New GOLD classification: longitudinal data on group assignment

Rationale: Little is known about the longitudinal changes associated with using the 2013 update of the multidimensional GOLD strategy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Objective: To determine the COPD patient distribution of the new GOLD proposal and evaluate how this classification changes over one year compared with the previous GOLD staging based on spirometry only. Methods: We analyzed data from the CHAIN study, a multicenter observational Spanish cohort of COPD patients who are monitored annually. Categories were defined according to the proposed GOLD: FEV1%, mMRC dyspnea, COPD Assessment Test (CAT), Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ), and exacerbations-hospitalizations. One-year follow-up information was available for all variables except CCQ data. Results: At baseline, 828 stable COPD patients were evaluated. On the basis of mMRC dyspnea versus CAT, the patients were distributed as follows: 38.2% vs. 27.2% in group A, 17.6% vs. 28.3% in group B, 15.8% vs. 12.9% in group C, and 28.4% vs. 31.6% in group D. Information was available for 526 patients at one year: 64.2% of patients remained in the same group but groups C and D show different degrees of variability. The annual progression by group was mainly associated with one-year changes in CAT scores (RR, 1.138; 95%CI: 1.074-1.206) and BODE index values (RR, 2.012; 95%CI: 1.487-2.722). Conclusions: In the new GOLD grading classification, the type of tool used to determine the level of symptoms can substantially alter the group assignment. A change in category after one year was associated with longitudinal changes in the CAT and BODE index

Finding the best thresholds of FEV1 and dyspnea to predict 5-year survival in COPD patients: the COCOMICS study

BACKGROUND: FEV1 is universally used as a measure of severity in COPD. Current thresholds are based on expert opinion and not on evidence. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify the best FEV1 (% predicted) and dyspnea (mMRC) thresholds to predict 5-yr survival in COPD patients. DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a patient-based pooled analysis of eleven COPD Spanish cohorts (COCOMICS). Survival analysis, ROC curves, and C-statistics were used to identify and compare the best FEV1 (%) and mMRC scale thresholds that predict 5-yr survival. RESULTS: A total of 3,633 patients (93% men), totaling 15,878 person-yrs. were included, with a mean age 66.4 ± 9.7, and predicted FEV1 of 53.8% (± 19.4%). Overall 975 (28.1%) patients died at 5 years. The best thresholds that spirometrically split the COPD population were: mild ≥ 70%, moderate 56-69%, severe 36-55%, and very severe ≤ 35%. Survival at 5 years was 0.89 for patients with FEV1 ≥ 70 vs. 0.46 in patients with FEV1 ≤ 35% (H.R: 6; 95% C.I.: 4.69-7.74). The new classification predicts mortality significantly better than dyspnea (mMRC) or FEV1 GOLD and BODE cutoffs (all p<0.001). Prognostic reliability is maintained at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years. In younger patients, survival was similar for FEV1 (%) values between 70% and 100%, whereas in the elderly the relationship between FEV1 (%) and mortality was inversely linear. CONCLUSIONS: The best thresholds for 5-yr survival were obtained stratifying FEV1 (%) by ≥ 70%, 56-69%, 36-55%, and ≤ 35%. These cutoffs significantly better predict mortality than mMRC or FEV1 (%) GOLD and BODE cutoffs

Mortality prediction in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease comparing the GOLD 2015 and GOLD 2019 staging: a pooled analysis of individual patient data

