We have located links that may give you full text access.
Use of Race-Specific Equations in Pulmonary Function Tests Impedes Potential Eligibility for Care and Treatment of Pulmonary Fibrosis.
Annals of the American Thoracic Society 2024 Februrary 23
RATIONALE: The use of race-specific reference values to evaluate pulmonary function has long been embedded into clinical practice; however, there is a growing consensus that this practice may be inappropriate and that use of race-neutral equations should be adopted to improve access to healthcare.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate if using race-neutral equations to assess percent predicted forced vital capacity (FVC%pred) impacts eligibility for clinical trials, antifibrotic therapy and referral for lung transplantation in Black, Hispanic/Latino, and White patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) Methods: FVC%pred values for patients from the Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation Patient Registry were calculated using race-specific (Hankinson 1999), race-agnostic (Global Lung Function Initiative [GLI]-2012), and race-neutral (GLI-2022 or GLI-Global) equations. Eligibility for ILD clinical trials (FVC%pred >45% and <90%), antifibrotic therapy (FVC%pred >55% and <82%), and lung transplantation referral (FVC%pred <70%) using GLI-2022 and GLI-2012 were compared with that of Hankinson 1999.
RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were available for 1882 patients (Black, n=104; Hispanic/Latino, n=103; White, n=1675), and outcomes were evaluated in 1531 patients with FVC%pred within ±90 days of Registry enrollment (Black, n=78; Hispanic/Latino, n=72; White, n=1381). Black patients were younger at consent and more likely to be female than Hispanic/Latino or White patients. Compared with GLI-2022, Hankinson's 1999 criteria misclassified 22% of Black patients, 14% of Hispanic/Latino patients, and 12% of White patients for ILD clinical trial eligibility; misclassified 21% of Black patients, 17% of Hispanic/Latino patients, and 19% of White patients for antifibrotic therapy eligibility; and misclassified 6% of Black patients, 14% of Hispanic/Latino patients, and 12% of White patients for lung transplantation referral. Similar trends were observed when comparing GLI-2012 with Hankinson 1999.
CONCLUSIONS: Misclassification of patients for critical interventions is highly prevalent when using Hankinson's 1999 criteria and highlights the need to consider adopting the race-neutral GLI-2022 for enhanced accuracy and more equitable representation in pulmonary healthcare. Our results make a compelling case for re-evaluating the use of race as a physiological variable and emphasize the pressing need for continuous innovation to ensure equal and optimal care for all patients, regardless of their race or ethnicity.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02758808 Primary source of funding: This analysis was sponsored by F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd./Genentech, Inc.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate if using race-neutral equations to assess percent predicted forced vital capacity (FVC%pred) impacts eligibility for clinical trials, antifibrotic therapy and referral for lung transplantation in Black, Hispanic/Latino, and White patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) Methods: FVC%pred values for patients from the Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation Patient Registry were calculated using race-specific (Hankinson 1999), race-agnostic (Global Lung Function Initiative [GLI]-2012), and race-neutral (GLI-2022 or GLI-Global) equations. Eligibility for ILD clinical trials (FVC%pred >45% and <90%), antifibrotic therapy (FVC%pred >55% and <82%), and lung transplantation referral (FVC%pred <70%) using GLI-2022 and GLI-2012 were compared with that of Hankinson 1999.
RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were available for 1882 patients (Black, n=104; Hispanic/Latino, n=103; White, n=1675), and outcomes were evaluated in 1531 patients with FVC%pred within ±90 days of Registry enrollment (Black, n=78; Hispanic/Latino, n=72; White, n=1381). Black patients were younger at consent and more likely to be female than Hispanic/Latino or White patients. Compared with GLI-2022, Hankinson's 1999 criteria misclassified 22% of Black patients, 14% of Hispanic/Latino patients, and 12% of White patients for ILD clinical trial eligibility; misclassified 21% of Black patients, 17% of Hispanic/Latino patients, and 19% of White patients for antifibrotic therapy eligibility; and misclassified 6% of Black patients, 14% of Hispanic/Latino patients, and 12% of White patients for lung transplantation referral. Similar trends were observed when comparing GLI-2012 with Hankinson 1999.
CONCLUSIONS: Misclassification of patients for critical interventions is highly prevalent when using Hankinson's 1999 criteria and highlights the need to consider adopting the race-neutral GLI-2022 for enhanced accuracy and more equitable representation in pulmonary healthcare. Our results make a compelling case for re-evaluating the use of race as a physiological variable and emphasize the pressing need for continuous innovation to ensure equal and optimal care for all patients, regardless of their race or ethnicity.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02758808 Primary source of funding: This analysis was sponsored by F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd./Genentech, Inc.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Prevention and treatment of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke in people with diabetes mellitus: a focus on glucose control and comorbidities.Diabetologia 2024 April 17
British Society for Rheumatology guideline on management of adult and juvenile onset Sjögren disease.Rheumatology 2024 April 17
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Albumin: a comprehensive review and practical guideline for clinical use.European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2024 April 13
Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Clinical Pearls for Primary Care Providers and Gastroenterologists.Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2024 April
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app