Trishul Siddharthan1,2,3, Suzanne L Pollard2,3,4, Shumonta A Quaderi5, Natalie A Rykiel2,3, Adaeze C Wosu2,3, Patricia Alupo6, Julie A Barber7, Maria Kathia Cárdenas8, Ram K Chandyo9, Oscar Flores-Flores2,10,11, Bruce Kirenga6, J Jaime Miranda8,12, Sakshi Mohan13, Federico Ricciardi7, Arun K Sharma14, Santa Kumar Das14, Laxman Shrestha14, Marta O Soares13, William Checkley2,3, John R Hurst5. 1. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, Florida. 2. Center for Global Non-Communicable Disease Research and Training, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 4. Now with the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 5. UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, United Kingdom. 6. Makerere Lung Institute, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda. 7. Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom. 8. CRONICAS Centre of Excellence in Chronic Diseases, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru. 9. Department of Community Medicine, Kathmandu Medical College, Nepal. 10. Biomedical Research Unit, A.BPRISMA, Lima, Peru. 11. Centro de Investigación del Envejecimiento (CIEN), Facultad de Medicina Humana, Universidad de San Martin de Porres, Lima, Peru. 12. Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru. 13. Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, United Kingdom. 14. Child Health Research Project, Institute of Medicine Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Abstract
Importance: Most of the global morbidity and mortality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) occurs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), with significant economic effects. Objective: To assess the discriminative accuracy of 3 instruments using questionnaires and peak expiratory flow (PEF) to screen for COPD in 3 LMIC settings. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional analysis of discriminative accuracy, conducted between January 2018 and March 2020 in semiurban Bhaktapur, Nepal; urban Lima, Peru; and rural Nakaseke, Uganda, using a random age- and sex-stratified sample of the population 40 years or older. Exposures: Three screening tools, the COPD Assessment in Primary Care to Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk (CAPTURE; range, 0-6; high risk indicated by a score of 5 or more or score 2-5 with low PEF [<250 L/min for females and <350 L/min for males]), the COPD in LMICs Assessment questionnaire (COLA-6; range, 0-5; high risk indicated by a score of 4 or more), and the Lung Function Questionnaire (LFQ; range, 0-25; high risk indicated by a score of 18 or less) were assessed against a reference standard diagnosis of COPD using quality-assured postbronchodilator spirometry. CAPTURE and COLA-6 include a measure of PEF. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was discriminative accuracy of the tools in identifying COPD as measured by area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) with 95% CIs. Secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. Results: Among 10 709 adults who consented to participate in the study (mean age, 56.3 years (SD, 11.7); 50% female), 35% had ever smoked, and 30% were currently exposed to biomass smoke. The unweighted prevalence of COPD at the 3 sites was 18.2% (642/3534 participants) in Nepal, 2.7% (97/3550) in Peru, and 7.4% (264/3580) in Uganda. Among 1000 COPD cases, 49.3% had clinically important disease (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease classification B-D), 16.4% had severe or very severe airflow obstruction (forced expiratory volume in 1 second <50% predicted), and 95.3% of cases were previously undiagnosed. The AUC for the screening instruments ranged from 0.717 (95% CI, 0.677-0.774) for LFQ in Peru to 0.791 (95% CI, 0.770-0.809) for COLA-6 in Nepal. The sensitivity ranged from 34.8% (95% CI, 25.3%-45.2%) for COLA-6 in Nepal to 64.2% (95% CI, 60.3%-67.9%) for CAPTURE in Nepal. The mean time to administer the instruments was 7.6 minutes (SD 1.11), and data completeness was 99.5%. Conclusions and Relevance: This study demonstrated that screening instruments for COPD were feasible to administer in 3 low- and middle-income settings. Further research is needed to assess instrument performance in other low- and middle-income settings and to determine whether implementation is associated with improved clinical outcomes.
