Global, Race-Neutral Reference Equations and Pulmonary Function Test Interpretation

Author:

Moffett Alexander T.123,Bowerman Cole45,Stanojevic Sanja4,Eneanya Nwamaka D.236,Halpern Scott D.12378,Weissman Gary E.123

Affiliation:

1. Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

2. Palliative and Advanced Illness Research (PAIR) Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

3. Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

4. Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

5. Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

6. Renal-Electrolyte and Hypertension Division, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

7. Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

8. Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

Abstract

ImportanceRace and ethnicity are routinely used to inform pulmonary function test (PFT) interpretation. However, there is no biological justification for such use, and it may reinforce health disparities.ObjectiveTo compare the PFT interpretations produced with race-neutral and race-specific equations.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsIn this cross-sectional study, race-neutral reference equations recently developed by the Global Lung Function Initiative (GLI) were used to interpret PFTs performed at an academic medical center between January 2010 and December 2020. The interpretations produced with these race-neutral reference equations were compared with those produced using the race and ethnicity–specific reference equations produced by GLI in 2012. The analysis was conducted from April to October 2022.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcomes were differences in the percentage of obstructive, restrictive, mixed, and nonspecific lung function impairments identified using the 2 sets of reference equations. Secondary outcomes were differences in severity of these impairments.ResultsPFTs were interpreted from 2722 Black (686 men [25.4%]; mean [SD] age, 51.8 [13.9] years) and 5709 White (2654 men [46.5%]; mean [SD] age, 56.4 [14.3] years) individuals. Among Black individuals, replacing the race-specific reference equations with the race-neutral reference equations was associated with an increase in the prevalence of restriction from 26.8% (95% CI, 25.2%-28.5%) to 37.5% (95% CI, 35.7%-39.3%) and of a nonspecific pattern of impairment from 3.2% (95% CI, 2.5%- 3.8%) to 6.5% (95% CI, 5.6%-7.4%) and no significant change in the prevalence of obstruction (19.9% [95% CI, 18.4%-21.4%] vs 19.5% [95% CI, 18.0%-21.0%]). Among White individuals, replacing the race-specific reference equations with the race-neutral reference equations was associated with a decrease in the prevalence of restriction from 22.6% (95% CI, 21.5%-23.6%) to 18.0% (95% CI, 17.0%-19.0%), a decrease in the prevalence of a nonspecific pattern of impairment from 8.7% (95% CI, 7.9%-9.4%) to 4.0% (95% CI, 3.5%-4.5%), and no significant change in the percentage with obstruction from 23.9% (95% CI, 22.8%-25.1%) to 25.1% (95% CI, 23.9%- 26.2%). The race-neutral reference equations were associated with an increase in severity in 22.8% (95% CI, 21.2%-24.4%) of Black individuals and a decrease in severity in 19.3% (95% CI, 18.2%-20.3%) of White individuals vs the race-specific reference equations.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cross-sectional study, the use of race-neutral reference equations to interpret PFTs resulted in a significant increase in the number of Black individuals with respiratory impairments along with a significant increase in the severity of the identified impairments. More work is needed to quantify the effect these reference equations would have on diagnosis, referral, and treatment patterns.

Publisher

American Medical Association (AMA)

Subject

General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3