Search

Background and objective: Lack of consensus on diagnosis of ACO limits our understanding of the impact, management and outcomes of ACO. The present observational study aims to describe the prevalence, clinical characteristics and course of individuals with ACO based on various definitions used in clinical practice. Methods: We included individuals with COPD from the prospective, multisite CanCOLD study and defined subjects with ACO using seven definitions commonly used in the literature. Results: Data including questionnaires, lung function and CT scans were analysed from 522 individuals with COPD who were randomly recruited from the population. Among them, 264 fulfilled at least one of the seven definitions of ACO. Prevalence of ACO varied from 3.8% to 31%. Regardless of the definition, individuals with ACO had worse outcomes (lung function and higher percentage of fast decliners, symptoms and exacerbations, health‐related quality of life and comorbidities) than the remaining patients with COPD. Conversely, patients with non‐ACO had higher emphysema and bronchiolitis scores. The three definitions that included atopy and/or physician diagnosis of asthma identified subjects who differed significantly from patients with COPD. The two ACO definitions with post‐bronchodilator reversibility were concordant with COPD and were the least stable, with less than 50% of the patients from each group maintaining reversibility over visits. Conclusion: Atopy and physician‐diagnosed asthma are more distinguishing characteristics to identify ACO. This finding needs to be validated using measures of airway inflammation and other specific biomarkers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COPD Assessment Test (CAT) is a valid disease-specific questionnaire measuring health status. However, knowledge concerning its use regarding patient and disease characteristics remains limited. Our main objective was to assess the degree to which the CAT score varies and can discriminate between specific patient population groups.Methods: The Canadian Cohort Obstructive Lung Disease (CanCOLD) is a random-sampled, population-based, multicenter, prospective cohort that includes subjects with COPD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease [GOLD] classifications 1 to 3). The CAT questionnaire was administered at three visits (baseline, 1.5 years, and 3 years). The CAT total score was determined for sex, age groups, smoking status, GOLD classification, exacerbations, and comorbidities.Results: A total of 716 subjects with COPD were included in the analysis. The majority of subjects (72.5%) were not previously diagnosed with COPD. The mean FEV1/FVC ratio was 61.1 ± 8.1%, with a mean FEV1 % predicted of 82.3 ± 19.3%. The mean CAT scores were 5.8 ± 5.0, 9.6 ± 6.7, and 16.1 ± 10.0 for GOLD 1, 2, and 3+ classifications, respectively. Higher CAT scores were observed in women, current smokers, ever-smokers, and subjects with a previous diagnosis of COPD. The CAT was also able to distinguish between subjects who experience exacerbations vs those who had no exacerbation.Conclusions: These results suggest that the CAT, originally designed for use in clinically symptomatic patients with COPD, can also be used in individuals with mild airflow obstruction and newly diagnosed COPD. In addition, the CAT was able to discriminate between sexes and subjects who experience frequent and infrequent exacerbations.Trial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT00920348; Study ID No.: IRO-93326. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]