Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • ERS Guidelines
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart
  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • ERS Guidelines
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

Expression of bronchodilator response using forced oscillation technique measurements: absolute versus relative

C. Thamrin, C.L. Gangell, M.M.H. Kusel, A. Schultz, G.L. Hall, S.M. Stick, P.D. Sly
European Respiratory Journal 2010 36: 212; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00025310
C. Thamrin
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: cindy.thamrin@insel.ch
C.L. Gangell
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M.M.H. Kusel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
A. Schultz
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
G.L. Hall
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
S.M. Stick
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
P.D. Sly
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

To the Editors:

We refer to the recent study by Oostveen et al. 1 on bronchodilator response in 4-yr-old children with different wheezing phenotypes. The forced oscillation technique is particularly suited to 2–7-yr-old children, and its suitability to assess bronchodilator responsiveness is still being investigated. Thus, the study is of great clinical relevance and, though of a narrow age range, is a welcome step forward from previous studies characterising bronchodilator responses assessed using measures of airway resistance in preschool children 2–4. However, we would like to raise a point we feel to be of importance.

The authors argued for the case of using the absolute change pre- and post-bronchodilator to express a bronchodilator response in children assessed using forced oscillation technique (FOT) variables. They reasoned that expressing the response as a relative change from baseline homogenises the different responses of subjects with different baseline bronchomotor tone, reflected by their different baseline lung function values.

The reason we advocate the use of the relative over the absolute response assessed using airway resistance from oscillometric methods is that the absolute response is generally dependent on lung function at baseline 2, 4. Statistically, assessment of magnitude of a treatment effect should be adjusted for any differences between the groups or variability in the pretreatment values 5. For instance, for the forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) it has been pointed out that since the absolute change between repeated measurements is constant across patients with varying FEV1 levels, it is the absolute change that should be used when expressing any treatment differences 6. More accurately, expressing the bronchodilator response using the absolute change is valid provided this change is independent of the baseline value, otherwise the relative change should be used 7. Dependence on age or height can be accounted for using % predicted values. Note that expressing the bronchodilator response in terms of absolute changes in z-scores is statistically identical to using absolute changes when the data are homoscedastic, though it may still be useful to use z-scores when lung function is already expressed in this manner or if the data are heteroscedastic.

In more physiological terms, for airway resistance measures, the smaller the airway calibre (hence the larger the baseline resistance), the more profound the effect of any increases to airway calibre. Thus, the same change in airway calibre represents a larger effective change in a small airway than in a large airway. Bronchomotor tone should be reflected by changes to airway calibre upon the administration of a bronchodilator, rather than by baseline lung function per se. A larger baseline bronchomotor tone would thus result in a larger bronchodilator response and represents our signal of interest, but this signal needs to normalised by the effect of a smaller initial airway calibre. Therefore, we would argue that while expressing the response in terms of relative changes “homogenises” the difference between subjects, it is a difference attributable to a factor that is not the main effect of interest but rather can confound it, and therefore needs to be corrected for.

Until more data on how to express a bronchodilator response assessed using airway resistance become available, we would recommend that authors of individual studies first ascertain whether the change with bronchodilator is related to factors such as age, height and baseline lung function. If yes, then these factors should be taken into account, especially when subjects of a wide range of ages, height or baseline lung function are studied.

Footnotes

  • Statement of Interest

    None declared.

    • ©ERS 2010

    REFERENCES

    1. ↵
      1. Oostveen E,
      2. Dom S,
      3. Desager K,
      4. et al
      . Lung function and bronchodilator response in 4-year-old children with different wheezing phenotypes. Eur Respir J 2010; 35: 865–872.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    2. ↵
      1. Hellinckx J,
      2. De Boeck K,
      3. Bande-Knops J,
      4. et al
      . Bronchodilator response in 3–6.5 years old healthy and stable asthmatic children. Eur Respir J 1998; 12: 438–443.
      OpenUrlAbstract
      1. Nielsen KG,
      2. Bisgaard H
      . Discriminative capacity of bronchodilator response measured with three different lung function techniques in asthmatic and healthy children aged 2 to 5 years. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001; 164: 554–559.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    3. ↵
      1. Thamrin C,
      2. Gangell CL,
      3. Udomittipong K,
      4. et al
      . Assessment of bronchodilator responsiveness in preschool children using forced oscillations. Thorax 2007; 62: 814–819.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    4. ↵
      1. Altman DG,
      2. Doré CJ
      . Randomisation and baseline comparisons in clinical trials. Lancet 1990; 335: 149–153.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    5. ↵
      1. Vale JR,
      2. Gulsvik A,
      3. Kongerud J
      . Random error with the FEV1 = case for absolute values. Lancet 1981; 2: 313.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    6. ↵
      1. Cotes JE
      . Absolute FEV1 values. Lancet 1981; 2: 423.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    View Abstract
    PreviousNext
    Back to top
    View this article with LENS
    Vol 36 Issue 1 Table of Contents
    European Respiratory Journal: 36 (1)
    • Table of Contents
    • Index by author
    Email

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    Expression of bronchodilator response using forced oscillation technique measurements: absolute versus relative
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Print
    Citation Tools
    Expression of bronchodilator response using forced oscillation technique measurements: absolute versus relative
    C. Thamrin, C.L. Gangell, M.M.H. Kusel, A. Schultz, G.L. Hall, S.M. Stick, P.D. Sly
    European Respiratory Journal Jul 2010, 36 (1) 212; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00025310

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero

    Share
    Expression of bronchodilator response using forced oscillation technique measurements: absolute versus relative
    C. Thamrin, C.L. Gangell, M.M.H. Kusel, A. Schultz, G.L. Hall, S.M. Stick, P.D. Sly
    European Respiratory Journal Jul 2010, 36 (1) 212; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00025310
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
    Full Text (PDF)

    Jump To

    • Article
      • Footnotes
      • REFERENCES
    • Info & Metrics
    • PDF

    Subjects

    • Lung structure and function
    • Paediatric pulmonology
    • Tweet Widget
    • Facebook Like
    • Google Plus One

    More in this TOC Section

    • Clinical outcomes of bronchiectasis in India
    • Reply: Clinical outcomes of bronchiectasis in India
    • Risk factors for disease progression in fibrotic hypersensitivity pneumonitis
    Show more Correspondence

    Related Articles

    Navigate

    • Home
    • Current issue
    • Archive

    About the ERJ

    • Journal information
    • Editorial board
    • Press
    • Permissions and reprints
    • Advertising

    The European Respiratory Society

    • Society home
    • myERS
    • Privacy policy
    • Accessibility

    ERS publications

    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS books online
    • ERS Bookshop

    Help

    • Feedback

    For authors

    • Instructions for authors
    • Publication ethics and malpractice
    • Submit a manuscript

    For readers

    • Alerts
    • Subjects
    • Podcasts
    • RSS

    Subscriptions

    • Accessing the ERS publications

    Contact us

    European Respiratory Society
    442 Glossop Road
    Sheffield S10 2PX
    United Kingdom
    Tel: +44 114 2672860
    Email: journals@ersnet.org

    ISSN

    Print ISSN:  0903-1936
    Online ISSN: 1399-3003

    Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society