Background: The Lung Health Study (LHS), a 5-year, randomized, prospective clinical trial, studied the effects of smoking intervention and therapy with inhaled anticholinergic bronchodilators on FEV1 in participants who were 35 to 60 years of age and had mild COPD. Participants were randomized into the following three groups: usual care; smoking cessation plus inhaled ipratropium bromide; and smoking cessation plus placebo inhaler. This report evaluates the effects of these interventions, demographic characteristics, smoking status, and FEV1 changes on airway responsiveness (AR).
Methods and results: Of 5,887 participants, 4,201 underwent methacholine challenge testing both at study entry and study completion. All groups increased AR during the 5-year period. The increase in AR was greatest in continuing smokers and was associated with a greater FEV1 decline. An intent-to-treat analysis indicated no significant differences in AR changes among the three groups.
Conclusions: Changes in AR over a 5-year period in the LHS were primarily related to changes in the FEV1. The greater the decline in FEV1, the greater the increase in AR. Smoking cessation had a small additional benefit in AR beyond its favorable effects on FEV1 changes.
The Lung Health Study (LHS) was a multicenter clinical trial of the effect of smoking cessation intervention and ipratropium bromide inhalation on lung function decline in men and women with mild COPD. Participants underwent methacholine challenge tests to assess airways responsiveness (AR) at entry into the study and at the end of the study 5 years later. The primary results of the study showed that the smoking intervention program increased the proportion of those patients who sustained smoking cessation for the duration of the trial from 5% (control group) to 22% (intervention groups). Sustained smoking cessation had a beneficial effect on the rate of FEV1 decline. Ipratropium treatment showed an additional small but reversible beneficial effect on the decline in lung function. Continuous smokers showed nearly twice the annual loss of FEV1 as sustained quitters over the 5-year period (63 vs 34 mL per year).1–2
Initially, 63% of men and 87% of women showed a ≥ 20% fall in FEV1 with inhalation of ≤ 25 mg/mL methacholine, indicating airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR). Forty-six percent of the men and 74% of women showed AHR at a methacholine concentration of ≤ 10 mg/mL.3–
The significantly higher prevalence of AHR in women when compared to that of men could be accounted for almost entirely by adjusting for the initial FEV1.4
During 5 years of follow-up, persons with greater degrees of AR at study entry showed a greater longitudinal decline in FEV1.5
Only a few studies have reported longitudinal measures of AR in a large group of patients with COPD, and none have reported longitudinal changes in AR. Since the degree of AR is associated with the subsequent annual decline in FEV1, this is an important measurement in determining the prognosis of a patient with COPD. Since smoking status is associated with FEV1, it would be anticipated that this also might affect AR. The large LHS cohort that was closely observed for 5 years allowed us to analyze the effect of the treatment assignment, demographic characteristics, smoking status, and changes in FEV1 on 5-year changes in AR.
The study design, spirometric methodology, measurement of AR, and smoking intervention program all have been reported on in detail.3,6–8
A total of 5,887 cigarette-smoking participants with an FEV1 of ≥ 50% of predicted and < 90% of predicted, and an FEV1/FVC ratio of < 0.70 were enrolled into the study and randomized into one of the following three groups: usual care (UC); smoking cessation plus a special intervention with an ipratropium bromide inhaler (SIA); and smoking cessation plus a special intervention with a placebo inhaler (SIP). For safety and ethical reasons, methacholine provocation was not performed at the end of the study in those patients with the following conditions: (1) FEV1 < 50% of predicted; (2) previous methacholine provocation during which FEV1 fell to < 25% of predicted; (3) myocardial infarction within 3 months, unstable angina, or congestive heart failure; (4) participant refusal; and (5) lack of a suitable testing environment. A total of 4,201 participants had interpretable methacholine challenge tests performed at both baseline and at the final fifth annual visit (AV5B). Data from this group are analyzed in the present report.
