Cristina Rieger-Reyes1, Francisco Javier García-Tirado2, Francisco Javier Rubio-Galán3, José María Marín-Trigo4. 1. Centro de Salud Torre Ramona, Unidad Docente de Medicina Familiar y Comunitaria, Sector II, Zaragoza, España. Electronic address: cris.rieger.reyes@gmail.com. 2. Servicio de Cirugía Torácica, Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet, Zaragoza, España. 3. Centro de Salud Torre Ramona, Unidad Docente de Medicina Familiar y Comunitaria, Sector II, Zaragoza, España. 4. Servicio de Neumología, Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet, Zaragoza, España.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The GOLD2011 revision proposes to stratify patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) by measuring the impact of the disease using the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) scale or COPD assessment test (CAT). Our aim was to determine whether both methods are equivalent. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Observational study on a cohort of 283 patients diagnosed with COPD. We analyzed the demographic and lung function results. Patients were assessed by CAT and mMRC on the same day by the same interviewer, and divided into GOLD2011 categories according to the result of the evaluation. The degree of concordance and Spearman correlation were determined. We used ANOVA on the clinical and functional variables of the four GOLD2011 categories. RESULTS: Assessing the classification of patients according to the method used, an overall correlation ρ=0.613 and a degree of concordance κ=0.63 (moderate) were obtained. κ=0.44 was obtained for the 152 patients in categoriesA and B (moderate-low), and 0.38 for the 131 patients in categoriesC and D (low). Differences were observed between categories in terms of functional parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The classification of patients with COPD using the assessment proposed by GOLD2011 varies according to the method used (CAT or mMRC); more than 25% of patients were reclassified into different categories, implying differences in the recommended therapeutic strategy. Longitudinal studies are needed to appraise which method better classifies patients, according to its prognostic ability.
INTRODUCTION: The GOLD2011 revision proposes to stratify patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) by measuring the impact of the disease using the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) scale or COPD assessment test (CAT). Our aim was to determine whether both methods are equivalent. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Observational study on a cohort of 283 patients diagnosed with COPD. We analyzed the demographic and lung function results. Patients were assessed by CAT and mMRC on the same day by the same interviewer, and divided into GOLD2011 categories according to the result of the evaluation. The degree of concordance and Spearman correlation were determined. We used ANOVA on the clinical and functional variables of the four GOLD2011 categories. RESULTS: Assessing the classification of patients according to the method used, an overall correlation ρ=0.613 and a degree of concordance κ=0.63 (moderate) were obtained. κ=0.44 was obtained for the 152 patients in categoriesA and B (moderate-low), and 0.38 for the 131 patients in categoriesC and D (low). Differences were observed between categories in terms of functional parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The classification of patients with COPD using the assessment proposed by GOLD2011 varies according to the method used (CAT or mMRC); more than 25% of patients were reclassified into different categories, implying differences in the recommended therapeutic strategy. Longitudinal studies are needed to appraise which method better classifies patients, according to its prognostic ability.
Authors: Wayne H Anderson; Raymond D Coakley; Brian Button; Ashley G Henderson; Kirby L Zeman; Neil E Alexis; David B Peden; Eduardo R Lazarowski; C William Davis; Summer Bailey; Fred Fuller; Martha Almond; Bahjat Qaqish; Elena Bordonali; Michael Rubinstein; William D Bennett; Mehmet Kesimer; Richard C Boucher Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2015-07-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Jose Luis Lopez-Campos; Luis Jara-Palomares; Xavier Muñoz; Víctor Bustamante; Esther Barreiro Journal: Ann Thorac Med Date: 2015 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 2.219
Authors: Marc Miravitlles; Alicia Huerta; José Alberto Fernández-Villar; Bernardino Alcázar; Guillermo Villa; Carles Forné; Maribel Cuesta; Carlos Crespo; Francisco García-Río Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2014-09-05 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Ronald Dahl; Peter M A Calverley; Antonio Anzueto; Norbert Metzdorf; Andy Fowler; Achim Mueller; Robert Wise; Daniel Dusser Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-12-29 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Douglas W Mapel; Anand A Dalal; Phaedra T Johnson; Laura K Becker; Alyssa Goolsby Hunter Journal: Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis Date: 2015-07-30
Authors: Thierry Troosters; Jean Bourbeau; François Maltais; Nancy Leidy; Damijan Erzen; Dorothy De Sousa; Lawrence Korducki; Alan Hamilton Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-04-13 Impact factor: 2.692