Abstract
Introduction
In pediatric patients with asthma, measurements of forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) may be normal or may not correlate with symptom severity. Forced expiratory flow at 25–75% of the vital capacity (FEF25–75%) is a potentially more sensitive parameter for assessing peripheral airway function. This post hoc analysis compared FEF25–75% with FEV1 as an endpoint to assess bronchodilator responsiveness in children with asthma.
Methods
Change from baseline in trough FEF25–75% and trough FEV1 following treatment with either tiotropium (5 µg or 2.5 µg) or placebo Respimat® was analyzed in four phase III trials in children (aged 6–11 years) and adolescents (aged 12–17 years) with symptomatic moderate (VivaTinA-asthma® and PensieTinA-asthma®) and mild (CanoTinA-asthma® and RubaTinA-asthma®) asthma. Data from all treatment arms were pooled and correlations between FEF25–75% and FEV1 were calculated and analyzed.
Results
A total of 1590 patients were included in the analysis. Tiotropium Respimat® consistently improved FEF25–75% and FEV1 versus placebo, although in adolescents with severe asthma, the observed improvements were not statistically significant. Improvements in FEF25–75% response with tiotropium versus placebo were largely more pronounced than improvements in FEV1. Statistical assessment of the correlation of FEV1 and FEF25–75% showed moderate-to-high correlations (Pearson’s correlation coefficients 0.73–0.80).
Conclusions
In pediatric patients, FEF25–75% may be a more sensitive measure to detect treatment response, certainly to tiotropium, than FEV1 and should be evaluated as an additional lung function measurement.
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Interpretation of lung function data from children and adolescents can be challenging because standard measures such as forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) do not always correlate with symptom severity. |
Forced expiratory flow at 25–75% of the vital capacity (FEF25–75%) could be a more sensitive measure of peripheral airway function than FEV1 in these patients. |
Using pooled data from four phase III trials in patients with asthma aged 6–17 years, we investigated change from baseline in trough FEF25–75% and FEV1 following treatment with either tiotropium (5 µg or 2.5 µg) or placebo Respimat®. Trough was defined as the pre-dose FEF25–75% or FEV1, respectively, measured 24 h post previous drug administration, 10 min prior to the evening dose of usual asthma medication and daily dose of randomized treatment. |
Tiotropium Respimat® consistently improved FEF25–75% and FEV1 versus placebo, with improvements in FEF25–75% largely more pronounced than those seen in FEV1. Improvements were statistically significant versus placebo except in adolescents with severe asthma. |
FEF25–75% may be a more sensitive measure to detect treatment response, certainly to tiotropium, than FEV1 and should be evaluated as an additional lung function measurement in pediatric patients. |
Commentary
Assessment of standard measures of lung function can be more challenging in children and adolescents compared with adults. Whilst forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) is accepted as a standard measure of lung function in adults with asthma, it is often found to be normal in pediatric patients, and measurements may not always correlate with symptom severity [1].
Forced expiratory flow at 25–75% of the vital capacity (FEF25–75%) is potentially a more sensitive parameter than FEV1 for assessing changes in peripheral airway function in pediatric patients [2, 3]. Indeed, Vilozni et al. reported that FEF25–75% was a more numerically sensitive index than FEV1 in detecting airway obstruction and response to bronchodilators [4]. However, current data on the value of FEF25–75% compared with FEV1 are limited. FEF25–75% has been described as less effort-dependent than FEV1 and is a measurement of small airway dysfunction [2, 3]. In a study comparing children aged 10–18 years with normal FEV1 (> 80% predicted) and FEF25–75% (> 60% predicted) with those who had normal FEV1 (> 80% predicted) and low FEF25–75%, reduced FEF25–75% in the presence of normal FEV1 was associated with increased asthma severity and reversible airflow obstruction [2, 3]. However, it was noted that there is no guideline regarding normal values for FEF25–75% in children, therefore the authors defined normal FEF25–75% as > 60% predicted, using a value corresponding to 1 standard deviation from the mean FEF25–75% obtained from the initial cohort [3]. A separate study supported this finding proposing FEF25–75% > 65% predicted as normal [5].