Bronchial Provocation Procedure
The follow-up methacholine inhalation test was performed at the AV5B, which was scheduled to occur at least 40 h after the last dose of study drug. Those patients who were assigned to either ipratropium or placebo inhalers had their study inhalers collected at the initial fifth annual visit (AV5A). Due to difficulties in scheduling visits, 62 participants in the SIA group (4.2%) and 69 in the SIP group (4.7%) were tested < 40 h after the AV5A. The mean (± SD) interval between the AV5A and the AV5B was 40.6 ± 89.9 days. This allowed for the adequate washout of ipratropium and the avoidance of a rebound increase in AR following withdrawal from long-term ipratropium therapy.9
Participants were instructed to avoid theophylline and histamine compounds for 24 h, inhaled bronchodilators for 12 h, caffeine for 6 h, and cigarette smoking for 2 h prior to undergoing testing. Participants inhaled five inspiratory capacity breaths of increasing methacholine concentrations using a nebulizer (model 626; DeVilbiss; Somerset, PA) and a dosimeter. The nebulizer was connected to a pressure source at 20 lb per square inch, and the activation time of the dosimeter was 0.6 s. The concentrations of methacholine in citrated buffer (pH, 5.03) with 0.4% phenol included the following: diluent control; 1 mg/mL methacholine; 5 mg/mL methacholine; 10 mg/mL methacholine; and 25 mg/mL methacholine. After each level of methacholine, spirometry was performed. If the FEV1 fell to < 15% from the diluent level, five breaths of the next concentration were administered. If the FEV1 declined > 15% but < 20% from the diluent value, only three breaths of the next higher concentration was administered before repeating spirometry. If the FEV1 still did not fall by ≥ 20% from the diluent level, then the additional two breaths were administered, and spirometry was again performed. The session was completed when either the highest concentration was administered or there was a ≥ 20% fall in FEV1 compared to the FEV1 after the diluent inhalation.
AR was quantified by the 2-point slope of percentage decline in FEV1 from the postdiluent control value vs the methacholine concentration, with a constant added to the negative of the slope to compensate for the few positive slopes. The value was log-transformed for a less skewed distribution. Thus, AR is expressed as the log of the methacholine responsiveness (LMCR). The higher the number, the greater the AR (LMCR = log10 [0.681 − the 2-point slope]).5
Smoking status (biochemically verified by measurements of salivary cotinine and/or exhaled carbon monoxide levels) was defined by the following terms: (1) sustained quitters defined participants who were not smoking at any of the annual visits; (2) intermittent quitters defined participants who were not smoking at some but not all of the annual visits; and (3) continuous smokers defined participants who were smoking at all of the annual visits.
Participants were defined as having satisfactory adherence at annual visits if they reported taking ≥ 50% of the prescribed number of inhalations of medication over the preceding 12 months. Adherence with the assigned medication was categorized as follows: sustained satisfactory adherence was attained if a participant was adherent with medication use at all five annual visits; intermittent satisfactory adherence was attained if a participant was adherent at some but not all of the five annual visits; and not satisfactory adherence indicated a participant was not adherent at any of the five annual visits.
The results are reported either as the mean ± SD for descriptive statistics, or as the mean ± SEM or the 95% confidence intervals for comparative statistics. Multiple linear regression was used to determine the effect of specific characteristics, adjusted for all other characteristics of interest, on the change in AR using a statistical software package (SAS PROC GLM; SAS Institute; Cary, NC).10–11
Several models were constructed with likely candidate variables and interaction terms. The model presented in this report is the most parsimonious model that reasonably accounts for the changes in AR in this study group.
Demographics and Temporal Changes in Airways Reactivity
The clinical and demographic characteristics of the 4,201 participants in this study group are shown in Table 1
. The reasons for the exclusion of the data for the remaining 1,686 LHS participants are given in Table 2
. The study sample showed an overall increase in AR over the 5-year period, irrespective of treatment assignment, gender, or smoking status (Table 3
). The increase in reactivity for the entire group was small, approximately 0.12 LMCR units. At randomization, 4.1% of the group responded to 1 mg/mL methacholine, whereas 8.9% responded to this level at the AV5B. Cumulatively, 69.1% of the participants responded to ≤ 25 mg/mL methacholine at baseline, which increased to 76.8% at the AV5B (Fig 1
). Among the 1,297 individuals who did not exhibit a ≥ 20% decline in FEV1 in response to methacholine at baseline, 555 (42.8%) showed a positive response 5 years later. In contrast, among the 2,904 people who showed a ≥ 20% response at baseline, only 233 (8.0%) did not respond to the highest concentration used 5 years later.
