Yazar EE, Yiğitbaş B, Niksarlıoğlu EY, Bayraktaroğlu M, Kul S. Is group C really needed as a separate group from D in COPD? A single-center cross-sectional study.
Pulmonology 2020;
29:188-193. [PMID:
32753319 DOI:
10.1016/j.pulmoe.2020.06.012]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/16/2020] [Revised: 05/28/2020] [Accepted: 06/10/2020] [Indexed: 10/23/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
GOLD 2017 report proposed that the combined COPD assessment should be done according only to symptom burden and exacerbation history in the previous year.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to investigate the change in the COPD groups after the GOLD 2017 revision and also to discuss the evaluation of group C and D as a single group after the GOLD 2019 report.
METHOD
The study was designed as a cross-sectional. 251 stable COPD patients admitted to our out-patient clinic; aged ≥40 years, at least one-year diagnosis of COPD and ≥10 pack-year smoking history were consecutively recruited for the study.
RESULTS
In GOLD 2017, a significant difference was found between the distribution of all groups compared to GOLD 2011 (P = 0,001). 31 patients included in group C were reclassified into group A and 37 patients in group D were reclassified into group B. The FEV1 values of group A and B patients were significantly low and group C and D patients had had exacerbations in more frequently the previous year in GOLD 2017 compared to GOLD 2011.
CONCLUSION
After the GOLD 2017 revision, the rate of group C patients decreased even more compared to GOLD 2011 and the group C and D may be considered as a single group in terms of the treatment recommendations with the GOLD 2019 revision. We think that future prospective studies are needed to support this suggestion.
Collapse