Since FEF25–75% correlates well with bronchodilator responsiveness in children with asthma and may reflect peripheral airway obstruction in the presence of a normal FEV1 [2, 3], this prompted the evaluation of this parameter in relation to the long-acting muscarinic antagonist bronchodilator tiotropium.
Tiotropium Respimat® (Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany) has been shown to improve different measures of lung function in clinical studies with both children and adolescents, including FEF25–75% [6,7,8,9]. This is a post hoc analysis of four placebo-controlled trials in children and adolescents with symptomatic asthma who remained uncontrolled despite maintenance therapy (inhaled corticosteroids ± long-acting β2-agonist ± leukotriene receptor antagonist, Table 1). We compare the change in trough FEF25–75% and trough FEV1 (defined as the pre-dose FEF25–75% or FEV1, respectively, measured 24 h post previous drug administration, 10 min prior to the evening dose of usual asthma medication and daily dose of randomized treatment) following treatment with either tiotropium Respimat (5 μg or 2.5 μg) or placebo Respimat.
We analyzed data from four double-blind, parallel-group, randomized, placebo-controlled phase III trials: VivaTinA-asthma® (NCT01634152; a 12-week trial in 6 to 11-year-old patients with symptomatic severe asthma) [7], PensieTinA-asthma® (NCT01277523; a 12-week trial in 12 to 17-year-old patients with symptomatic severe asthma) [6], CanoTinA-asthma® (NCT01634139; a 48-week trial in 6 to 11-year-old patients with symptomatic moderate asthma) [8] and RubaTinA-asthma® (NCT01257230; a 48-week trial in 12 to 17-year-old patients with symptomatic moderate asthma) [9]. Details for each study have been published previously [6,7,8,9]. Each study was conducted in accordance with the amended Declaration of Helsinki. The ethics research boards of the respective institutions approved the protocols, and signed, informed consent was obtained from all patients and/or their parents [6,7,8,9].
We compared change from baseline in trough FEV1 and trough FEF25–75% at the time of the primary endpoint (PensieTinA- and VivaTinA-asthma at week 12; RubaTinA- and CanoTinA-asthma at week 24), and analyzed correlations between FEF25–75% response and FEV1 response at these time points. Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated between trough FEV1 and trough FEF25–75%, pooling data from all treatment arms. As measurement of FEF25–75% relies on accurate measurement of forced vital capacity (FVC), mean FEF25–75% was calculated from the maneuver (≥ 3 and ≤ 8 maneuvers per time point) with the largest total sum of FEV1 and FVC. Use and daily calibration of all spirometers used in the four pediatric trials discussed in this analysis met American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society criteria [10].
A total of 1590 patients were included in the analysis (Table 1). Across the trials in 6 to 11- and 12 to 17-year-old patients with moderate/severe asthma, tiotropium Respimat consistently improved trough FEV1 (Fig. 1a) and trough FEF25–75% (Fig. 1b) versus placebo; although in the PensieTinA-asthma study in adolescents with severe asthma, the observed improvements were not statistically significant, possibly due to a pronounced placebo response, which left little room for differentiation between the treatment groups [6].
Improvements in trough FEF25–75% response with tiotropium add-on therapy versus placebo were largely more pronounced than improvements in trough FEV1, as evidenced both by the numerical changes and the percentage difference, suggesting that trough FEF25–75% may be a more sensitive measure to detect treatment response, certainly to tiotropium, than trough FEV1. Statistical assessment of the correlation between changes in trough FEF25–75% and changes in trough FEV1 showed moderate-to-high correlations (0.73–0.80; Supplementary Fig. 1).
