Blog
About

1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Validation of the GOLD 2017 and new 16 subgroups (1A–4D) classifications in predicting exacerbation and mortality in COPD patients

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background and objective

          A multidimensional assessment of COPD was recommended by the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) in 2013 and revised in 2017. We examined the ability of the GOLD 2017 and the new 16 subgroup (1A–4D) classifications to predict clinical outcomes, including exacerbation and mortality, and compared them with the GOLD 2013 classifications.

          Methods

          Patients with COPD were recruited from January 2006 to December 2017. The predictive abilities of grades 1–4 and groups A–D were examined through a logistic regression analysis with receiver operating curve estimations and area under the curve (AUC).

          Results

          A total of 553 subjects with COPD were analyzed. The mortality rate was 48.6% during a median follow-up period of 5.2 years. Both the GOLD 2017 and the 2013 group A–D classifications had good predictive ability for total and severe exacerbations, for which the AUCs were 0.79 vs 0.77 and 0.79 vs 0.78, respectively. The AUCs for the GOLD 2017 groups A–D, grades 1–4, and the GOLD 2013 group A–D classifications were 0.70, 0.66, and 0.70 for all-cause mortality and 0.73, 0.71, and 0.74 for respiratory cause mortality, respectively. Combining the spirometric staging with the grouping for the GOLD 2017 subgroups (1A–4D), the all-cause mortality rate for group B and D patients was significantly increased from subgroups 1B–4B (27.7%, 50.6%, 53.3%, and 69.2%, respectively) and groups 1D–4D (55.0%, 68.8%, 82.1%, and 90.5%, respectively). The AUCs of subgroups (1A–4D) were 0.73 and 0.77 for all-cause and respiratory mortality, respectively; the new classification was determined more accurate than the GOLD 2017 for predicting mortality ( P<0.0001).

          Conclusion

          The GOLD 2017 classification performed well by identifying individuals at risk of exacerbation, but its predictive ability for mortality was poor among COPD patients. Combining the spirometric staging with the grouping increased the predictive ability for all-cause and respiratory mortality.

          Summary at a glance

          We validate the ability of the GOLD 2017 and 16 subgroup (1A–4D) classifications to predict clinical outcome for COPD patients. The GOLD 2017 classification performed well by identifying individuals at risk of exacerbation, but its predictive ability for mortality was poor. The new 16 subgroup (1A–4D) classification combining the spirometric 1–4 staging and the A–D grouping increased the predictive ability for mortality and was better than the GOLD 2017 for predicting all-cause and respiratory mortality among COPD patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          GOLD 2011 disease severity classification in COPDGene: a prospective cohort study.

          The 2011 GOLD (Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease [COPD]) consensus report uses symptoms, exacerbation history, and forced expiratory volume (FEV1)% to categorise patients according to disease severity and guide treatment. We aimed to assess both the influence of symptom instrument choice on patient category assignment and prospective exacerbation risk by category. Patients were recruited from 21 centres in the USA, as part of the COPDGene study. Eligible patients were aged 45-80 years, had smoked for 10 pack-years or more, and had an FEV1/forced vital capacity (FVC) <0·7. Categories were defined with the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnoea scale (score 0-1 vs ≥2) and the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ; ≥25 vs <25 as a surrogate for the COPD Assessment Test [CAT] ≥10 vs <10) in addition to COPD exacerbations in the previous year (<2 vs ≥ 2), and lung function (FEV1% predicted ≥50 vs <50). Statistical comparisons were done with k-sample permutation tests. This study cohort is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00608764. 4484 patients with COPD were included in this analysis. Category assignment using the mMRC scale versus SGRQ were similar but not identical. On the basis of the mMRC scale, 1507 (33·6%) patients were assigned to category A, 919 (20·5%) to category B, 355 (7·9%) to category C, and 1703 (38·0%) to category D; on the basis of the SGRQ, 1317 (29·4%) patients were assigned to category A, 1109 (24·7%) to category B, 221 (4·9%) to category C, and 1837 (41·0%) to category D (κ coefficient for agreement, 0·77). Significant heterogeneity in prospective exacerbation rates (exacerbations/person-years) were seen, especially in the D subcategories, depending on the risk factor that determined category assignment (lung function only [0·89, 95% CI 0·78-1·00]), previous exacerbation history only [1·34, 1·0-1·6], or both [1·86, 1·6-2·1; p<0·0001]). The GOLD classification emphasises the importance of symptoms and exacerbation risk when assessing COPD severity. The choice of symptom measure influences category assignment. The relative number of patients with low symptoms and high risk for exacerbations (category C) is low. Differences in exacerbation rates for patients in the highest risk category D were seen depending on whether risk was based on lung function, exacerbation history, or both. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the COPD Foundation through contributions from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Sepracor. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Distribution and prognostic validity of the new Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease grading classification.

            The new Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) update includes airflow limitation, history of COPD exacerbations, and symptoms to classify and grade COPD severity. We aimed to determine their distribution in 11 well-defined COPD cohorts and their prognostic validity up to 10 years to predict time to death. Spirometry in all 11 cohorts was postbronchodilator. Survival analysis and C statistics were used to compare the two GOLD systems by varying time points. Of 3,633 patients, 1,064 (33.6%) were in new GOLD patient group A (low risk, less symptoms), 515 (16.3%) were B (low risk, more symptoms), 561 (17.7%) were C (high risk, less symptoms), and 1,023 (32.3%) were D (high risk, more symptoms). There was great heterogeneity of this distribution within the cohorts ( x (2) , P < .01). No differences were seen in the C statistics of old vs new GOLD grading to predict mortality at 1 year (0.635 vs 0.639, P = .53), at 3 years (0.637 vs 0.645, P = .21), or at 10 years (0.639 vs 0.642, P = .76). The new GOLD grading produces an uneven split of the COPD population, one third each in A and D patient groups, and its prognostic validity to predict time to death is no different than the old GOLD staging based in spirometry only.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

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

              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.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis
                Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis
                International Journal of COPD
                International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
                Dove Medical Press
                1176-9106
                1178-2005
                2018
                18 October 2018
                : 13
                : 3425-3433
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of General Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, College of Medicine and Hospital, Tainan, Taiwan
                [2 ]Institute of Clinical Medicine, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan
                [3 ]Division of Pulmonary Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, College of Medicine and Hospital, Tainan, Taiwan, chen96@ 123456mail.ncku.edu.tw
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Chiung-Zuei Chen, Division of Pulmonary Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, College of Medicine and Hospital, No 138 Sheng-Li Road, 704 Tainan, Taiwan, Email chen96@ 123456mail.ncku.edu.tw
                Article
                copd-13-3425
                10.2147/COPD.S179048
                6203118
                © 2018 Han et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited

                The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                Categories
                Original Research

                Comments

                Comment on this article