Purpose: The way in which spirometry is interpreted can lead to misdiagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) resulting in inappropriate treatment. We compared the clinical relevance of 2 criteria for defining a low ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1 second to forced vital capacity (FEV1/FVC): the fixed ratio and the lower limit of normal.
Methods: We analyzed data from the cross-sectional phase of the population-based Canadian Cohort of Obstructive Lung Disease (CanCOLD) study. We determined associations of the spirometric criteria for airflow limitation with patient-reported adverse outcomes, including respiratory symptoms, disability, health status, exacerbations, and cardiovascular disease. Sensitivity analyses were used to explore the impact of age and severity of airflow limitation on these associations.
Results: We analyzed data from 4,882 patients aged 40 years and older. The prevalence of airflow limitation was 17% by fixed ratio and 11% by lower limit of normal. Patients classified as having airflow limitation by fixed ratio only had generally small, nonsignificant increases in the odds of adverse outcomes. Patients having airflow limitation based on both fixed ratio and lower limit of normal had larger, significant increases in odds. But strongest associations were seen for patients who had airflow limitation by both fixed ratio and lower limit of normal and also had a low FEV1, defined as one less than 80% of the predicted value.
Conclusions: Our results suggest that use of the fixed ratio alone may lead to misdiagnosis of COPD. A diagnosis established by both a low FEV1/FVC (according to fixed ratio and/or lower limit of normal) and a low FEV1 is strongly associated with clinical outcomes. Guidelines should be reconsidered to require both spirometry abnormalities so as to reduce overdiagnosis of COPD.
Keywords: COPD; FEV1; clinical relevance; diagnosis; fixed ratio; lower limit of normal; lung diseases; spirometry.
© 2015 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.