Even though assessment of FEF25–75% is not currently recommended in asthma guidelines, there are good arguments for its use to supplement FEV1 measurements, particularly in children with asthma. During the early stages of asthma, higher, near-normal FEV1 and FEV1/ FVC values may obscure airway involvement caused by an inflammatory process, whereas FEF25–75% may signify early functional airway impairment, especially of peripheral airways [11]. FEF25–75% may also better reflect small airways disease due to peripheral positioning of the airflow choke point in patients with mid-to-low lung volumes [2]. Compared with FEV1, low FEF25–75% may be a more sensitive indicator of childhood symptomatic asthma, whereas FEV1 in children can be normal, even in the presence of symptoms of uncontrolled asthma [3]. Indeed, in our study of children with symptomatic moderate or severe asthma, mean FEV1 percent predicted at baseline was predominantly in or just under the normal range (≥ 80%). It has been suggested that FEF25–75% may be a functional marker of asthma severity, whereby low FEF25–75% alongside normal FEV1 is associated with increased asthma severity, systemic steroid use, and asthma exacerbations in children [3].
Furthermore, FEF25–75% has been shown to correlate well with bronchodilator (short-acting β2-agonist) responsiveness in children with asthma who have normal FEV1 [2], and it may therefore be a helpful measure to predict which patients might benefit from further bronchodilation [2]. Certainly, in our study, FEF25–75% was useful in detecting treatment response to tiotropium. However, it should be noted that tiotropium, as a bronchodilator, may have other mechanisms of action affecting small as well as large airways, although there is currently no evidence of this. A previous study using a different bronchodilator, albuterol, with an alternative delivery device (pressurized metered dose inhaler), provided results in accordance with those reported here, further supporting the utility of FEF25–75% as a more sensitive measure of airway response to bronchodilators than FEV1 in children and adolescents with asthma, irrespective of delivery device [4].
FEF25–75% has certain limitations, including a larger variability than FEV1, particularly in adults, and its reliance on the valid measurement of FVC [12, 13]. As FVC and total lung capacity can be affected by disease progression or therapeutic interventions, FEF25–75% pre- and post-interventions may be not be comparable [13]. Ideally, measurements should be standardized for total lung capacity, but this is not usually feasible and the vital capacity is used as a proxy for lung size [13], and was not possible within this post hoc analysis. The potential lack of specificity means that FEF25–75% by itself may have limited diagnostic value. Quanjer et al. previously challenged both the usefulness of FEF25–75% as a clinical marker and the hypothesis that reduced mid-expiratory flows are specific for small airways disease [13]. Yet, this analysis provides further support to the literature that suggests the use of FEF25–75% may help in the identification of children and adolescents who may have a normal FEV1 but significant asthma symptoms, or who may require further evaluation from a healthcare professional or adjustments to their treatment regimen [14]. In addition, since this analysis of four studies is probably the largest to investigate the effect of a bronchodilator on FEF25–75% in children and adolescents with asthma, the suggestion that FEF25–75% should be used as an additional lung function measurement is appropriate.
In conclusion, our results strengthen the evidence that FEF25–75% should be evaluated as an additional lung function measurement in pediatric patients. Moreover, FEF25–75% may contribute as a measure to detect response to treatment.
References
Spahn JD, Cherniack R, Paull K, Gelfand EW. Is forced expiratory volume in one second the best measure of severity in childhood asthma? Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2004;169(7):784–6.
Simon MR, Chinchilli VM, Phillips BR, et al. Forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of vital capacity and FEV1/forced vital capacity ratio in relation to clinical and physiological parameters in asthmatic children with normal FEV1 values. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;126(3):527–34.e1-8.
Rao DR, Gaffin JM, Baxi SN, Sheehan WJ, Hoffman EB, Phipatanakul W. The utility of forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of vital capacity in predicting childhood asthma morbidity and severity. J Asthma. 2012;49(6):586–92.
Vilozni D, Hakim F, Livnat G, Ofek M, Bar-Yoseph R, Bentur L. Assessment of airway bronchodilation by spirometry compared to airway obstruction in young children with asthma. Can Respir J. 2016;2016:6.
Ciprandi G, Capasso M, Tosca M, et al. A forced expiratory flow at 25–75% value <65% of predicted should be considered abnormal: a real-world, cross-sectional study. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2012;33(1):e5–e8.
Hamelmann E, Bernstein JA, Vandewalker M, et al. A randomised controlled trial of tiotropium in adolescents with severe symptomatic asthma. Eur Respir J. 2017;49:1601100.