Importance: Most of the global morbidity and mortality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) occurs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), with significant economic effects. Objective: To assess the discriminative accuracy of 3 instruments using questionnaires and peak expiratory flow (PEF) to screen for COPD in 3 LMIC settings. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional analysis of discriminative accuracy, conducted between January 2018 and March 2020 in semiurban Bhaktapur, Nepal; urban Lima, Peru; and rural Nakaseke, Uganda, using a random age- and sex-stratified sample of the population 40 years or older. Exposures: Three screening tools, the COPD Assessment in Primary Care to Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk (CAPTURE; range, 0-6; high risk indicated by a score of 5 or more or score 2-5 with low PEF [<250 L/min for females and <350 L/min for males]), the COPD in LMICs Assessment questionnaire (COLA-6; range, 0-5; high risk indicated by a score of 4 or more), and the Lung Function Questionnaire (LFQ; range, 0-25; high risk indicated by a score of 18 or less) were assessed against a reference standard diagnosis of COPD using quality-assured postbronchodilator spirometry. CAPTURE and COLA-6 include a measure of PEF. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was discriminative accuracy of the tools in identifying COPD as measured by area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) with 95% CIs. Secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. Results: Among 10 709 adults who consented to participate in the study (mean age, 56.3 years (SD, 11.7); 50% female), 35% had ever smoked, and 30% were currently exposed to biomass smoke. The unweighted prevalence of COPD at the 3 sites was 18.2% (642/3534 participants) in Nepal, 2.7% (97/3550) in Peru, and 7.4% (264/3580) in Uganda. Among 1000 COPD cases, 49.3% had clinically important disease (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease classification B-D), 16.4% had severe or very severe airflow obstruction (forced expiratory volume in 1 second <50% predicted), and 95.3% of cases were previously undiagnosed. The AUC for the screening instruments ranged from 0.717 (95% CI, 0.677-0.774) for LFQ in Peru to 0.791 (95% CI, 0.770-0.809) for COLA-6 in Nepal. The sensitivity ranged from 34.8% (95% CI, 25.3%-45.2%) for COLA-6 in Nepal to 64.2% (95% CI, 60.3%-67.9%) for CAPTURE in Nepal. The mean time to administer the instruments was 7.6 minutes (SD 1.11), and data completeness was 99.5%. Conclusions and Relevance: This study demonstrated that screening instruments for COPD were feasible to administer in 3 low- and middle-income settings. Further research is needed to assess instrument performance in other low- and middle-income settings and to determine whether implementation is associated with improved clinical outcomes.
Authors: William Checkley; Keith P West; Robert A Wise; Matthew R Baldwin; Lee Wu; Steven C LeClerq; Parul Christian; Joanne Katz; James M Tielsch; Subarna Khatry; Alfred Sommer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-05-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A Sonia Buist; Mary Ann McBurnie; William M Vollmer; Suzanne Gillespie; Peter Burney; David M Mannino; Ana M B Menezes; Sean D Sullivan; Todd A Lee; Kevin B Weiss; Robert L Jensen; Guy B Marks; Amund Gulsvik; Ewa Nizankowska-Mogilnicka Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-09-01 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Samantha S C Kon; Jane L Canavan; Sarah E Jones; Claire M Nolan; Amy L Clark; Mandy J Dickson; Brigitte M Haselden; Michael I Polkey; William D-C Man Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2014-02-04 Impact factor: 30.700
Authors: Marco Koch; Thomas Butt; Wudong Guo; Xue Li; Yirong Chen; Diana Tan; Gordon G Liu Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Aizhamal Tabyshova; John R Hurst; Joan B Soriano; William Checkley; Erick Wan-Chun Huang; Antigona C Trofor; Oscar Flores-Flores; Patricia Alupo; Gonzalo Gianella; Tarana Ferdous; David Meharg; Jennifer Alison; Jaime Correia de Sousa; Maarten J Postma; Niels H Chavannes; Job F M van Boven Journal: Chest Date: 2020-10-08 Impact factor: 9.410