Individual participants tended to retain the same level of responsiveness at follow-up as they had at baseline. The intraperson correlation of participants’ baseline responsiveness with values measured 5 years later was 0.70. Fewer than 17% of participants changed AR by two or more concentrations from their initial level, and more individuals had an increase than had a decrease in AR.
Effect of Gender, Cigarette Smoking, and FEV1 Changes on AR
Women tended to have higher levels of AR at baseline and tended to have increases in AR more than did men, but the gender difference was not statistically significant (Table 3)
Smoking status had a large effect on change in AR. Continuous smokers had almost twice the increase in AR of intermittent smokers (p < 0.001) and showed more than a threefold increase in AR compared to sustained quitters (p < 0.001) [Table 3]
. The change in FEV1 was inversely correlated with changes in AR. Decreases in the FEV1 were associated with increases in AR, and an increase in FEV1 correlated with a decrease or with less of an increase in this measurement (Fig 2
FEV1 at the time of the methacholine provocation test accounts for some of the variance in AR, and cigarette smoking status is associated with changes in FEV1. Therefore, we performed a multiple linear regression analysis to determine the contributions of several candidate variables to changes in AR when adjusted for the others (Table 4
). This analysis showed that there were significant independent and interactive effects of both smoking status and change in FEV1, but that a considerable degree of the smoking status effect could be accounted for by the changes in FEV1(Fig 2)
. An analysis of subgroups by quintile of change in FEV1 showed that continuous smokers and sustained quitters with the greatest declines in FEV1 had similar increases in AR. On the other hand, for patients in those groups with the least decline in lung function, there was a greater increase in AR among continuing smokers than among sustained quitters (p < 0.0001).
Another significant predictor of the change in AR was the age of the participants. Older participants showed relatively more of an increase in AR even after adjustment for change in FEV1, treatment group, gender, and smoking status (Table 4)
. There is some collinearity between the variables in that change in FEV1, with the change in LMCR and final smoking status all correlated. The treatment group also was correlated with the final smoking status.
Contribution of Drug Treatment Assignment to Changes in Airways Reactivity
Intent-to-treat comparisons showed that the smallest increase in AR occurred in the SIP group, and that the largest increase occurred in the UC group. After adjustment for other factors, including smoking status and change in FEV1, there was a tendency for the individuals assigned to the SIA treatment group to show greater increases in AR than those in the UC group. To determine whether this may have been related to the drug, we subdivided the SIA and the SIP treatment groups into strata based on self-reported adherence to the drug treatment. This analysis demonstrated that the participants who were most adherent to treatment with the placebo had the least increment in AR, whereas those who were in the lowest placebo adherence group had the greatest increment in AR. In comparison, the SIA group did not show a clear relationship of adherence to increases in responsiveness. Those in the highest and lowest strata of adherence showed the largest increments (Fig 3
). When persons in the strata with consistently high adherence were compared, those who were using ipratropium had more of an increase in AR than those who were using placebo (p = 0.0062 [SIA vs SIP groups for participants with sustained satisfactory adherence]). These analyses are subject to confounding by smoking behavior and inhaler usage as well as by the misclassification of true medication usage, due, in part, to deceptive excessive actuations of the inhaler (dumping).12
Those participants with the best adherence to their inhaler usage were also those who were able to stop smoking for the 5-year period. Since stopping smoking results in a more favorable change in FEV1 and since FEV1 is negatively correlated with changes in AR, then those participants with better inhaler adherence would be expected to have less of an increase in AR, or even a decrease.
Further analysis confirmed the results of the previous report9
that the apparent increase in the progression of AR in the SIA group could be accounted for by a transient increase in AR in people who recently had stopped using their ipratropium inhaler after actively using the inhaler during the study period (ie, a rebound effect). Those participants who had their AV5B visit > 40 h after stopping their inhaler usage did not have an increase in AR that was independent of changes in FEV1 and smoking status.
