How to Stage Airflow Limitation in Stable Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Male Patients?

Abstract

No study has evaluated the utility of different classifications of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) airflow limitation (AFL) in terms of the refined “ABCD” classification of the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) or in terms of the impacts on quality of life. This study aimed to compare some relevant health outcomes (i.e., GOLD classification and quality-of-life scores) between COPD patients having “light” and “severe” AFL according to five COPD AFL classifications. It was a cross-sectional prospective study including 55 stable COPD male patients. The COPD assessment test (CAT), the VQ11 quality-of-life questionnaire, a spirometry, and a bronchodilator test were performed. The patients were divided into GOLD “A/B” and “C/D.” The following five classifications of AFL severity, based on different post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) expressions, were applied: FEV1%pred: “light” (≥50), “severe” (<50); FEV1z-score: “light” (≥−3), “severe” (<−3); FEV1/height2: “light” (≥0.40), “severe” (<0.40); FEV1/height3: “light” (≥0.29), “severe” (<0.29); and FEV1Quotient: “light” (≥2.50), “severe” (<2.50). The percentages of the patients with “severe” AFL were significantly influenced by the applied classification of the AFL severity (89.1 [FEV1z-score], 63.6 [FEV1%pred], 41.8 [FEV1/height3], 40.0 [FEV1Quotient], and 25.4 [FEV1/height2]; Cochrane test = 91.49, df = 4). The CAT and VQ11 scores were significantly different between the patients having “light” and “severe” AFL. In GOLD “C/D” patients, only the FEV1Quotient was able to distinguish between the two AFL severities. To conclude, the five classifications of COPD AFL were not similar when compared with regard to some relevant health outcomes.

Digital Voice-Based Biomarker for Monitoring Respiratory Quality of Life: Findings from the Colive Voice Study

“…The total score is obtained by summing all individual items, leading to a score between 11 and 55 with lower value indicating better RQoL [4]. We stratify the participants in the study into two categories using the cut-off VQ11 score of 22: 1) Impaired RQoL ( V Q 11 ≥ 22), and 2) Normal RQoL ( V Q 11 < 22) [19], [20].…”

Influences of Two FEV1 Reference Equations (GLI-2012 and GIRH-2017) on Airflow Limitation Classification Among COPD Patients

“…14 The FEV 1Quotient was the only classification that differentiated the patients according to the GOLD "C/D" reported by Anane with a cut-off of 2.5 through 55 COPD patients. 36 This classification has been demonstrated it outperformed the other classifications in predicting the risk of severity adverse event (SAE), hospitalization, as well as physical and mental decline. [37][38][39] However, future work using large and ethnically diverse populations to refine and validate the cut-off values were still needed to enhance the prediction of outcomes.…”

Comments on “Anthropometric, Psychosocial, Physiological, and Postural Observances During Ramadan in Men With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease”

“…Therefore, it is possible that some retained patients were asthmatics or have both asthma and COPD ( Ben Saad, 2020 ). Moreover, Mekki et al (2022) included only COPD patients GOLD II and III, without informing readers how these two stages were determined ( eg ; based on post bronchodilator FEV 1 [%] ( Anane et al, 2020 ; Kammoun et al, 2018 )). The omission of the applied criteria related to the COPD diagnosis and classification is a “serious” element that makes the reproduction of this study somewhat questionable ( Ben Saad et al, 2014 ).…”