Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

Comparison of five major airflow limitation criteria to identify high-risk individuals with COPD: a contemporary population-based cohort

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  1. Beta-blocker use and acute exacerbations of COPD following myocardial infarction: a Danish nationwide cohort study

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Supervised pulmonary tele-rehabilitation versus pulmonary rehabilitation in severe COPD: a randomised multicentre trial

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. One-year outcomes in a multicentre cohort study of incident rare diffuse parenchymal lung disease in children (ChILD)

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  4. β2-Adrenergic genotypes and risk of severe exacerbations in COPD: a prospective cohort study

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  1. Comparison of 16 Serological SARS-CoV-2 Immunoassays in 16 Clinical Laboratories

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Arterial hypertension and morphologic abnormalities of cardiac chambers: results from the Copenhagen General Population Study

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Inhibition of Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein Preserves High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and Improves Survival in Sepsis

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  4. Association of Low Plasma Transthyretin Concentration With Risk of Heart Failure in the General Population

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Vis graf over relationer

Background Different airflow limitation criteria are often used to diagnose COPD. We investigated head-to-head whether Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) (FEV 1 /FVC <0.70) and four lower limit of normal (LLN) (FEV 1 /FVC <LLN) criteria to diagnose airflow limitation differ in identifying individuals at risk of COPD exacerbations and mortality. Methods 108 246 individuals aged 20-100 years randomly selected from the general population were followed from 2003 through 2018 to determine risk of COPD exacerbations, respiratory mortality and all-cause mortality. LLN criteria used equations from Global Lung Initiative (GLI), National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), European Community for Steel and Coal (ECSC) and Copenhagen City Heart Study (CCHS)/Copenhagen General Population Study (CGPS). Results Prevalence of airflow limitation was 17% for GOLD, 8.6% for GLI, 10% for NHANES, 8.2% for ECSC and 14% for CCHS/CGPS. During 14.4 years follow-up, we observed 2745 COPD exacerbations, 762 respiratory deaths and 10 338 all-cause deaths. Comparing individuals with versus without airflow limitation, HRs for COPD exacerbations were 17 (95% CI 14 to 20) for GOLD, 21 (18 to 24) for GLI, 20 (17 to 23) for NHANES, 21 (18 to 24) for ECSC and 18 (16 to 21) for CCHS/CGPS. Corresponding HRs for respiratory mortality were 3.7 (3.1 to 4.3), 6.4 (5.6 to 7.5), 5.7 (4.9 to 6.6), 6.2 (5.3 to 7.2) and 4.5 (3.9 to 5.2), and for all-cause mortality 1.5 (1.4 to 1.5), 1.9 (1.8 to 2.0), 1.8 (1.7 to 1.9), 1.9 (1.8 to 2.0) and 1.7 (1.6 to 1.7), respectively. Differences in Harrell's C were minute for these outcomes; nonetheless, Harrell's C was slightly higher for LLN criteria compared with GOLD for mortality outcomes. Conclusions The prevalence of airflow limitation ranged from 8% to 17% using GOLD and four different LLN criteria; however, identified individuals with the five different criteria had similar risk of COPD exacerbations and mortality.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftThorax
Vol/bind75
Udgave nummer11
Sider (fra-til)944-954
Antal sider11
ISSN0040-6376
DOI
StatusUdgivet - nov. 2020

Bibliografisk note

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

ID: 61962571