The main finding of this study was that there was an overall tendency for AR to increase over a 5-year period in this group of long-term smokers with mild-to-moderate COPD. This increase in AR occurred in persons in all the analyzed subgroups except for those who quit smoking and subsequently improved their pulmonary function. Increasing AR was more pronounced in women, continuous smokers, and those participants with the largest declines in FEV1. The unifying theme of our analyses was that factors associated with greater declines in FEV1 are also associated with greater increases in AR. In trying to separate the effects of smoking status from changes in FEV1 by linear regression and subgroup analysis, we noted a small benefit from smoking cessation on the change in AR that was not accounted for by the beneficial effect on the decline in FEV1. We could detect no benefit associated with the random assignment to ipratropium inhalation. Thus, in COPD patients, cross-sectional analysis demonstrates that AR is inversely correlated with FEV1, and longitudinal data analysis demonstrates that further declines in FEV1 result in a further increase in AR.
Longitudinal Changes in Airways Reactivity
Cross-sectional general population studies of middle-aged adults have demonstrated an increase in methacholine and histamine responsiveness with advancing age.13–15
Where it has been analyzed,16
however, much of the age-related change in methacholine reactivity can be statistically accounted for by the associated reduction in FEV1. In this study population, we did not observe a cross-sectional effect of age on the prevalence of AR, although baseline levels of lung function were important.,3
The reason for this discrepancy may be that the LHS study population encompassed a relatively narrow age range (ie, 35 to 60 years of age), all participants being cigarette smokers with airway obstruction, and thus had an initial high prevalence of AR in all age categories. This study group clearly does not represent a general population sample.
Bronchoprovocation challenge is a reproducible test over a period of time within two to three doubling concentrations.17–
There is seasonal variation in the repeatability of the results, especially in those persons with atopy.18
We tried to control for these variables in our analyses. Whenever possible, we tried to perform the study at the same time of day as the original study and within a 3-month window of the month and day of the baseline test. Also, the large number of participants in this study should help to control for these confounding variables.
We are unaware of previous studies of longitudinal changes in AR in persons with COPD. The Normative Aging Study19–
examined a 3-year follow-up of methacholine challenges in 435 people who had been selected from an initially healthy population sample. Little change in methacholine responsiveness was noted in this group of healthy individuals, who demonstrated a mean normal decline in FEV1 of 31 mL per year. In contrast, the persons in our study sample, who were selected for abnormal lung function, exhibited accelerated mean declines of 52 to 56 mL per year in the three study groups after the first annual visit. A Dutch random population study20
of 2,216 persons showed a tendency for AR to increase over study intervals of ≤ 18 years. It is likely that the latter study had greater sensitivity than did the Normative Aging Study because of the larger population and the longer interval in which age-related declines in lung function were observed. The present study of people with mild-to-moderate COPD shows that older individuals have greater increments in AR even after adjusting for changes in FEV1, smoking status, and other explanatory variables (Table 4)
The association between AR and FEV1 might be due to airway geometry in which resistance is inversely related to the fourth power of the radius of the airway. Thus, the smaller the radius, the greater the resistance. A change in radius from 3 to 2 mm will have a greater effect in increasing resistance than will a change from 10 to 9 mm. Another possible explanation may be that smaller airways have less of an internal surface area and less volume than large airways. Thus, the same dose of inhaled methacholine will be more concentrated when it reaches receptors in the walls of smaller airways. This also may be the reason that women have more AHR than their male counterparts.4
Cigarette Smoking and Airways Reactivity
Although the cigarette-smoking intervention in the LHS showed a significant benefit with respect to decline in lung function, the intention-to-treat analysis did not find a significant benefit of the treatment assignment itself for changes in AR. It is possible that this discrepancy reflects greater intraperson variability in measures of AR compared to FEV1, although the large number of participants should control for this as random changes in one direction should be balanced by random changes in others in the opposite direction. A second possibility is that persons with the lowest levels of lung function (ie, < 50% of predicted) at the end of the 5-year follow-up period were more likely to be in the UC group rather than in either the SIA or SIP groups and, thus, were excluded for safety reasons from the final bronchoprovocation study. Also, more UC participants refused the methacholine challenge at the AV5B (Table 2)
. Thus, more participants from the UC group in whom the FEV1 was the lowest at the AV5B were excluded from the present analysis than were those from the intervention groups. This could bias the results against finding a beneficial treatment effect on AR (ie, a “survivor effect”). A third possible explanation is that the progression of AR is a constitutional characteristic that is linked to the decline in FEV1 (ie, the “Dutch Hypothesis”) but that smoking cessation or drug intervention may abate the decline in FEV1 without affecting the progression of AR. Finally, the intention-to-treat analysis may not have had sufficient statistical power to detect changes between the groups since by the AV5B the difference in the number of current smokers among the groups had narrowed. In the SIA and SIP groups, only 22% were sustained quitters, and at each annual visit > 60% of those participants in the two intervention groups were smoking. In the UC group, the number of current smokers steadily declined, with almost 22% reporting abstinence at the AV5A.
