Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • For authors
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Author FAQs
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • For authors
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Author FAQs
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions

COPD assessment: I, II, III, IV and/or A, B, C, D

Claus Vogelmeier, Jørgen Vestbo
European Respiratory Journal 2014 43: 949-950; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00019714
Claus Vogelmeier
1Dept of Medicine, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University Medical Center Giessen and Marburg, Philipps-Universität Marburg
2German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: Claus.Vogelmeier@med.uni-marburg.de
Jørgen Vestbo
3Dept of Respiratory Medicine J, Odense University Hospital, and Clinical Institute, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
4Respiratory and Allergy Research Unit, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University Hospital South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

In 2001 the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) committee published its first consensus report [1]. At that time the authors suggested that the assessment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) should be primarily based on the extent of airflow limitation. In the following years, evidence accumulated that COPD is a complex and heterogeneous disease and that airflow limitation is not closely correlated to a variety of patient-related outcomes [2]. These findings, and the intent to create a more comprehensive system to better reflect the situation of an individual patient, were the basis for a novel concept recently published by GOLD. Now, the assessment is no longer based on the extent of airflow limitation alone; in addition, the patient's exacerbation history and symptoms are taken into account [3]. Based on the severity of symptoms and the exacerbation risk, four categories (A, B, C and D) were defined.

Since then, this novel assessment scheme has been studied in several existing cohorts, ranging from more than 2000 clinically stable COPD patients in the ECLIPSE study (Evaluation of COPD Longitudinally to Identify Predictive Surrogate Endpoints) [4], over a more broadly composed cohort of 4000 smokers from the COPDGene study [5], to population samples from Copenhagen [6] and the Spanish COCOMICS study (Collaborative Cohorts to assess Multicomponent Indices of COPD in Spain) [7]. Agusti et al. [8] summarised and compared the results of these four cohorts. The prevalence of the four groups varied between populations; patients classified as A or D seem to be stable over time, mortality is lowest in A, highest in D and similar in B and C, exacerbation rates rise from A to D, but hospitalisations show a similar pattern as mortality. Importantly, comorbidities seem to be more prevalent in the more symptomatic groups (B and D) [8].

In this edition of the European Respiratory Journal, another study describing the distribution of COPD patients using the novel GOLD concept is published [9]. What does this study add to the published evidence?

First, the study confirms that exacerbation risk and hospitalisation risk are not closely correlated. Whereas the percentage of patients with at least one COPD exacerbation showed only a slight increase from group A to D, the hospitalisation rate escalated by a factor of more than six. It is noteworthy that when comparing groups A and B the hospitalisation rate doubled. In parallel, patients in groups B and D had higher levels of cerebrovascular disease, depression, cancer and diabetes. In agreement with Lange et al. [6], the authors suggest that group B patients have to be evaluated carefully regarding comorbidities.

Secondly, it also confirms that forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) is of limited value regarding the prediction of exacerbations, e.g. of the patients with FEV1 <50% predicted, 70% had none or one exacerbation, and of the patients with two or more exacerbations, 60% had an FEV1 ≥50% predicted. This supports findings from the COPDgene study showing that, e.g. in group D patients, the exacerbation rate is higher in patients categorised as group D based on a history of frequent exacerbations than in patients that had an FEV1 of <50% predicted [5]. However, it also demonstrates the ascertainment bias found in studies from general practice; patients are much more likely to be diagnosed with COPD if they experience exacerbations and it seems likely that COPD in subjects with FEV1 ≥50% predicted and no exacerbations is still significantly underdiagnosed.

Finally, this is the first study in a primary care setting that describes the distribution of COPD patients and in most countries this is where COPD patients are cared for. The authors have collected a large database of COPD patients attending primary care with data regarding lung function, symptoms (according to the modified Medical Research Council score, mMRC), exacerbation rates and comorbidities. Agusti et al. [8] calculated the mean of the distribution considering the ECLIPSE, the COPDgene and the COCOMICS cohorts: group A 32%, group B 21%, group C 10% and Group D 37%. In the study by Haughney et al. [9], the distribution regarding group A (36.1%) and group B (19.1%) is very similar. In contrast, more patients are in group C (19.6) and fewer in group D (25.3%). This may represent secondary versus primary care, but it may also have to do with the assessment of symptoms. The mMRC scale was used as a measure of dyspnoea and the questions may be perceived differently in different countries and languages. In addition, it has been shown that a threshold of ≥2 when applying the mMRC is reached by fewer patients than a threshold of ≥10 when using a more comprehensive tool, such as the COPD assessment test [10].

