Title |
Lung function decline rates according to GOLD group in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
|
---|---|
Published in |
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, September 2015
|
DOI | 10.2147/copd.s87766 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Joohae Kim, Ho Il Yoon, Yeon-Mok Oh, Seong Yong Lim, Ji-Hyun Lee, Tae-Hyung Kim, Sang Yeub Lee, Jin Hwa Lee, Sang-Do Lee, Chang-Hoon Lee |
Abstract |
Since the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) groups A-D were introduced, the lung function changes according to group have been evaluated rarely. We investigated the rate of decline in annual lung function in patients categorized according to the 2014 GOLD guidelines. Patients with COPD included in the Korean Obstructive Lung Disease (KOLD) prospective study, who underwent yearly postbronchodilator spirometry at least three times, were included. The main outcome was the annual decline in postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), which was analyzed by random-slope and random-intercept mixed linear regression. A total 175 participants were included. No significant postbronchodilator FEV1 decline was observed between the groups (-34.4±7.9 [group A]; -26.2±9.4 [group B]; -22.7±16.0 [group C]; and -24.0±8.7 mL/year [group D]) (P=0.79). The group with less symptoms (-32.3±7.2 vs -25.0±6.5 mL/year) (P=0.44) and the low risk group (-31.0±6.1 vs -23.6±7.7 mL/year) (P=0.44) at baseline showed a more rapid decline in the postbronchodilator FEV1, but the trends were not statistically significant. However, GOLD stages classified by FEV1 were significantly related to the annual lung function decline. There was no significant difference in lung function decline rates according to the GOLD groups. Prior classification using postbronchodilator FEV1 predicts decline in lung function better than does the new classification. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Mexico | 2 | 29% |
Brazil | 1 | 14% |
United States | 1 | 14% |
Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 3 | 43% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 29% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 14% |
Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Japan | 1 | 2% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 41 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 9 | 21% |
Student > Master | 7 | 16% |
Other | 6 | 14% |
Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 9% |
Other | 10 | 23% |
Unknown | 3 | 7% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 53% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 9% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
Computer Science | 2 | 5% |
Other | 5 | 12% |
Unknown | 5 | 12% |