The effect of cigarette smoking status on AR is somewhat controversial. Some general population studies14–15,21–22
have shown that cigarette smokers have greater AR, whereas others23–
have found this only in atopic individuals. A previous study24
of smokers with chronic cough has not shown an improvement in AR following 6 months of smoking cessation despite improvement in cough. The Normative Aging Study19
found that smokers who quit during a 3-year follow-up interval tended to have a decline in AR, but the results were of borderline statistical significance.
In the present study, we attempted to separate airway mechanical effects and smoking behavior using multiple regression models (Table 4)
and subgroup analyses (Fig 2)
. These analyses showed that most of the effect of smoking status on AR could be attributed to the attendant changes in FEV1 that are associated with smoking status. There was, however, an interaction between smoking status and change in pulmonary function such that continuing and intermittent smokers who demonstrated little change in lung function had greater increments in AR than sustained quitters with similar changes in their FEV1(Fig 2)
. Therefore, we think that there is a direct effect of cigarette smoking on the progression of AR, possibly due to inflammatory or neurogenic mechanisms, that is separable from the effect on lung geometry, although the effect is small.
Potential Limitations of the Study
It is possible that there was some unrecognized drift in our technique for methacholine testing over time, despite rigorous efforts to standardize our procedures. These procedures included centralized compounding of the methacholine solutions by a reference pharmacy, centralized calibration and distribution of the nebulizers and dosimeters, and rigorously standardized spirometric procedures.7
Concerns about the stability of methods are inherent in any longitudinal study design. Our confidence that the study group demonstrated a progression of AR is supported by similar cross-sectional findings in general population samples. Moreover, while concerns about the stability of the testing methods would limit the strength of our conclusions about the overall progression of AR in the population, secular changes should not bias the analysis of differences between subgroups of participants who were subjected to the same testing procedures. Another potential limitation of the study presented here is that those individuals with the lowest levels of lung function who died, who developed interval heart diseases, who had severe reactions at initial testing, or who refused subsequent testing were excluded from retesting. Since all of these criteria would tend to exclude individuals with the lowest lung function and the worst general health status, it is likely that our results would be biased toward showing less progression of AR. Because of the possibility that there was informative censoring of the responsiveness data, we must be somewhat guarded in interpreting the effect of the treatment assignment. Overall, however, we think that it is reasonable to conclude that factors that slow the decline in FEV1 will also slow the progression of AR.
In summary, we have found that a cohort of volunteers with mild-to-moderate COPD who enrolled in a clinical trial of smoking cessation and inhaled anticholinergic bronchodilator therapy showed continuing increases in AR. This progression was greater mainly in those who had the greatest decline in FEV1 but also occurred in older individuals and continuing smokers.
Appendix: List of Participants in the LHS Research Group
The principal investigators and senior staff of the clinical and coordinating centers, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, members of the Safety and Data Monitoring Board, and the Morbidity and Mortality Review Board are as follows.
Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH
M.D. Altose, MD (Principal Investigator); A.F. Connors, MD (Co-Principal Investigator); S. Redline, MD (Co-Principal Investigator); C.D. Deitz, PhD; and R.F. Rakos, PhD.
Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI
W.A. Conway, Jr., MD (Principal Investigator); A. DeHorn, PhD (Co-Principal Investigator); J.C. Ward, MD (former Co-Principal Investigator); C.S. Hoppe-Ryan, CSW; R.L. Jentons, MA; J.A. Reddick, RN; and C. Sawicki, RN, MPH.
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
R.A. Wise, MD (Principal Investigator); S. Permutt, MD (Co-Principal Investigator); and C.S. Rand, PhD (Co-Principal Investigator).
Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
P.D. Scanlon, MD (Principal Investigator); L.J. Davis, PhD (Co-Principal Investigator); R.D. Hurt, MD (Co-Principal Investigator); R.D. Miller, MD (Co-Principal Investigator); D.E. Williams, MD (Co-Principal Investigator); G.M. Caron; G.G. Lauger, MS; and S.M. Toogood (Pulmonary Function Quality Control Manager).
Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, OR
A.S. Buist, MD (Principal Investigator); W.M. Bjornson, MPH (Co-Principal Investigator); and L.R. Johnson, PhD (LHS Pulmonary Function Coordinator).
University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL
W.C. Bailey, MD (Principal Investigator and Associate Chief of Staff for Education, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Birmingham, AL); C.M. Brooks, EdD (Co-Principal Investigator); J.J. Dolce, PhD; D.M. Higgins; M.A. Johnson; and B.A. Martin.
University of California, Los Angeles, CA
D.P. Tashkin, MD (Principal Investigator); A.H. Coulson, PhD (Co-Principal Investigator); H. Gong, MD (former Co-Principal Investigator); P.I. Harber, MD (Co-Principal Investigator); V.C. Li, PhD, MPH (Co-Principal Investigator); M. Roth, MD (Co-Principal Investigator); M.A. Nides, PhD; M.S. Simmons; and I.P. Zuniga.
University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
N.R. Anthonisen, MD (Principal Investigator, Steering Committee Chair); J. Manfreda, MD (Co-Principal Investigator); R.P. Murray, PhD (Co-Principal Investigator); S.C. Rempel-Rossum, BS; and J.M. Stoyko.
University of Minnesota Coordinating Center, Minneapolis, MN
J.E. Connett, PhD (Principal Investigator); M.O. Kjelsberg, PhD (Co-Principal Investigator); M.K. Cowles, PhD; D.A. Durkin; P.L. Enright, MD (former Principal Investigator, Mayo Clinic); K.J. Kurnow, MS; W.W. Lee, MS; P.G. Lindgren, MS; S. Mongin, MS; P. O’Hara, PhD, (LHS Intervention Coordinator); H.T. Voelker, BS; and L. Waller, PhD.
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
G.R. Owens, MD (Principal Investigator); R.M. Rogers, MD (Co-Principal Investigator); J.J. Johnston, PhD; F.P. Pope, MSW; and F.M. Vitale, MA.
University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
R.E. Kanner, MD (Principal Investigator); M.A. Rigdon, PhD (Co-Principal Investigator); K.C. Benton, BA; and P.M. Grant, BS.
Safety and Data Monitoring Board
M. Becklake, MD; B. Burrows, MD; P. Cleary, PhD; P. Kimbel, MD (Chairperson; deceased October 27, 1990); L. Nett, RN, RRT (former member); J.K. Ockene, PhD; R.M. Senior, MD (Chairperson); G.L. Snider, MD; W. Spitzer, MD (former member); and O.D. Williams, PhD.
National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute Staff, Bethesda, MD
S.S. Hurd, PhD (Director, Division of Lung Diseases); J.P. Kiley, PhD (Project Officer); and M.C. Wu, PhD (Div. of Epidemiology and Clinical Applications).
Mortality and Morbidity Review Board
S.M. Ayres, MD; R.E. Hyatt, MD; and B.A. Mason, MD.
