ICE COLD ERIC – International collaborative effort on chronic obstructive lung disease: exacerbation risk index cohorts – Study protocol for an international COPD cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a systemic disease; morbidity and mortality due to COPD are on the increase, and it has great impact on patients' lives. Most COPD patients are managed by general practitioners (GP). Too often, GPs base their initial assessment of patient's disease severity mainly on lung function. However, lung function correlates poorly with COPD-specific health-related quality of life and exacerbation frequency. A validated COPD disease risk index that better represents the clinical manifestations of COPD and is feasible in primary care seems to be useful. The objective of this study is to develop and validate a practical COPD disease risk index that predicts the clinical course of COPD in primary care patients with GOLD stages 2–4.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>We will conduct 2 linked prospective cohort studies with COPD patients from GPs in Switzerland and the Netherlands. We will perform a baseline assessment including detailed patient history, questionnaires, lung function, history of exacerbations, measurement of exercise capacity and blood sampling. During the follow-up of at least 2 years, we will update the patients' profile by registering exacerbations, health-related quality of life and any changes in the use of medication. The primary outcome will be health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes will be exacerbation frequency and mortality. Using multivariable regression analysis, we will identify the best combination of variables predicting these outcomes over one and two years and, depending on funding, even more years.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Despite the diversity of clinical manifestations and available treatments, assessment and management today do not reflect the multifaceted character of the disease. This is in contrast to preventive cardiology where, nowadays, the treatment in primary care is based on patient-specific and fairly refined cardiovascular risk profile corresponding to differences in prognosis. After completion of this study, we will have a practical COPD-disease risk index that predicts the clinical course of COPD in primary care patients with GOLD stages 2–4. In a second step we will incorporate evidence-based treatment effects into this model, such that the instrument may guide physicians in selecting treatment based on the individual patients' prognosis.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov Archive NCT00706602</p

Multidimensional prognostic indices for use in COPD patient care. A systematic review

Contains fulltext : 98117.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: A growing number of prognostic indices for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is developed for clinical use. Our aim is to identify, summarize and compare all published prognostic COPD indices, and to discuss their performance, usefulness and implementation in daily practice. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search in both Pubmed and Embase up to September 2010. Selection criteria included primary publications of indices developed for stable COPD patients, that predict future outcome by a multidimensional scoring system, developed for and validated with COPD patients only. Two reviewers independently assessed the index quality using a structured screening form for systematically scoring prognostic studies. RESULTS: Of 7,028 articles screened, 13 studies comprising 15 indices were included. Only 1 index had been explored for its application in daily practice. We observed 21 different predictors and 7 prognostic outcomes, the latter reflecting mortality, hospitalization and exacerbation. Consistent strong predictors were FEV1 percentage predicted, age and dyspnoea. The quality of the studies underlying the indices varied between fairly poor and good. Statistical methods to assess the predictive abilities of the indices were heterogenic. They generally revealed moderate to good discrimination, when measured. Limitations: We focused on prognostic indices for stable disease only and, inevitably, quality judgment was prone to subjectivity. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 15 prognostic COPD indices. Although the prognostic performance of some of the indices has been validated, they all lack sufficient evidence for implementation. Whether or not the use of prognostic indices improves COPD disease management or patients' health is currently unknown; impact studies are required to establish this

COPD in primary care: Towards simple prediction of quality of life, exacerbations and mortality

We found that previous health-related quality of life (HRQL) was the best predictor in our models to predict COPD-specific HRQL in primary care COPD patients. Asking patients explicitly about dyspnoea, fatigue, depression and how they cope with COPD provides additional important information about future HRQL while FEV1 or other commonly used predictors add little to the prediction of HRQL. Depending on the outcome per HRQL-domain, GPs and patients can discuss and prioritize different possible treatment actions in a shared decision-making context. We found that simple tests for measuring exercise capacity, such as the one-minute sit-to-stand-test and the handgrip test, are strongly associated with mortality, significantly associated with HRQL and not associated with exacerbations. Since more complicated tests, such as the six-minute-walking-test, are usually not available in primary care settings, these simple tests could be an attractive alternative. With regard to measuring physical activity, we found that the practical LAPAQ was unsuitable for measurement of physical activity in older adults in comparison with a triaxial accelerometer. However, it may be used to determine if a person's level of physical activity is above the recommended level. With regard to measuring exacerbations, we found that the common way of measuring exacerbations by patient's self-report appears to be only moderately accurate, when compared to central event adjudication by a committee. The misclassifications involved could lead to considerable underestimation of treatment effects. Therefore, these committees could also considerably reduce sample size requirements and cost of randomised controlled trials and observational studies