Race-Specific Interpretation of Spirometry: Impact on the Lung Allocation Score

Rationale: Interpretation of spirometry using race-specific reference equations may contribute to health disparities via underestimation of the degree of lung function impairment in Black patients. The use of race-specific equations may differentially affect patients with severe respiratory disease via the use of percentage predicted forced vital capacity (FVCpp) when included in the lung allocation score (LAS), the primary determinant of priority for lung transplantation. Objectives: To determine the impact of a race-specific versus a race-neutral approach to spirometry interpretation on the LAS among adults listed for lung transplantation in the United States. Methods: We developed a cohort from the United Network for Organ Sharing database including all White and Black adults listed for lung transplantation between January 7, 2009, and February 18, 2015. The LAS at listing was calculated for each patient under race-specific and race-neutral approaches, using the FVCpp generated from the Global Lung Function Initiative equation corresponding to each patient's race (race-specific) or from the Global Lung Function Initiative "other" (race-neutral) equation. Differences in LAS between approaches were compared by race, with positive values indicating a higher LAS under the race-neutral approach. Results: In this cohort of 8,982 patients, 90.3% were White and 9.7% were Black. The mean FVCpp was 4.4% higher versus 3.8% lower among White versus Black patients (P < 0.001) under a race-neutral compared with a race-specific approach. Compared with White patients, Black patients had a higher mean LAS under both a race-specific (41.9 vs. 43.9; P < 0.001) and a race-neutral (41.3 vs. 44.3; P < 0.001) approach. However, the mean difference in LAS under a race-neutral approach was 20.6 versus 10.6 for White versus Black patients (P < 0.001). Differences in LAS under a race-neutral approach were most pronounced for those in group B (pulmonary vascular disease) (20.71 vs. 10.70; P < 0.001) and group D (restrictive lung disease) (20.78 vs. 10.68; P < 0.001). Conclusions: A race-specific approach to spirometry interpretation has potential to adversely affect the care of Black patients with advanced respiratory disease. Compared with a race-neutral approach, a race-specific approach resulted in lower LASs for Black patients and higher LASs for White patients, which may have contributed to racially biased allocation of lung transplantation. The future use of race-specific equations must be carefully considered.