Table 1. Clinical and Demographic Characteristics at Baseline (n = 4,201)*
| Save Table
|Mean age at baseline, yr||48.1 ± 6.78|
|FEV1, % predicted||76.2 ± 8.8|
|FEV1/FVC ratio, %||63.7 ± 5.5|
|Cigarettes smoked per day||30.8 ± 12.8|
|LMCR||0.422 ± 0.362|
|Wheeze (highest reported level)|
| With colds||18.5|
| Apart from colds||27.2|
| Most days, nights||30.4|
|Shortness of breath (highest reported level)|
| Hurrying uphill||28.9|
| Walking with peers||5.8|
| Walking at own pace||1.9|
| Walking 100 yards||2.9|
|Dust or fume exposure||47.6|
Table 2. Reasons for Exclusion From Analysis
| Save Table
|Unanalyzable baseline test||196||67||74||55|
|Responded to diluent at baseline||39||15||15||9|
|Died in interval||147||52||44||51|
|No 5-year spirometry||311||94||108||109|
|FEV1 < 50% of predicted||315||94||95||126|
|Angina or congestive heart failure||33||13||9||11|
|Lowest FEV1 at baseline < 25% predicted||5||3||0||2|
|Diluent responders at AV5B||8||2||3||3|
|Incomplete test at AV5B||60||23||14||23|
Table 3. Reactivity at Baseline and Year 5 Reactivity Change*
| Save Table
|Group||No.||Baseline Reactivity||Year 5 Reactivity||5 Year Change in Reactivity||p Value†||p Value‡|
| Women||1,545||0.571||0.351||0.695||0.397||0.125||0.318||< 0.001||0.547|
| Men||2,656||0.335||0.340||0.454||0.388||0.119||0.294||< 0.001|
| Continuous smoker||2,177||0.404||0.341||0.569||0.390||0.166||0.286||< 0.001|
| Intermittent smoker||1,209||0.449||0.386||0.540||0.424||0.091||0.307||< 0.001||< 0.001|
| Sustained quitter||815||0.430||0.377||0.477||0.424||0.047||0.321||< 0.001|
| SIA||1,422||0.437||0.369||0.565||0.415||0.128||0.317||< 0.001|
| SIP||1,410||0.417||0.354||0.518||0.403||0.100||0.301||< 0.001||0.006|
| UC||1,369||0.411||0.362||0.546||0.405||0.135||0.289||< 0.001|
Figure Jump LinkFigure 1. The cumulative percentage of the study population responding with a ≥ 20% fall in FEV1 is shown for each of the sequential methacholine concentrations that were administered. The shift of the cumulative distribution upward and to the left indicates that there was an overall increase in responsiveness to methacholine during the study interval.Grahic Jump Location
Figure Jump LinkFigure 2. The mean change in AR (ie, ΔLMCR) is plotted against the change in FEV1 over the 5-year interval. Separate plots are made for each smoking category. The continuous-smoking group is shifted to the left, indicating a greater decline in FEV1 compared to the group of sustained quitters. The continuous-smoking group is shifted upward, indicating a tendency for a greater increase in AR for a given decline in FEV1. The effect of changes in FEV1, however, has greater influence on changes in AR than does smoking status.Grahic Jump Location
Table 4. Multivariate Analysis of Change in Airways Reactivity*
| Save Table
|Variable||Effect Size†||p Value|
|Male vs female gender||− 0.011||0.24|
| SIA vs UC||0.028||0.02|
| SIP vs UC||0.001||0.94|
| CS vs SQ||0.088||0.0002|
| IS vs SQ||0.055||0.0001|
|Age at baseline (per 10 yr)||0.045||0.0001|
|Change in FEV1 over 5 yr, L||− 0.399||0.0001|
|Change in FEV1 × smoking status|
| CS vs SQ||0.103||0.031|
| IS vs SQ||0.178||0.0006|
Figure Jump LinkFigure 3. The mean change in AR (ie, ΔLMCR) is plotted for each category of self-reported medication adherence in the smoking intervention groups. Error bars indicate the SEM for each subgroup.Grahic Jump Location
Anthonisen, N, Connett, J, Kiley, J, et al (1994) Effects of smoking intervention and the use of an inhaled anticholinergic bronchodilator on the rate of decline of FEV1.JAMA272,1497-1505. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
Scanlon, P, Connett, J, Waller, L, et al Smoking cessation and lung function in mild-to-moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the Lung Health Study.Am J Respir Crit Care Med2000;161,381-390. [PubMed]
