scispace - formally typeset
Open AccessJournal ArticleDOI

Identification and prospective validation of clinically relevant chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) subtypes

TLDR
In patients with COPD recruited at their first hospitalisation, three different COPD subtypes were identified and prospectively validated: ‘severe respiratory COPD’, ‘moderate respiratory COPd’ and ‘systemic COPD'.
Abstract
Background Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is increasingly considered a heterogeneous condition. It was hypothesised that COPD, as currently defined, includes different clinically relevant subtypes. Methods To identify and validate COPD subtypes, 342 subjects hospitalised for the first time because of a COPD exacerbation were recruited. Three months after discharge, when clinically stable, symptoms and quality of life, lung function, exercise capacity, nutritional status, biomarkers of systemic and bronchial inflammation, sputum microbiology, CT of the thorax and echocardiography were assessed. COPD groups were identified by partitioning cluster analysis and validated prospectively against cause-specific hospitalisations and all-cause mortality during a 4 year follow-up. Results Three COPD groups were identified: group 1 (n¼126, 67 years) was characterised by severe airflow limitation (postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) 38% predicted) and worse performance in most of the respiratory domains of the disease; group 2 (n¼125, 69 years) showed milder airflow limitation (FEV1 63% predicted); and group 3 (n¼91, 67 years) combined a similarly milder airflow limitation (FEV1 58% predicted) with a high proportion of obesity, cardiovascular disorders, diabetes and systemic inflammation. During follow-up, group 1 had more frequent hospitalisations due to COPD (HR 3.28, p<0.001) and higher all-cause mortality (HR 2.36, p¼0.018) than the other two groups, whereas group 3 had more admissions due to cardiovascular disease (HR 2.87, p¼0.014). Conclusions In patients with COPD recruited at their first hospitalisation, three different COPD subtypes were identified and prospectively validated: ‘severe respiratory COPD’, ‘moderate respiratory COPD’, and ‘systemic COPD’.

read more

Citations
More filters

Enregistrement des paramètres ventilatoires par les dispositifs de VNI : un nouvel outil pour la détection précoce d'exacerbation chez des patients BPCO traités au long cours par VNI ?

TL;DR: Whether daily variations in respiratory rate, percentage of respiratory cycles triggered by the patient (%Trigg) and NIV daily use allow early detection of exacerbation is assessed.
Journal ArticleDOI

Usefulness of Biological Clustering Patterns in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

TL;DR: In order to maximise the usefulness of COPD cluster analysis studies, it is proposed that future studies must implement more stringent methodologies and focus on COPD inflammatory biology.
Journal ArticleDOI

Revue de la littérature – Quoi de neuf en réhabilitation chez les adultes ?

TL;DR: Les principaux sujets abordes dans cette communication sont les nouveaux outils diagnostiques, comme DIRECT, CAT, the nouvelles indications de the rehabilitation respiratoire and les n newvelles modalites de rehabilitation.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

Inference and missing data

Donald B. Rubin
- 01 Dec 1976 - 
TL;DR: In this article, it was shown that ignoring the process that causes missing data when making sampling distribution inferences about the parameter of the data, θ, is generally appropriate if and only if the missing data are missing at random and the observed data are observed at random, and then such inferences are generally conditional on the observed pattern of missing data.
Journal ArticleDOI

The Body-Mass Index, Airflow Obstruction, Dyspnea, and Exercise Capacity Index in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

TL;DR: The BODE index, a simple multidimensional grading system, is better than the FEV1 at predicting the risk of death from any cause and from respiratory causes among patients with COPD.
Book

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature

TL;DR: Without a way of critically appraising the information they receive, clinicians are relatively helpless in deciding what new information to learn and decide how to modify their practice.
Related Papers (5)