In 2019, The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) modified the grading system for patients with COPD, creating 16 subgroups (1A–4D). As part of the COPD Cohorts Collaborative International Assessment (3CIA) initiative, we aim to compare the mortality prediction of the 2015 and 2019 COPD GOLD staging systems. We studied 17 139 COPD patients from the 3CIA study, selecting those with complete data. Patients were classified by the 2015 and 2019 GOLD ABCD systems, and we compared the predictive ability for 5-year mortality of both classifications. In total, 17 139 patients with COPD were enrolled in 22 cohorts from 11 countries between 2003 and 2017; 8823 of them had complete data and were analysed. Mean±sd age was 63.9±9.8 years and 62.9% were male. GOLD 2019 classified the patients in milder degrees of COPD. For both classifications, group D had higher mortality. 5-year mortality did not differ between groups B and C in GOLD 2015; in GOLD 2019, mortality was greater for group B than C. Patients classified as group A and B had better sensitivity and positive predictive value with the GOLD 2019 classification than GOLD 2015. GOLD 2015 had better sensitivity for group C and D than GOLD 2019. The area under the curve values for 5-year mortality were only 0.67 (95% CI 0.66–0.68) for GOLD 2015 and 0.65 (95% CI 0.63–0.66) for GOLD 2019

New GOLD classification: longitudinal data on group assignment

In the new GOLD grading classification, the type of tool used to determine the level of symptoms can substantially alter the group assignment. A change in category after one year was associated with longitudinal changes in the CAT and BODE index

Large-scale external validation and comparison of prognostic models: an application to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Background: External validations and comparisons of prognostic models or scores are a prerequisite for their use in routine clinical care but are lacking in most medical fields including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Our aim was to externally validate and concurrently compare prognostic scores for 3-year all-cause mortality in mostly multimorbid patients with COPD. Methods: We relied on 24 cohort studies of the COPD Cohorts Collaborative International Assessment consortium, corresponding to primary, secondary, and tertiary care in Europe, the Americas, and Japan. These studies include globally 15,762 patients with COPD (1871 deaths and 42,203 person years of follow-up). We used network meta-analysis adapted to multiple score comparison (MSC), following a frequentist two-stage approach; thus, we were able to compare all scores in a single analytical framework accounting for correlations among scores within cohorts. We assessed transitivity, heterogeneity, and inconsistency and provided a performance ranking of the prognostic scores. Results: Depending on data availability, between two and nine prognostic scores could be calculated for each cohort. The BODE score (body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnea, and exercise capacity) had a median area under the curve (AUC) of 0.679 [1st quartile-3rd quartile = 0.655-0.733] across cohorts. The ADO score (age, dyspnea, and airflow obstruction) showed the best performance for predicting mortality (difference AUC(ADO) - AUC(BODE) = 0.015 [95% confidence interval (CI) = - 0.002 to 0.032]; p = 0.08) followed by the updated BODE (AUCBODE updated - AUCBODE = 0.008 [95% CI = -0.005 to +0.022]; p = 0.23). The assumption of transitivity was not violated. Heterogeneity across direct comparisons was small, and we did not identify any local or global inconsistency. Conclusions: Our analyses showed best discriminatory performance for the ADO and updated BODE scores in patients with COPD. A limitation to be addressed in future studies is the extension of MSC network meta-analysis to measures of calibration. MSC network meta-analysis can be applied to prognostic scores in any medical field to identify the best scores, possibly paving the way for stratified medicine, public health, and research

Finding the best thresholds of FEV1 and dyspnea to predict 5-year survival in COPD patients: the COCOMICS study

BACKGROUND: FEV1 is universally used as a measure of severity in COPD. Current thresholds are based on expert opinion and not on evidence. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify the best FEV1 (% predicted) and dyspnea (mMRC) thresholds to predict 5-yr survival in COPD patients. DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a patient-based pooled analysis of eleven COPD Spanish cohorts (COCOMICS). Survival analysis, ROC curves, and C-statistics were used to identify and compare the best FEV1 (%) and mMRC scale thresholds that predict 5-yr survival. RESULTS: A total of 3,633 patients (93% men), totaling 15,878 person-yrs. were included, with a mean age 66.4 ± 9.7, and predicted FEV1 of 53.8% (± 19.4%). Overall 975 (28.1%) patients died at 5 years. The best thresholds that spirometrically split the COPD population were: mild ≥ 70%, moderate 56-69%, severe 36-55%, and very severe ≤ 35%. Survival at 5 years was 0.89 for patients with FEV1 ≥ 70 vs. 0.46 in patients with FEV1 ≤ 35% (H.R: 6; 95% C.I.: 4.69-7.74). The new classification predicts mortality significantly better than dyspnea (mMRC) or FEV1 GOLD and BODE cutoffs (all p<0.001). Prognostic reliability is maintained at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years. In younger patients, survival was similar for FEV1 (%) values between 70% and 100%, whereas in the elderly the relationship between FEV1 (%) and mortality was inversely linear. CONCLUSIONS: The best thresholds for 5-yr survival were obtained stratifying FEV1 (%) by ≥ 70%, 56-69%, 36-55%, and ≤ 35%. These cutoffs significantly better predict mortality than mMRC or FEV1 (%) GOLD and BODE cutoffs

