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

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

External validation and recalculation of the CODEX index in COPD patients::A 3CIAplus cohort study

The CODEX index was developed and validated in patients hospitalized for COPD exacerbation to predict the risk of death and readmission within one year after discharge. Our study aimed to validate the CODEX index in a large external population of COPD patients with variable durations of follow-up. Additionally, we aimed to recalculate the thresholds of the CODEX index using the cutoffs of variables previously suggested in the 3CIA study (mCODEX). Individual data on 2,755 patients included in the COPD Cohorts Collaborative International Assessment Plus (3CIA+) were explored. A further two cohorts (ESMI AND EGARPOC-2) were added. To validate the CODEX index, the relationship between mortality and the CODEX index was assessed using cumulative/dynamic ROC curves at different follow-up periods, ranging from 3 months up to 10 years. Calibration was performed using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models and Hosmer-Lemeshow test. A total of 3,321 (87.8% males) patients were included with a mean ± SD age of 66.9 ± 10.5 years, and a median follow-up of 1,064 days (IQR 25–75% 426–1643), totaling 11,190 person-years. The CODEX index was statistically associated with mortality in the short- (≤3 months), medium- (≤1 year) and long-term (10 years), with an area under the curve of 0.72, 0.70 and 0.76, respectively. The mCODEX index performed better in the medium-term (<1 year) than the original CODEX, and similarly in the long-term. In conclusion, CODEX and mCODEX index are good predictors of mortality in patients with COPD, regardless of disease severity or duration of follow-up

Mortality prediction in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease comparing the GOLD 2007 and 2011 staging systems: a pooled analysis of individual patient data

BACKGROUND: There is no universal consensus on the best staging system for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Although documents (eg, the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease [GOLD] 2007) have traditionally used forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) for staging, clinical parameters have been added to some guidelines (eg, GOLD 2011) to improve patient management. As part of the COPD Cohorts Collaborative International Assessment (3CIA) initiative, we aimed to investigate how individual patients were categorised by GOLD 2007 and 2011, and compare the prognostic accuracy of the staging documents for mortality. METHODS: We searched reports published from Jan 1, 2008, to Dec 31, 2014. Using data from cohorts that agreed to participate and had a minimum amount of information needed for GOLD 2007 and 2011, we did a patient-based pooled analysis of existing data. With use of raw data, we recalculated all participant assignments to GOLD 2007 I-IV classes, and GOLD 2011 A-D stages. We used survival analysis, C statistics, and non-parametric regression to model time-to-death data and compare GOLD 2007 and GOLD 2011 staging systems to predict mortality. FINDINGS: We collected individual data for 15 632 patients from 22 COPD cohorts from seven countries, totalling 70 184 person-years. Mean age of the patients was 63·9 years (SD 10·1); 10 751 (69%) were men. Based on FEV1 alone (GOLD 2007), 2424 (16%) patients had mild (I), 7142 (46%) moderate (II), 4346 (28%) severe (III), and 1670 (11%) very severe (IV) disease. We compared staging with the GOLD 2007 document with that of the new GOLD 2011 system in 14 660 patients: 5548 (38%) were grade A, 2733 (19%) were grade B, 1835 (13%) were grade C, and 4544 (31%) were grade D. GOLD 2011 shifted the overall COPD severity distribution to more severe categories. There were nearly three times more COPD patients in stage D than in former stage IV (p<0·05). The predictive capacity for survival up to 10 years was significant for both systems (p<0·01) but area under the curves were only 0·623 (GOLD 2007) and 0·634 (GOLD 2011), and GOLD 2007 and 2011 did not differ significantly. We identified the percent predicted FEV1 thresholds of 85%, 55% and 35% as better to stage COPD severity for mortality, which are similar to the ones used previously. INTERPRETATION: Neither GOLD COPD classification schemes have sufficient discriminatory power to be used clinically for risk classification at the individual level to predict total mortality for 3 years of follow-up and onwards. Increasing intensity of treatment of patients with COPD due to their GOLD 2011 reclassification is not known to improve health outcomes. Evidence-based thresholds should be searched when exploring the prognostic ability of current and new COPD multicomponent indices. FUNDING: None

A simple algorithm for the identification of clinical COPD phenotypes

This study aimed to identify simple rules for allocating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients to clinical phenotypes identified by cluster analyses.Data from 2409 COPD patients of French/Belgian COPD cohorts were analysed using cluster analysis resulting in the identification of subgroups, for which clinical relevance was determined by comparing 3-year all-cause mortality. Classification and regression trees (CARTs) were used to develop an algorithm for allocating patients to these subgroups. This algorithm was tested in 3651 patients from the COPD Cohorts Collaborative International Assessment (3CIA) initiative.Cluster analysis identified five subgroups of COPD patients with different clinical characteristics (especially regarding severity of respiratory disease and the presence of cardiovascular comorbidities and diabetes). The CART-based algorithm indicated that the variables relevant for patient grouping differed markedly between patients with isolated respiratory disease (FEV1, dyspnoea grade) and those with multi-morbidity (dyspnoea grade, age, FEV1 and body mass index). Application of this algorithm to the 3CIA cohorts confirmed that it identified subgroups of patients with different clinical characteristics, mortality rates (median, from 4% to 27%) and age at death (median, from 68 to 76 years).A simple algorithm, integrating respiratory characteristics and comorbidities, allowed the identification of clinically relevant COPD phenotypes.status: publishe

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

A simple algorithm for the identification of clinical COPD phenotypes

This study aimed to identify simple rules for allocating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients to clinical phenotypes identified by cluster analyses. Data from 2409 COPD patients of French/Belgian COPD cohorts were analysed using cluster analysis resulting in the identification of subgroups, for which clinical relevance was determined by comparing 3-year all-cause mortality. Classification and regression trees (CARTs) were used to develop an algorithm for allocating patients to these subgroups. This algorithm was tested in 3651 patients from the COPD Cohorts Collaborative International Assessment (3CIA) initiative. Cluster analysis identified five subgroups of COPD patients with different clinical characteristics (especially regarding severity of respiratory disease and the presence of cardiovascular comorbidities and diabetes). The CART-based algorithm indicated that the variables relevant for patient grouping differed markedly between patients with isolated respiratory disease (FEV1, dyspnoea grade) and those with multi-morbidity (dyspnoea grade, age, FEV1 and body mass index). Application of this algorithm to the 3CIA cohorts confirmed that it identified subgroups of patients with different clinical characteristics, mortality rates (median, from 4% to 27%) and age at death (median, from 68 to 76 years). A simple algorithm, integrating respiratory characteristics and comorbidities, allowed the identification of clinically relevant COPD phenotype

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