Search

Background: The traditional classification of COPD, which relies solely on spirometry, fails to account for the complexity and heterogeneity of the disease. Phenotyping is a method that attempts to derive a single or combination of disease attributes that are associated with clinically meaningful outcomes. Deriving phenotypes entails the use of cluster analyses, and helps individualize patient management by identifying groups of individuals with similar characteristics. We aimed to systematically review the literature for studies that had derived such phenotypes using unsupervised methods. Methods: Two independent reviewers systematically searched multiple databases for studies that performed validated statistical analyses, free of definitive pre-determined hypotheses, to derive phenotypes among patients with COPD. Data were extracted independently. Results: 9156 citations were retrieved, of which, 8 studies were included. The number of subjects ranged from 213 to 1543. Most studies appeared to be biased: patients were more likely males, with severe disease, and recruited in tertiary care settings. Statistical methods used to derive phenotypes varied by study. The number of phenotypes identified ranged from 2 to 5. Two phenotypes, with poor longitudinal health outcomes, were common across multiple studies: young patients with severe respiratory disease, few cardiovascular co-morbidities, poor nutritional status and poor health status, and a phenotype of older patients with moderate respiratory disease, obesity, cardiovascular and metabolic co-morbidities. Conclusions: The recognition that two phenotypes of COPD were often reported may have clinical implications for altering the course of the disease. This review also provided important information on limitations of phenotype studies in COPD and the need for improvement in future studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The tradition classification of the severity of COPD, based on spirometry, fails to encompass the heterogeneity of the disease. The COPD assessment test (CAT), a multi-dimensional, patient-filled questionnaire, assesses the overall health status of patients, and is recommended as part of the assessment of individuals with COPD. However, information regarding the range of values for the test in a non-COPD population (normative values) is limited, and consequently, knowledge regarding the optimal cut-off, and the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for the test remain largely empirical. Methods: CanCOLD is a population-based multi-center cohort study conducted across Canada, the methodology of which is based on the international BOLD initiative. The study includes subjects with COPD, at-risk individuals who smoke, and healthy control subjects. CAT questionnaires were administered at baseline to all subjects. Among non-COPD subjects, normative values for the CAT questionnaire, and psychometric properties of the test were characterized. Predictors of high CAT scores were identified using multivariable logistic regression. Results: Of the 525 non-COPD subjects enrolled, 500 were included in the analysis. Mean FEV1/FVC ratio among the 500 included subjects was 0.77 (SD 0.49); the mean predicted FEV1 was 99.38% (SD 16.88%). The overall mean CAT score was 6 (SD 5.09); scores were higher among females (6.43, SD 5.59), and subjects over 80 years of age (mean 7.58, SD 6.82). Cronbach alpha for the CAT was 0.79, suggesting a high internal consistency for the test. A score of 16 was the 95th percentile for the population, and 27 subjects (5.4%) were found to have a CAT score > =16. Current smoking (aOR 3.41, 95% CI 1.05, 11.02), subject-reported physician-diagnosed asthma (aOR 7.59, 95% CI 2.71, 21.25) and musculoskeletal disease (aOR 4.09, 95% CI 1.72, 9.71) were found to be significantly associated with a score ⩾16. Conclusions: The characterization of CAT scores in the general population will be useful for norm-based comparisons. Longitudinal follow-up of these subjects will help in the optimization of cut-offs for the test. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: India accounts for one-fifth of the global incident cases of tuberculosis(TB). The country presently has the world's largest directly observed treatment, short course (DOTS) programme, that has shown impressive results and covers almost 100% of the billion-plus Indian population. Despite such a successful programme, the majority of Indian patients with tuberculosis prefer private healthcare, although repeated audits of this sector have shown the quality to be poor. We aimed to ascertain the level of awareness and knowledge of private patients with tuberculosis attending our clinic at a tertiary private healthcare institute with regards to the DOTS programme, understanding the reasons behind their preference for private healthcare, and evaluating their perceptions and reasons for accepting or failing to accept directly observed therapy as a treatment option.Methods: A structured interview schedule was administered to private patients with tuberculosis at the P.D. Hinduja Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Mumbai, India between January 2006 to November 2007.Results: Only 30 of 200 patients (15%) were aware of the DOTS programme. After being explained what directly observed therapy was, 136 patients (68%) found this form of treatment unacceptable.183 patients (91.5%) preferred buying the drugs themselves to visiting a DOTS centre. 90 patients (45%) were not prepared to be observed while swallowing their TB drugs, finding it an intrusion of privacy.Conclusions: Our study reveals a poor knowledge and awareness of the DOTS programme among the cohort of TB patients that we interviewed. The control of TB in India will undoubtedly benefit from more patients being attracted to and treated by the existing DOTS programmes. However, directly observed treatment, in its present form, is considered too rigid and intrusive and is unlikely to be accepted by a majority of patients seeking private healthcare. Novel strategies and more flexible options will have to be devised to ensure higher cure rates without compromising patient choice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]