Szefler SJ, Murphy K, Harper T, et al. A phase III randomized controlled trial of tiotropium add-on therapy in children with severe symptomatic asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2017;140:1277–87.
Vogelberg C, Engel M, Laki I, et al. Tiotropium add-on therapy improves lung function in children with symptomatic moderate asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2018;6(6):2160–2.e9.
Hamelmann E, Bateman ED, Vogelberg C, et al. Tiotropium add-on therapy in adolescents with moderate asthma: a 1-year randomized controlled trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2016;138(2):441–50.e8.
Graham BL, Steenbruggen I, Miller MR, et al. Standardization of spirometry 2019 update: An official American Thoracic Society and European Respiratory Society technical statement. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;200(8):e70–e88.
Sposato B, Scalese M, Migliorini MG, Di Tomassi M, Scala R. Small airway impairment and bronchial hyperresponsiveness in asthma onset. Allergy Asthma Immunol Res. 2014;6(3):242–51.
Stanojevic S, Wade A, Stocks J, et al. Reference ranges for spirometry across all ages: a new approach. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2008;177(3):253–60.
Quanjer PH, Weiner DJ, Pretto JJ, Brazzale DJ, Boros PW. Measurement of FEF25-75% and FEF75% does not contribute to clinical decision making. Eur Respir J. 2014;43(4):1051–8.
Gibb E, Kaplan D, Thyne SM, Ly NP. Fef 25–75 as a predictor of asthma severity in children. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012;185:A6801.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all the patients and their families for participating in these trials, and they also extend their thanks to the investigators.
Funding
This study was supported and the journal’s Rapid Service fee was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim.
Medical Writing and/or Editorial Assistance
Kristina Standeven, PhD, at MediTech Media provided editorial assistance in the development of the manuscript, funded by Boehringer Ingelheim.
Authorship
All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this article, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given their approval for this version to be published.
Prior Presentation
This manuscript is based on work that has previously been published as an abstract (Goldstein et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2018; 197:A2024) and presented as a poster at the annual congress of the American Thoracic Society, May 18–23 2018, San Diego, USA.
Disclosures
Stanley J. Szefler has had funds come to institution for consulting for Aerocrine, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Novartis, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi and Teva, and has received research support from the National Institutes of Health, the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, GlaxoSmithKline and the Colorado Cancer, Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Disease Program. Stanley Goldstein reports fees for advisory boards from Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline and Regeneron, fees for lectures from Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline and Teva, and consulting fees from Novartis and Genentech. Christian Vogelberg reports study-related payments to their institution from Boehringer Ingelheim during the conduct of the study, and personal fees for advisory boards and lectures from Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis outside the submitted work. Eckard H. Hamelmann, George W. Bensch, and John Given have nothing to disclose. Branko Jugovic, Michael Engel, Petra M. Moroni-Zentgraf, and Ralf Sigmund are employees of Boehringer Ingelheim.
Compliance with Ethics Guidelines
This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any new studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Data Availability
The data sets analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Digital Features
To view digital features for this article go to https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12162027.
Electronic Supplementary Material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
41030_2020_117_MOESM1_ESM.pdf
Supplementary Figure 1. Correlation between trough FEV1 and trough FEF25–75% response. A. VivaTinA-asthma®; B. PensieTinA asthma®; C. CanoTinA-asthma®; D. RubaTinA-asthma®. PCC: <0.2, very weak correlation; 0.2–0.4, low correlation; 0.4–0.75, moderate correlation; 0.75–0.9, high and substantial correlation; 0.9–1.0, very high/certain correlation. Abbreviations: FEF25–75%, forced expiratory flow at 25–75% of the pulmonary volume; FEV1, forced expiratory volume in 1 second; PCC, Pearson’s correlation coefficient (PDF 317 kb)
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visithttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Szefler, S.J., Goldstein, S., Vogelberg, C. et al. Forced Expiratory Flow (FEF25–75%) as a Clinical Endpoint in Children and Adolescents with Symptomatic Asthma Receiving Tiotropium: A Post Hoc Analysis. Pulm Ther 6, 151–158 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41030-020-00117-6
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41030-020-00117-6