Subgroup analysis reveals higher reliability of the new comprehensive evaluation of Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2019.

To estimate the severity of the disease in outpatients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in Hunan Province, China and use the subgroup analysis to evaluate the reliability of the new comprehensive evaluation of Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD). COPD outpatients from 12 medical centers in Hunan Province, China were stratified into groups A-D, and group D patients were further stratified into subgroups D ₁ -D ₃ according to the GOLD 2016 and 2019 comprehensive assessment. Demography, clinical characteristics and medications were compared among groups. In 1017 COPD outpatients, the distribution from group A to D and subgroup D ₁ to D ₃ was 41 (4.0%), 249 (24.5%), 17 (1.7%), 710 (69.8%) and 214 (30.2%), 204 (28.7%), 292 (41.1%), according to GOLD 2016. In terms of demographic and clinical characteristics related to A-D groups, there was a significant difference in COPD assessment test (CAT), modified Medical British Research Council (mMRC), the clinical COPD questionnaire(CCQ), age, BMI, education level, smoking history, comorbidities, the course of chronic bronchitis/emphysema, number of exacerbations/hospitalisations in the previous year, treatment protocols, forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) % predicted, and FEV1/forced vital capacity (FVC) (p < 0.01). Furthermore, some patients in groups C-D regrouped to groups A-B were all C ₁ and D ₁ subgroups according to GOLD 2019. Comparing subgroup D ₁ with group B, subgroup D ₂ and subgroup D ₃ , it was found that the demography, clinical characteristics and medications of subgroup D ₁ were the closest to group B, according to GOLD 2016 (p < 0.01). The disease severity of outpatients with COPD in Hunan Province was more pronounced in group B and D and patients in groups A-D had different demography, clinical characteristics and medications. Subgroup analysis can explain to a certain extent that GOLD2019's new comprehensive assessment is more reliable than GOLD 2016.
(© 2022. The Author(s).)