Demographic and clinical profile of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis patients in Spain : The SEPAR National Registry

Little is known on the characteristics of patients diagnosed with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) in Spain. We aimed to characterize the demographic and clinical profile of IPF patients included in the IPF National Registry of the Spanish Respiratory Society (SEPAR). This is a prospective, observational, multicentre and nationwide study that involved 608 IPF patients included in the SEPAR IPF Registry up to June 27th, 2017, and who received any treatment for their disease. IPF patients were predominantly males, ex-smokers, and aged in their 70s, similar to other registries. Upon inclusion, mean ± SD predicted forced vital capacity was 77.6% ± 19.4, diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide was 48.5% ± 17.7, and the 6-min walk distance was 423.5 m ± 110.4. The diagnosis was mainly established on results from the high-resolution computed tomography in the proper clinical context (55.0% of patients), while 21.2% of patients required invasive procedures (surgical lung biopsy) for definitive diagnosis. Anti-fibrotic treatment was prescribed in 69.4% of cases, 51.5% pirfenidone and 17.9% nintedanib, overall with a good safety profile. The SEPAR IPF Registry should help to further characterize current characteristics and future trends of IPF patients in Spain and compare/pool them with other registries and cohorts

Large-scale external validation and comparison of prognostic models: an application to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Background: External validations and comparisons of prognostic models or scores are a prerequisite for their use in routine clinical care but are lacking in most medical fields including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Our aim was to externally validate and concurrently compare prognostic scores for 3-year all-cause mortality in mostly multimorbid patients with COPD. Methods: We relied on 24 cohort studies of the COPD Cohorts Collaborative International Assessment consortium, corresponding to primary, secondary, and tertiary care in Europe, the Americas, and Japan. These studies include globally 15,762 patients with COPD (1871 deaths and 42,203 person years of follow-up). We used network meta-analysis adapted to multiple score comparison (MSC), following a frequentist two-stage approach; thus, we were able to compare all scores in a single analytical framework accounting for correlations among scores within cohorts. We assessed transitivity, heterogeneity, and inconsistency and provided a performance ranking of the prognostic scores. Results: Depending on data availability, between two and nine prognostic scores could be calculated for each cohort. The BODE score (body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnea, and exercise capacity) had a median area under the curve (AUC) of 0.679 [1st quartile–3rd quartile = 0.655–0.733] across cohorts. The ADO score (age, dyspnea, and airflow obstruction) showed the best performance for predicting mortality (difference AUCADO – AUCBODE = 0.015 [95% confidence interval (CI) = −0.002 to 0.032]; p = 0.08) followed by the updated BODE (AUCBODE updated – AUCBODE = 0.008 [95% CI = −0.005 to +0.022]; p = 0.23). The assumption of transitivity was not violated. Heterogeneity across direct comparisons was small, and we did not identify any local or global inconsistency. Conclusions: Our analyses showed best discriminatory performance for the ADO and updated BODE scores in patients with COPD. A limitation to be addressed in future studies is the extension of MSC network meta-analysis to measures of calibration. MSC network meta-analysis can be applied to prognostic scores in any medical field to identify the best scores, possibly paving the way for stratified medicine, public health, and research.Other UBCNon UBCReviewedFacult