Evidence Hub

Impact of gastroesophageal reflux on longitudinal lung function and quantitative computed tomography in the COPDGene cohort

Baldomero AK, Wendt CH, Petersen A, Gaeckle NT, Han MK, Kunisaki KM, COPDGene Investigators

Respiratory research, 2020

5,728 participants · 11 citations

Abstract

Rationale: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common comorbidity in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and has been associated with increased risk of acute exacerbations, hospitalization, emergency room visits, costs, and quality-of-life impairment. However, it remains unclear whether GERD contributes to the progression of COPD as measured by lung function or computed tomography.

Objective: To determine the impact of GERD on longitudinal changes in lung function and radiographic lung disease in the COPDGene cohort.

Methods: We evaluated 5728 participants in the COPDGene cohort who completed Phase I (baseline) and Phase II (5-year follow-up) visits. GERD status was based on participant-reported physician diagnoses. We evaluated associations between GERD and annualized changes in lung function [forced expired volume in 1 s (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC)] and quantitative computed tomography (QCT) metrics of airway disease and emphysema using multivariable regression models. These associations were further evaluated in the setting of GERD treatment with proton-pump inhibitors (PPI) and/or histamine-receptor 2 blockers (H2 blockers).

Results: GERD was reported by 2101 (36.7%) participants at either Phase I and/or Phase II. GERD was not associated with significant differences in slopes of FEV1 (difference of - 2.53 mL/year; 95% confidence interval (CI), - 5.43 to 0.37) or FVC (difference of - 3.05 mL/year; 95% CI, - 7.29 to 1.19), but the odds of rapid…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 5,728 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free