Validación pronóstica según los criterios de la GesEPOC 2017 / Prognostic Validation Using GesEPOC 2017 Severity Criteria

Introducción: La Guía española de la EPOC (GesEPOC) ha sido recientemente modificada. El objetivo de este trabajo es valorar la clasificación y el pronóstico de los enfermos según la nueva clasificación de la gravedad. Métodos: Se siguió a 700 enfermos con EPOC (83,9% varones) durante un periodo medio de 5 años en hospitales españoles y de EE. UU. Se midieron datos antropométricos, función pulmonar, disnea medida con la escala mMRC, así como exacerbaciones y los índices de BODE y Charlson. Se clasificaron según el riesgo proporcionado por GesEPOC y se valoró el pronóstico a 5 años. Resultados: Los pacientes tenían una edad media de 66 ± 9,6 años y un FEV1% de 59,7 ± 20,2. El 40,43% de la muestra se encontraba en bajo riesgo. Los sujetos del grupo de alto riesgo presentaban un índice de BODE significativamente mayor que los de bajo riesgo (2,92 ± 0,66 vs. 0,52 ± 1,91, p < 0,001). El índice de Charlson fue similar entre ambos grupos. La mortalidad a 60 meses en el grupo de alto riesgo fue significativamente mayor que en el de bajo riesgo (31,7% vs. 15.5%, p < 0,001). Tanto la disnea como el FEV1% fueron también predictores independientes de mortalidad (p < 0,001), siendo cada uno de ellos no inferior prediciendo mortalidad que el conjunto de los criterios del grupo de alto riesgo de GesEPOC. Conclusiones: La nueva clasificación de la gravedad de GesEPOC predice la mortalidad de forma adecuada. No obstante, tanto el FEV1% como la disnea tienen la misma potencia para predecir mortalidad

Introduction: The Spanish COPD guidelines (GesEPOC) have been recently modified. The aim of this study is to assess this revision and evaluate the prognosis of patients according to the new classification of severity. Methods: A total of 700 COPD patients (83.9% men) were prospectively followed up for a mean period of 5 years in tertiary hospitals in Spain and the USA. Anthropometric data, lung function tests, dyspnea (according to the mMRC scale), BODE and Charlson index were collected. We calculated mortality at 5 years following the risk criteria proposed by the new GesEPOC. Results: Mean age was 66 ± 9.6 years and mean FEV1% was 59.7 ± 20.2. The proportion of patients in the low-risk group was 40.43%. Patients in the high-risk group had a significantly higher BODE index than those in the low-risk group (2.92 ± 0,66 vs. 0.52 ± 1.91, p < 0.001), while the Charlson index score was similar in both groups. Mortality at 60 months was significantly higher in the high-risk group (31.7% vs. 15.5%, p < 0.001). Dyspnea and FEV1% were also independent predictors of mortality (p < 0.001), and neither was inferior to the risk classification proposed by GesEPOC. Conclusions: The new severity index proposed by GesEPOC accurately predicts 5-year mortality. However, dyspnea and FEV1% have the same strength in predicting mortality

Comparison of the 2017 and 2015 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease Reports. Impact on Grouping and Outcomes.

RATIONALE: The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) document has modified the grading system directing pharmacotherapy, but how this relates to the previous one from 2015 and to comorbidities, hospitalizations, and mortality risk is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the changes in the GOLD groups from 2015 to 2017 and to assess the impact on severity, comorbidities, and mortality within each group. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled and followed, for a mean of 5 years, 819 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (84% male) in clinics in Spain and the United States. We determined anthropometrics, lung function (FEV1%), dyspnea score (modified Medical Research Council scale), ambulatory and hospital exacerbations, and the body mass index, obstruction, dyspnea, and exercise capacity (BODE) and Charlson indexes. We classified patients by the 2015 and 2017 GOLD ABCD system, and compared the differential realignment of the same patients. We related the effect of the reclassification in BODE and Charlson distribution as well as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and all-cause mortality between the two classifications. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Compared with 2015, the 2017 grading decreased by half the proportion of patients in groups C and D (20.5% vs. 11.2% and 24.6% vs. 12.9%; P < 0.001). The distribution of Charlson also changed, whereas group D was higher than B in 2015, they become similar in the 2017 system. In 2017, the BODE index and risk of death were higher in B and D than in A and C. The mortality risk was better predicted by the 2015 than the 2017 system. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with 2015, the GOLD ABCD 2017 classification significantly shifts patients from grades C and D to categories A and B. The new grading system equalizes the Charlson comorbidity score in all groups and minimizes the differences in BODE between groups B and D, making the risk of death similar between them.