FEV1/FEV6 in Primary Care Is a Reliable and Easy Method for the Diagnosis of COPD. Wang Shengyu,Gong Wei,Tian Yao,Zhou Jing Respiratory care BACKGROUND:FEV6 can be used as a convenient alternative to FVC. The aim of this study was to determine an alternative to the fixed cutoff points of FEV1/FVC <0.70 suitable for FEV1/FEV6 in primary care. METHODS:Pulmonary function testing was conducted on volunteers recruited from 4 community centers in Xi'an, China, between July and August 2012. Participants underwent 3 FVC maneuvers. The maneuver with the best FEV1 was retained. FVC, FEV1, and FEV6 were measured by portable spirometer. The receiver operating characteristic curves that corresponded to the optimal combination of sensitivity and specificity for FEV1/FEV6 were determined. A kappa test was used to compare the agreement between FEV1/FVC and FEV1/FEV6. The positive predictive value and negative predictive value were also calculated. RESULTS:A total of 767 volunteers participated in this study, of whom 297 were male and 470 were female. Considering FEV1/FVC <0.70 as the accepted standard for COPD, the area under the curve was 98% (P < .001), and the FEV1/FEV6 cutoff, corresponding to the greatest sum of sensitivity and specificity, was 0.72. For the total population, the FEV1/FEV6 sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 96.9, 98.8, 95.8, and 99.2%, respectively. The agreement between the 2 cutoff points was excellent, and the kappa value was 0.954. CONCLUSIONS:FEV1/FEV6 <0.72 can be used in primary care as a valid alternative to FEV1/FVC <0.70 as a fixed cutoff point for the detection of COPD in adults. This study suggests that FEV1/FEV6 is an effective and well validated option that should be used in primary care to detect COPD, which is a rampant problem. 10.4187/respcare.04348

Cut-off value of FEV1/FEV6 as a surrogate for FEV1/FVC for detecting airway obstruction in a Korean population. Chung Kyung Soo,Jung Ji Ye,Park Moo Suk,Kim Young Sam,Kim Se Kyu,Chang Joon,Song Joo Han International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease BACKGROUND:Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)/forced expiratory volume in 6 seconds (FEV6) has been proposed as an alternative to FEV1/forced vital capacity (FVC) for detecting airway obstruction. A fixed cut-off value for FEV1/FEV6 in a Korean population is lacking. We investigated a fixed cut-off for FEV1/FEV6 as a surrogate for FEV1/FVC for detecting airway obstruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We used data obtained in the 5 years of the Fifth and Sixth Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. A total of 14,978 participants aged ≥40 years who underwent spirometry adequately were the study cohort. "Airway obstruction" was a fixed cut-off FEV1/FVC <70% according to the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease guidelines. We also used European Respiratory Society/Global Lung Initiative 2012 equations for the FEV1/FVC lower limit of normal. RESULTS:Among the 14,978 participants (43.5% male, 56.5% female; mean age: 56.9 years for men and 57.0 years for women), 14.0% had obstructive lung function according to a fixed cut-off FEV1/FVC <70%. Optimal FEV1/FEV6 cut-off for predicting FEV1/FVC <70% was 75% using receiver operating characteristic curve analyses (area under receiver operating characteristic curve =0.989, 95% confidence interval 0.987-0.990). This fixed cut-off of FEV1/FEV6 showed 93.8% sensitivity, 94.8% specificity, 74.7% positive predictive value, 98.9% negative predictive value, and 0.8 Cohen's kappa coefficient. When compared with FEV1/FVC < lower limit of normal, FEV1/FEV6 <75% tended to over-diagnose airflow limitation (just like a fixed cut-off of FEV1/FVC <70%). When grouped according to age and FEV1 (%), FEV1/FEV6 <75% diagnosed more airway obstruction in older participants and mild-moderate stages compared with FEV1/FVC <70%. CONCLUSION:A valid fixed cut-off for detecting airway obstruction in a Korean population is FEV1/FEV6 of 75%, but should be used with caution in older individuals and those with mild-moderate airway obstruction. 10.2147/COPD.S113568

Cut-off value of FEV1/FEV6 to determine airflow limitation using handheld spirometry in subjects with risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Hwang Yong Il,Kim Youlim,Rhee Chin Kook,Kim Deog Kyeom,Park Yong Bum,Yoo Kwang Ha,Jung Ki-Suck,Lee Chang Youl The Korean journal of internal medicine BACKGROUND/AIMS:Postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) less than 0.7 using spirometry is the golden standard to diagnose airf low limitation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Recently, measuring FEV6 has been suggested as an alternative to measure FVC. Studies about the cut-off value for FEV1/FEV6 to diagnose airflow limitation have shown variable results, with values between 0.7 and 0.8. The purpose of this study was to determine the best cut-off value of FEV1/FEV6 to detect airflow limitation using handheld spirometry. METHODS:We recruited subjects over 40 years of age with smoking history over 10 pack-years. Participants underwent measurements with both handheld spirometry and conventional spirometry. We calculated the sensitivity and specificity of the value of FEV1/FEV6 using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis to obtain the diagnostic accuracy of handheld spirometry to detect airflow limitation. RESULTS:A total of 290 subjects were enrolled. Their mean age and smoking amount were 63.1 years and 31.6 pack-years, respectively. According to our ROC curve analysis, when FEV1/FEV6 ratio was 73%, sensitivity and specificity were the maximum and the area under the ROC curve was 0.93, showing an excellent diagnostic accuracy. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 86.7%, 89.7%, 88.0%, and 88.5%, respectively. Participants with FEV1/FEV6 ≤ 73% had lower FEV1 predicted value compared to those with FEV1/FEV6 > 73% (65.4% vs. 86.5%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION:In summary, we demonstrate that the value of 73% in FEV1/FEV6 using handheld spirometry has the best sensitivity and specificity to detect airflow limitation in subjects with risk of COPD. 10.3904/kjim.2019.314