RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 The effect of different symptom and risk assessments in classifying pulmonary rehabilitation patients according to the new GOLD guidelines
JF European Respiratory Journal
JO Eur Respir J
FD European Respiratory Society
SP P3011
VO 44
IS Suppl 58
A1 Corina de Jong
A1 Michael Wittmann
A1 Danijel Jelusic
A1 Michael Schuler
A1 Harma Alma
A1 Thys van der Molen
A1 Konrad Schultz
YR 2014
UL http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/44/Suppl_58/P3011.abstract
AB BackgroundIn the 2014 GOLD update, classification of GOLD groups has been adjusted to incoporate risk assessment and symptom assessment. Risk assessment may be based on FEV1(Groups A/B>0.50%, C/D<=0.50%) and exacerbations in the preceding year(A/B<2, C/D>=2), symptom assessment may be based on the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ; either using a cutpoint 1 or 1.5 to dissociate between groups A/C and B/D) or on the COPD Assessment Test (CAT; A/C<10; B/D>=10). The use of the modified Medical Research Council for symptom assessment is discouraged. This study presents patient classification according to 6 possible combinations.Methods316 COPD participants underwent a 3-week intensive pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programme. At baseline patients underwent spirometry, exacerbation history of the preceding year was collected and the CCQ, CAT and mMRC were completed.Results63% were male, mean age 58yr , GOLD category I, II, III,IV respectively 2%/50%/38%/10%. Patients were classified in the 2014 GOLD categories (A to D) according to both possible risk assessments and all three possible symptom assessments. See table.View this table:DiscussionBoth the use of different risk assessment as the use of different symptom assessments results in markedly different categorisations in patients from PR. This may have a major impact on patient treatment.