A comparison of five surveys that identify individuals at risk for airflow obstruction and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of Five Clinical Questionnaires for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Background

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains one of the most prevalent pathologies in the world and is among the leading causes of mortality and morbidity, partially due to underdiagnosis. The use of clinical questionnaires to identify high-risk individuals to take them to further diagnostic procedures has emerged as a strategy to address this problem.

Objective

To compare the performance of the COULD IT BE COPD, CDQ, COPD-PS, LFQ, and PUMA questionnaires for COPD diagnosis.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was carried out on subjects who underwent spirometry in the third-level center. Data were collected between January 2015 and March 2020. Bivariate analysis was performed between the study variables and the presence of COPD. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC-ROC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (LR+), and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) for each questionnaire were calculated. The AUC-ROCs were compared with the DeLong test, considering a p value <0.05 statistically significant.

Results

681 subjects met the inclusion criteria and were taken to the final analysis. The prevalence of COPD was 27.5% (187/681). The mean age of the subjects was 65.9 years (SD ± 11.79); 46.3% (315/681) were female, and 83.6% (569/681) reported respiratory symptoms. Statistically significant relationship was found for COPD diagnosis with male sex, older age, respiratory symptoms, and exposure to wood smoke (p value <0.05). The AUC-ROCs of the questionnaires were between 0.581 and 0.681. The COULD IT BE COPD questionnaire had a lower discriminatory capacity AUC-ROC of 0.581, concerning the other scores (DeLong test, p = 0.0002).

Conclusion

The CDQ, COPD-PS, LFQ, PUMA, and COULD IT BE COPD questionnaires have acceptable performance for the diagnosis of COPD together with low sensitivity and specificity. Therefore, its use must be complemented with other diagnostic tests or techniques such as pulmonary function tests.

Performance and Clinical Utility of Various Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Case-Finding Tools

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is frequently underdiagnosed because of the unavailability of spirometers, especially in resource-limited outpatient settings. This study provides real-world evidence to identify optimal approaches for COPD case finding in outpatient settings.

METHODS

This retrospective study enrolled individuals who were at risk of COPD (age ≥40 years, ≥10 pack-years, and ≥1 respiratory symptom). Eligible participants were examined using various COPD case-finding tools, namely the COPD Population Screener (COPD-PS) questionnaire, a COPD prediction (PCOPD) model, and a microspirometer, Spirobank Smart; subsequently, the participants underwent confirmatory spirometry. The definition and confirmation of COPD were based on conventional spirometry. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC), area under the curve (AUC), and decision curve analyses were conducted, and a clinical impact curve was constructed.

RESULTS

In total, 385 participants took part in the study [284 without COPD (73.77%) and 101 with COPD (26.23%)]. The microspirometer exhibited a higher AUC value than did the COPD-PS questionnaire and the PCOPD model. The AUC for microspirometry was 0.908 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.87-0.95), that for the PCOPD model was 0.788 (95% CI = 0.74-0.84), and that for the COPD-PS questionnaire was 0.726 (95% CI = 0.67-0.78). Decision and clinical impact curve analyses revealed that a microspirometry-derived FEV1/FVC ratio of <74% had superior clinical utility to the other measurement tools.

CONCLUSION

The PCOPD model and COPD-PS questionnaire were useful for identifying symptomatic patients likely to have COPD, but microspirometry was more accurate and had higher clinical utility. This study provides real-world evidence to identify optimal practices for COPD case finding; such practices ensure that physicians have convenient access to up-to-date evidence when they encounter a symptomatic patient likely to have COPD.

Performance of COPD population screener questionnaire in COPD screening: a validation study and meta-analysis

This study aimed to validate the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) Population Screener (COPD-PS) questionnaire as a screening tool in a cohort of Chinese subjects who underwent a health examination, and to summarise its overall performance through a meta-analysis. We enrolled 997 subjects aged ≥40 years who underwent a health examination, both lung function and COPD-PS data were collected. The screening performance of COPD-PS was evaluated with a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, using the area under the curve (AUC) to assess the screening accuracy. A standard diagnostic meta-analysis was used to summarise the screening performance of COPD-PS for COPD. Of the 997 subjects, 157 were identified as having COPD. The COPD-PS score was significantly higher in COPD patients than controls (5.03 ± 5.11 vs. 2.72 ± 1.80, p < .001). At a cut-off of 4, the sensitivity and specificity of COPD-PS for identifying COPD were 74.52 and 70.24%, respectively, with an AUC of 0.79. Eight studies (including this study) were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled estimates for COPD-PS were as follows: sensitivity of 0.66 (95% CI: 0.47-0.63), specificity of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.84-0.89), positive likelihood ratio of 3.00 (95% CI: 1.65-5.47), negative likelihood ratio of 0.43 (95% CI: 0.35-0.52) and diagnostic odds ratio of 7.24 (95% CI: 3.91-13.40). The AUC of the summary ROC curve was 0.78. COPD-PS appears to be a useful tool for screening individuals with a high risk of COPD and guiding the selection of individuals for subsequent spirometry examination.KEY MESSAGESCOPD-PS is a simple and useful method to screen COPD.The combination of COPD-PS with other tools may improve the screen performance.