Where do we go from here? There are several open questions that that still need to be addressed [8]. We think that, in particular, the following issues are relevant.

1) How do we apply evidence-based therapies to categories A to D? To date, there are no published studies where therapies have been evaluated based on this novel assessment system; we hope that such data will become available soon.

2) Can the assessment system be used for follow-up in addition to the initial evaluation? This question can only be answered if data from escalation and/or de-escalation studies become available.

3) How do we include comorbidities in the assessment of COPD? Comorbidities are highly relevant, but we do not know for sure which tests should be mandatory and what the subsequent therapeutic consequences should be.

Finally, GOLD is more than an assessment scheme. With the 2011 revision spirometry changed from being a supportive diagnostic tool to be a requirement for the diagnosis [3]. Given that spirometry is reimbursed in general practice in the UK, it is somewhat sad to see that 32% of patients with a diagnosis of COPD did not have spirometry and mMRC score available. Given the low prevalence of COPD in the sample, it also seems unlikely that spirometry is offered to all subjects 40 years or older with respiratory symptoms and a relevant exposure. Hopefully, the widespread focus on details in assessment will also lead to more awareness of COPD basics.

Footnotes

  • Conflict of interest: Disclosures can be found alongside the online version of this article at www.erj.ersjournals.com

  • Received January 30, 2014.
  • Accepted January 30, 2014.
  • ©ERS 2014

References

  1. ↵
    1. Pauwels RA,
    2. Buist AS,
    3. Ma P,
    4. et al
    . GOLD Scientific Committee. Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and World Health Organization Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD): executive summary. Respir Care 2001; 46: 798–825.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Agusti A,
    2. Calverley PM,
    3. Celli B,
    4. et al
    . Evaluation of COPD Longitudinally to Identify Predictive Surrogate Endpoints (ECLIPSE) investigators. Characterisation of COPD heterogeneity in the ECLIPSE cohort. Respir Res 2010; 11: 122.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Vestbo J,
    2. Hurd SS,
    3. Agustí AG,
    4. et al
    . Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: GOLD executive summary. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013; 187: 347–365.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. ↵
    1. Agusti A,
    2. Edwards LD,
    3. Celli B,
    4. et al
    . ECLIPSE Investigators. Characteristics, stability and outcomes of the 2011 GOLD COPD groups in the ECLIPSE cohort. Eur Respir J 2013; 42: 636–646.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Han MK,
    2. Muellerova H,
    3. Curran-Everett D,
    4. et al
    . GOLD 2011 disease severity classification in COPDGene: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Respir Med 2013; 1: 43–50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Lange P,
    2. Marott JL,
    3. Vestbo J,
    4. et al
    . Prediction of the clinical course of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, using the new GOLD classification: a study of the general population. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2012; 186: 975–981.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. ↵
    1. Soriano JB,
    2. Alfageme I,
    3. Almagro P,
    4. et al
    . Distribution and prognostic validity of the new Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease grading classification. Chest 2013; 143: 694–702.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. ↵
    1. Agusti A,
    2. Hurd S,
    3. Jones P,
    4. et al
    . FAQs about the GOLD 2011 assessment proposal of COPD: a comparative analysis of four different cohorts. Eur Respir J 2013; 42: 1391–1401.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Haughney J,
    2. Gruffydd-Jones K,
    3. Roberts J,
    4. et al
    . The distribution of COPD in UK general practice using the new GOLD classification. Eur Respir J 2014; 43: 993–1002.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Jones PW,
    2. Adamek L,
    3. Nadeau G,
    4. et al
    . Comparisons of health status scores with MRC grades in COPD: implications for the GOLD 2011 classification. Eur Respir J 2013; 42: 647–654.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 43 Issue 4 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Journal: 43 (4)
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
COPD assessment: I, II, III, IV and/or A, B, C, D
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
COPD assessment: I, II, III, IV and/or A, B, C, D
Claus Vogelmeier, Jørgen Vestbo
European Respiratory Journal Apr 2014, 43 (4) 949-950; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00019714

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
COPD assessment: I, II, III, IV and/or A, B, C, D
Claus Vogelmeier, Jørgen Vestbo
European Respiratory Journal Apr 2014, 43 (4) 949-950; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00019714
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • COPD and smoking
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • Biomarkers in lung cancer screening
  • Household air pollution and adult respiratory health
  • Tobacco control and the ERS
Show more Editorials

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Reviewers
  • CME
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Submit a manuscript
  • ERS author centre

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • Podcasts
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN:  0903-1936
Online ISSN: 1399-3003

Copyright © 2021 by the European Respiratory Society