ERJ Open Research (Feb 2021)

Bronchodilator reversibility as a diagnostic test for adult asthma: findings from the population-based Tasmanian Longitudinal Health Study

  • Daniel J. Tan,
  • Caroline J. Lodge,
  • Adrian J. Lowe,
  • Dinh S. Bui,
  • Gayan Bowatte,
  • David P. Johns,
  • Garun S. Hamilton,
  • Paul S. Thomas,
  • Michael J. Abramson,
  • E. Haydn Walters,
  • Jennifer L. Perret,
  • Shyamali C. Dharmage

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1183/23120541.00042-2020
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 7, no. 1

Abstract

Read online

Bronchodilator reversibility (BDR) is often used as a diagnostic test for adult asthma. However, there has been limited assessment of its diagnostic utility. We aimed to determine the discriminatory accuracy of common BDR cut-offs in the context of current asthma and asthma–COPD overlap (ACO) in a middle-aged community sample. The Tasmanian Longitudinal Health Study is a population-based cohort first studied in 1968 (n=8583). In 2012, participants completed respiratory questionnaires and spirometry (n=3609; mean age 53 years). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were fitted for current asthma and ACO using continuous BDR measurements. Diagnostic parameters were calculated for different categorical cut-offs. Area under the ROC curve (AUC) was highest when BDR was expressed as change in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) as a percentage of initial FEV1, as compared with predicted FEV1. The corresponding AUC was 59% (95% CI 54–64%) for current asthma and 87% (95% CI 81–93%) for ACO. Of the categorical cut-offs examined, the European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society threshold (≥12% from baseline and ≥200 mL) was assessed as providing the best balance between positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR−, respectively), with corresponding sensitivities and specificities of 9% and 97%, respectively, for current asthma (LR+ 3.26, LR− 0.93), and 47% and 97%, respectively, for ACO (LR+ 16.05, LR− 0.55). With a threshold of ≥12% and ≥200 mL from baseline, a positive BDR test provided a clinically meaningful change in the post-test probability of disease, whereas a negative test did not. BDR was more useful as a diagnostic test in those with co-existent post-bronchodilator airflow obstruction (ACO).