RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 FAQs about the GOLD 2011 assessment proposal of COPD: a comparative analysis of four different cohorts
JF European Respiratory Journal
JO Eur Respir J
FD European Respiratory Society
SP 1391
OP 1401
DO 10.1183/09031936.00036513
VO 42
IS 5
A1 Alvar Agusti
A1 Suzanne Hurd
A1 Paul Jones
A1 Leonardo M. Fabbri
A1 Fernando Martinez
A1 Claus Vogelmeier
A1 Jørgen Vestbo
A1 Robert Rodriguez-Roisin
YR 2013
UL http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/42/5/1391.abstract
AB Since the publication of the new Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) proposal for the assessment of chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD), four studies have used existing cohorts to explore the characteristics, temporal variability and/or relationship with outcomes of the four resulting patient categories (A, B, C and D). Here, we compare their results and address a number of frequently asked questions (FAQs) on the topic. The most salient findings were that: 1) the prevalence of these four groups depends on the specific population studied, C being the least prevalent; 2) comorbidities are particularly prevalent in the two “high-symptom” groups (B and D); 3) patients classifiedZ as A or D tend to remain in the same group over time, whereas those classified as B or C change substantially during follow-up; 4) mortality at 3 years was lowest in A and worst in D but surprisingly similar (and intermediate) in B and C; and 5) the incidence of exacerbations during follow-up increases progressively from A to D but that of hospitalisations behave similarly to mortality. These results identify several strengths and shortcomings of the new GOLD assessment proposal, particularly that group B is associated with more morbidity and high mortality. GOLD group B COPD is associated with more morbidity and high mortality http://ow.ly/nGkbP