Prevalence and characteristics of adults with preserved ratio impaired spirometry (PRISm): Data from the BOLD Australia study
Rattachement africain : au. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Background: Individuals with Preserved Ratio Impaired Spirometry (PRISm), defined as FEV 1 /FVC ≥0.7 and FEV1 <80% predicted, are at higher risk of developing COPD. However, data for Australian adults are limited. We aimed to describe prevalence of PRISm and its relationship with clinical characteristics in Australia. Method: Data from the Burden of Lung Disease (BOLD) Australia study of randomly selected adults aged ≥40 years from six sites was classified into airflow limitation, PRISm, or normal spirometry groups. Demographic, clinical characteristics, and lung function were compared between groups. Results: Of the study sample ( n = 3518), 387 (11%) had PRISm, 549 (15.6%) had airflow limitation, and 2582 (73.4%) had normal spirometry. PRISm was more common in Indigenous Australian adults. Adults with PRISm had more frequent respiratory symptoms, more comorbidities, greater health burden and poorer quality of life than those with normal spirometry. Pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV 1 and FVC were lower in adults with PRISm than those with airflow limitation. Adults with PRISm were less likely to use respiratory medicine than those with airflow limitation (OR = 0.56, 95% CI 0.38–0.81). Conclusions: PRISm was present in 11% of adults in this study and they had similar respiratory symptoms and health burden as adults with airflow limitation.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Prevalence and characteristics of adults with preserved ratio impaired spirometry (PRISm): Data from the BOLD Australia study
- Date Crossref
- 22/01/2025
- Éditeur
- SAGE Publications
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.