐的PEF临界值为15%和60 L/min时,检测到的BDR识别出的真阳性不到一半,而10%的临界值正确识别出了近75%的真阳性。与FEV1增加相比,PEF增加并不是衡量BDR的可靠指标,PEF改善10%是最不准确的截止值。应进一步研究用手持式肺活量计代替PEF计用于哮喘家庭监测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Relation of Changes in PEF and FEV<sub>1</sub> During Salbutamol-Induced Bronchodilation After Methacholine Challenge Test.

Relation of Changes in PEF and FEV<sub>1</sub> During Salbutamol-Induced Bronchodilation After Methacholine Challenge Test.

Relation of Changes in PEF and FEV<sub>1</sub> During Salbutamol-Induced Bronchodilation After Methacholine Challenge Test.

Relation of Changes in PEF and FEV1 During Salbutamol-Induced Bronchodilation After Methacholine Challenge Test.

Asthma diagnosis can be confirmed by observing significant bronchodilator response (BDR) through peak expiratory flow (PEF) at home or forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) via spirometry in a clinical setting. We aimed to use the administration of salbutamol after a methacholine challenge test as a model of bronchodilation to study how accurately the change in PEF predicts improvement in lung function, as defined by an increase in FEV1. We analyzed 869 adult patients who were administered salbutamol after a methacholine challenge. To compare relative changes in PEF and FEV1 during bronchodilation, we used regression analysis and constructed a Bland and Altman plot. ROC analysis, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and kappa coefficient assessed how precisely increases in PEF detected a 12% and 0.2-L improvement in FEV1. The average relative increase in FEV1 was significantly greater than that in PEF. The area under the curve in the ROC analysis was 0.844 for PEF change to detect a 12% and 0.2-L increase in FEV1. The kappa values for changes in PEF and FEV1 ranged from fair to moderate. BDR detected by the recommended 15% and 60 L/min cut-off for PEF identified less than half of true positives, while a 10% cut-off correctly identified close to 75% of them. PEF increase is not a reliable measure of BDR in comparison to FEV1 increase, and a 10% improvement in PEF was the least inaccurate cut-off. Substituting the PEF meter with a handheld spirometer should be further investigated for asthma home monitoring.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pulmonary Medicine
Pulmonary Medicine RESPIRATORY SYSTEM-
CiteScore
10.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信