Unravelling the Information Contained in the Single Items of the COPD Assessment Test for Different Outcomes and Smoking Status in Patients with COPD: Results from COSYCONET.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Pub Date : 2024-12-05 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/COPD.S475112
Peter Alter, Kathrin Kahnert, Franziska C Trudzinski, Robert Bals, Henrik Watz, Tim Speicher, Sandra Söhler, Klaus F Rabe, Emiel F M Wouters, Claus F Vogelmeier, Rudolf A Jörres
{"title":"Unravelling the Information Contained in the Single Items of the COPD Assessment Test for Different Outcomes and Smoking Status in Patients with COPD: Results from COSYCONET.","authors":"Peter Alter, Kathrin Kahnert, Franziska C Trudzinski, Robert Bals, Henrik Watz, Tim Speicher, Sandra Söhler, Klaus F Rabe, Emiel F M Wouters, Claus F Vogelmeier, Rudolf A Jörres","doi":"10.2147/COPD.S475112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The COPD Assessment Test (CAT) comprises eight questions. We evaluated the information that each of the questions and the total score contributed to outcomes and characteristics of chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD), including their dependence on smoking status.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with COPD of the COSYCONET cohort with Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) grades 1-4 and the former grade 0 were included. The evaluated outcomes included mortality, exacerbation risk, the comorbidities asthma, cardiac disease (coronary artery disease/heart failure), osteoporosis, and emphysema, for which a reduction in carbon monoxide transfer coefficient (KCO) <55% predicted was considered as marker. Analyses were performed by Cox proportional hazard or logistic multiple regression analyses separately for smokers and nonsmokers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 2509 patients had complete data, among them 1884 nonsmokers (ex or never; 38.4% female; mean age±SD 66.1±8.5 years) and 625 current smokers (45.1% female, 61.6±7.9 years). The pattern of responses to the single questions of the CAT differed between outcome variables, as well as between smokers and nonsmokers, but in most cases the total score was superior to the single items. The CAT total score was associated with mortality (p<0.05) only in nonsmokers, while for exacerbation frequency/severity, it was of about equal importance in smokers and nonsmokers. Regarding KCO, the total score was indicative (p<0.05) only in nonsmokers. Particularly in smokers, single items could show opposite signs of their coefficients which therefore largely cancelled in the total score.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results show in detail for which outcomes single items are informative in nonsmokers and current smokers with COPD, overall being more informative in nonsmokers. Only regarding exacerbation risk, the predictive value was similar in both groups. These results might be helpful to extract as much as possible information from a COPD questionnaire that is often part of routine assessment.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>NCT01245933.</p>","PeriodicalId":48818,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease","volume":"19 ","pages":"2629-2638"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11626970/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S475112","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The COPD Assessment Test (CAT) comprises eight questions. We evaluated the information that each of the questions and the total score contributed to outcomes and characteristics of chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD), including their dependence on smoking status.

Methods: Patients with COPD of the COSYCONET cohort with Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) grades 1-4 and the former grade 0 were included. The evaluated outcomes included mortality, exacerbation risk, the comorbidities asthma, cardiac disease (coronary artery disease/heart failure), osteoporosis, and emphysema, for which a reduction in carbon monoxide transfer coefficient (KCO) <55% predicted was considered as marker. Analyses were performed by Cox proportional hazard or logistic multiple regression analyses separately for smokers and nonsmokers.

Results: In total, 2509 patients had complete data, among them 1884 nonsmokers (ex or never; 38.4% female; mean age±SD 66.1±8.5 years) and 625 current smokers (45.1% female, 61.6±7.9 years). The pattern of responses to the single questions of the CAT differed between outcome variables, as well as between smokers and nonsmokers, but in most cases the total score was superior to the single items. The CAT total score was associated with mortality (p<0.05) only in nonsmokers, while for exacerbation frequency/severity, it was of about equal importance in smokers and nonsmokers. Regarding KCO, the total score was indicative (p<0.05) only in nonsmokers. Particularly in smokers, single items could show opposite signs of their coefficients which therefore largely cancelled in the total score.

Conclusion: Our results show in detail for which outcomes single items are informative in nonsmokers and current smokers with COPD, overall being more informative in nonsmokers. Only regarding exacerbation risk, the predictive value was similar in both groups. These results might be helpful to extract as much as possible information from a COPD questionnaire that is often part of routine assessment.

Trial registration: NCT01245933.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
揭示COPD患者不同结局和吸烟状况的COPD评估测试单项信息:COSYCONET结果
背景:COPD评估测试(CAT)包括8个问题。我们评估了每个问题和总分对慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)结局和特征的影响,包括它们对吸烟状况的依赖。方法:纳入COSYCONET队列中全球慢性阻塞性肺疾病倡议(GOLD)分级为1-4级和前0级的COPD患者。评估的结果包括死亡率、恶化风险、合并症哮喘、心脏病(冠状动脉疾病/心力衰竭)、骨质疏松症和肺气肿,其中一氧化碳传递系数(KCO)降低。结果:总共2509例患者有完整的数据,其中1884例不吸烟(不吸烟或从不吸烟;38.4%的女性;平均年龄(66.1±8.5岁)和625名吸烟者(45.1%为女性,61.6±7.9岁)。对CAT单项问题的回答模式在结果变量之间以及吸烟者和非吸烟者之间存在差异,但在大多数情况下,总分优于单项问题。CAT总分与死亡率相关(结论:我们的研究结果详细显示了哪些单项结果在非吸烟者和目前患有COPD的吸烟者中具有信息性,总体而言,非吸烟者的信息性更强。仅在恶化风险方面,两组的预测值相似。这些结果可能有助于从COPD问卷中提取尽可能多的信息,这通常是常规评估的一部分。试验注册:NCT01245933。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
10.70%
发文量
372
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: An international, peer-reviewed journal of therapeutics and pharmacology focusing on concise rapid reporting of clinical studies and reviews in COPD. Special focus will be given to the pathophysiological processes underlying the disease, intervention programs, patient focused education, and self management protocols. This journal is directed at specialists and healthcare professionals
期刊最新文献
Clinical and Economic Evaluation of Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Versus Tiotropium/Olodaterol Therapy in Maintenance Treatment-Naive Patients with COPD in the US. Diagnostic Inaccuracies in COPD: Misdiagnosis, Race and Gender Disparities. Prevalence of Myocardial Infarction With Obstructive and Non-Obstructive Coronary Arteries in a Middle-Aged Population With Chronic Airflow Limitation: A Cross-Sectional Study. Single-Use Flexible Bronchoscope in Facilitating Endobronchial Valve Treatment in Severe Emphysema. Chronic Airflow Limitation, Lower Respiratory Symptoms, COPD and Chronic Rhinosinusitis in a Middle-Aged Population: The Swedish CArdioPulmonary bioImage Study (SCAPIS). A Link Between the Lower and Upper Airways.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1