Tashkin, D, Altose, M, Bleecker, E, et al The Lung Health Study: airway responsiveness to inhaled methacholine in smokers with mild to moderate airflow limitation.Am Rev Respir Dis1992;145,301-310. [PubMed]
Kanner, R, Connett, J, Altose, M, et al Gender difference in airway hyperresponsiveness in smokers with mild COPD.Am J Respir Crit Care Med1994;150,956-961. [PubMed]
Tashkin, D, Altose, M, Connett, J, et al Methacholine reactivity predicts changes in lung function over time in smokers with early chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Am J Respir Crit Care Med1996;153,1802-1811. [PubMed]
Connett, J, Kusek, J, Bailey, W, et al Design of the Lung Health Study: a randomized clinical trial of early intervention for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Control Clin Trials1993;14,3-19
Enright, P, Johnson, L, Connett, J, et al Spirometry in the Lung Health Study: I. Methods and quality control.Am Rev Respir Dis1991;143,1215-1233. [PubMed]
O’Hara, P, Grill, J, Rigden, M, et al Design and results of the initial intervention program for the Lung Health Study.Prev Med1993;22,304-315. [PubMed]
Newcomb, R, Tashkin, D, Hui, K, et al Rebound hyperresponsiveness to muscarinic stimulation after chronic therapy with an inhaled muscarinic antagonist.Am Rev Respir Dis1985;132,12-15. [PubMed]
SAS.. SAS/STAT users guide: version 6. 1990; SAS Institute. Cary, NC:.
SAS, I. SAS/STAT software changes and enhancements. 1996; SAS Institute. Cary, NC:.
Rand, C, Wise, R, Nides, M, et al Metered-dose inhaler adherence in a clinical trial.Am Rev Respir Dis1992;146,1559-1564. [PubMed]
Hopp, R, Bewtra, A, Nair, N, et al The effect of age on methacholine response.J Allergy Clin Immunol1985;76,609-613. [PubMed]
Burney, P, Britton, J, Chinn, S, et al Descriptive epidemiology of bronchial reactivity in an adult population: results from a community study.Thorax1987;42,38-44. [PubMed]
Rijcken, R, Schouten, J, Weiss, S, et al The relationship of non-specific bronchial responsiveness to respiratory symptoms in a random sample population.Am Rev Respir Dis1987;136,62-68. [PubMed]
Sparrow, D, O’Connor, G, Rosner, B, et al The influence of age and level of pulmonary function on nonspecific airway responsiveness.Am Rev Respir Dis1991;143,978-982. [PubMed]
Weeke, B, Madsen, F, Frolund, L Reproducibility of challenge tests at different times.Chest1987;91,83-89
Britton, J, Chinn, S, Burney, P, et al Seasonal variation in bronchial reactivity in a community population.J Allergy Clin Immunol1988;82,134-139. [PubMed]
Sparrow, D, O’Connor, G, Rosner, B, et al Predictors of longitudinal change in methacholine responsiveness among middle-aged and older men: the Normative Aging Study.Am J Respir Crit Care Med1994;149,376-381. [PubMed]
Rijcken, B, Schouten, J, Weiss, S, et al Long-term variability of bronchial responsiveness to histamine in a random population sample of adults.Am Rev Respir Dis1993;148,944-948. [PubMed]
Sparrow, D, O’Connor, G, Colton, T, et al Relationship of nonspecific bronchial responsiveness to the occurrence of respiratory symptoms and decreased levels of pulmonary function: the Normative Aging Study.Am Rev Respir Dis1987;135,1255-1260. [PubMed]
Malo, J, Filatraut, S, Martin, R Bronchial responsiveness to inhaled methacholine in young asymptomatic smokers.J Appl Physiol1982;52,1464-1470. [PubMed]
O’Connor, G, Sparrow, D, Segal, M, et al Smoking, atopy and methacholine airway responsiveness among middle-aged and elderly men: the Normative Aging Study.Am Rev Respir Dis1989;140,1520-1526. [PubMed]
Israel, R, Ossip-Klein, D, Poe, R, et al Bronchial provocation tests before and after cessation of smoking.Respiration1988;54,247-254. [PubMed]