Performance of alternative COPD case-finding tools: a systematic review and meta-analysis

RATIONALE

Guidelines recommend pre-/post-bronchodilator spirometry for diagnosing COPD, but resource constraints limit the availability of spirometry in primary care in low- and middle-income countries. Although spirometry is the diagnostic gold standard, we shall assess alternative tools for settings without spirometry.

METHODS

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was conducted, utilising Cochrane, CINAHL, Google Scholar, PubMed and Web of Science (search cut-off was May 01, 2020). Published studies comparing the accuracy of diagnostic tools for COPD with post-bronchodilator spirometry were considered. Studies without sensitivity/specificity data, without a separate validation sample and outside of primary care were excluded. Sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve (AUC) were assessed.

RESULTS

Of 7578 studies, 24 were included (14 635 participants). Hand devices yielded a larger AUC than questionnaires. The meta-analysis included 17 studies and the overall AUC of micro-spirometers (0.84, 95% CI 0.80-0.89) was larger when compared to the COPD population screener (COPD-PS) questionnaire (0.77, 95% CI 0.63-0.85) and the COPD diagnostic questionnaire (CDQ) (0.72, 95% CI 0.64-0.78). However, only the difference between micro-spirometers and the CDQ was significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The CDQ and the COPD-PS questionnaire were approximately equally accurate tools. Questionnaires ensured testing of symptomatic patients, but micro-spirometers were more accurate. A combination could increase accuracy but was not evaluated in the meta-analysis.

Protocol Summary of the COPD Assessment in Primary Care To Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk (CAPTURE) Validation in Primary Care Study

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often remains undiagnosed and untreated. To date, COPD screening/case finding has not been designed to identify clinically significant COPD, disease ready for therapies beyond smoking cessation. Herein, we describe the ongoing prospective, pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial to assess specificity and sensitivity of the COPD Assessment in Primary Care To Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk (CAPTURE) tool consisting of 5 questions and peak expiratory flow. The tool is designed to identify clinically significant COPD (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV₁] to forced vital capacity [FVC] ratio <.70 plus FEV₁% predicted <60% or increased risk for exacerbation) and the trial will explore the impact of CAPTURE-based screening on COPD diagnosis and treatment rates in primary care patients. Of a total planned enrollment of 5000 English- or Spanish-speaking patients 45 to 80 years of age without a prior COPD diagnosis from 100 primary care practices, a total of 68 practices and 3064 patients have been enrolled in the study. Practices are centrally randomized to either usual care or clinician receipt of patient-level CAPTURE results. All clinicians receive basic COPD education with those in intervention practices also receiving CAPTURE interpretation education. In a single visit, patient participants complete a CAPTURE screening, pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry and baseline demographic and health questionnaires to validate CAPTURE sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of identifying undiagnosed, clinically significant COPD. One-year follow-up chart reviews and participant surveys assess the impact of sharing versus not sharing CAPTURE results with clinicians on clinical outcomes including level of respiratory symptoms and events and clinicians' initiation of recommendation-concordant COPD care. This is one of the first U.S. studies to validate and assess impact of a simple COPD screening tool in primary care.

Quantification of inaccurate diagnosis of COPD in primary care medicine: an analysis of the COACH clinical audit

Background: Inaccurate diagnosis in COPD is a current problem with relevant consequences in terms of inefficient health care, which has not been thoroughly studied in primary care medicine. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the degree of inaccurate diagnosis in Primary Care in Spain and study the determinants associated with it. Methods: The Community Assessment of COPD Health Care (COACH) study is a national, observational, randomized, non-interventional, national clinical audit aimed at evaluating clinical practice for patients with COPD in primary care medicine in Spain. For the present analysis, a correct diagnosis was evaluated based on previous exposure and airway obstruction with and without the presence of symptoms. The association of patient-level and center-level variables with inaccurate diagnosis was studied using multivariate multilevel binomial logistic regression models. Results: During the study 4,307 cases from 63 centers were audited. The rate of inaccurate diagnosis was 82.4% (inter-regional range from 76.8% to 90.2%). Patient-related interventions associated with inaccurate diagnosis were related to active smoking, lung function evaluation, and specific therapeutic interventions. Center-level variables related to the availability of certain complementary tests and different aspects of the resources available were also associated with an inaccurate diagnosis. Conclusions: The prevalence data for the inaccurate diagnosis of COPD in primary care medicine in Spain establishes a point of reference in the clinical management of COPD. The descriptors of the variables associated with this inaccurate diagnosis can be used to identify cases and centers in which inaccurate diagnosis is occurring considerably, thus allowing for improvement.