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

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

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

Whole-genome sequencing reveals host factors underlying critical COVID-19

Altres ajuts: Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC); Illumina; LifeArc; Medical Research Council (MRC); UKRI; Sepsis Research (the Fiona Elizabeth Agnew Trust); the Intensive Care Society, Wellcome Trust Senior Research Fellowship (223164/Z/21/Z); BBSRC Institute Program Support Grant to the Roslin Institute (BBS/E/D/20002172, BBS/E/D/10002070, BBS/E/D/30002275); UKRI grants (MC_PC_20004, MC_PC_19025, MC_PC_1905, MRNO2995X/1); UK Research and Innovation (MC_PC_20029); the Wellcome PhD training fellowship for clinicians (204979/Z/16/Z); the Edinburgh Clinical Academic Track (ECAT) programme; the National Institute for Health Research, the Wellcome Trust; the MRC; Cancer Research UK; the DHSC; NHS England; the Smilow family; the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health (CTSA award number UL1TR001878); the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania; National Institute on Aging (NIA U01AG009740); the National Institute on Aging (RC2 AG036495, RC4 AG039029); the Common Fund of the Office of the Director of the National Institutes of Health; NCI; NHGRI; NHLBI; NIDA; NIMH; NINDS.Critical COVID-19 is caused by immune-mediated inflammatory lung injury. Host genetic variation influences the development of illness requiring critical care or hospitalization after infection with SARS-CoV-2. The GenOMICC (Genetics of Mortality in Critical Care) study enables the comparison of genomes from individuals who are critically ill with those of population controls to find underlying disease mechanisms. Here we use whole-genome sequencing in 7,491 critically ill individuals compared with 48,400 controls to discover and replicate 23 independent variants that significantly predispose to critical COVID-19. We identify 16 new independent associations, including variants within genes that are involved in interferon signalling (IL10RB and PLSCR1), leucocyte differentiation (BCL11A) and blood-type antigen secretor status (FUT2). Using transcriptome-wide association and colocalization to infer the effect of gene expression on disease severity, we find evidence that implicates multiple genes-including reduced expression of a membrane flippase (ATP11A), and increased expression of a mucin (MUC1)-in critical disease. Mendelian randomization provides evidence in support of causal roles for myeloid cell adhesion molecules (SELE, ICAM5 and CD209) and the coagulation factor F8, all of which are potentially druggable targets. Our results are broadly consistent with a multi-component model of COVID-19 pathophysiology, in which at least two distinct mechanisms can predispose to life-threatening disease: failure to control viral replication; or an enhanced tendency towards pulmonary inflammation and intravascular coagulation. We show that comparison between cases of critical illness and population controls is highly efficient for the detection of therapeutically relevant mechanisms of disease