Exploring Clinical Control of COPD: Insights From a Portuguese Outpatient Population.

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Beatriz Dias Ferraz, Margarida Fonseca Cardoso, Conceição Rodrigues, Filipa Soares Correia, Caterina Lacerda, Joana Gomes, Maria Sucena
{"title":"Exploring Clinical Control of COPD: Insights From a Portuguese Outpatient Population.","authors":"Beatriz Dias Ferraz, Margarida Fonseca Cardoso, Conceição Rodrigues, Filipa Soares Correia, Caterina Lacerda, Joana Gomes, Maria Sucena","doi":"10.15326/jcopdf.2025.0628","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains a challenging condition to manage due to its variability in clinical presentation and progression. While disease control is a well-defined concept in asthma, its relevance in COPD is less clear. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of a COPD control framework, developed in Spain, in Portuguese outpatients by analyzing exacerbation rates among controlled and uncontrolled patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective, observational study enrolled 133 COPD outpatients, evaluated at baseline (V0), 6 months (V1), and one year (V2). Patients were classified as controlled or uncontrolled based on criteria assessing clinical stability and disease impact, incorporating dyspnea severity, rescue medication use, physical activity, sputum color, and recent exacerbation history. Patients classified as controlled and uncontrolled were compared regarding the occurrence of an exacerbation (hospitalization, emergency visit, or ambulatory exacerbation) during follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At baseline, 33.1% of patients were classified as controlled. This proportion increased to 46.2% at V1 but decreased to 31.6% at V2. Notably, only 12% remained consistently controlled throughout follow-up. There was a consistent trend of higher exacerbation rates among those previously uncontrolled. Only the difference in emergency visits at 12 months reached statistical significance (27.1% versus 7.8% in controlled patients, <i>p</i>=0.023).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study provides the first independent validation of COPD control criteria in a Portuguese cohort. Although the control framework proved feasible for clinical application, its predictive value for exacerbations was low in this severe-disease cohort. Future research should expand on these findings in diverse populations to optimize COPD management strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":51340,"journal":{"name":"Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases-Journal of the Copd Foundation","volume":" ","pages":"390-398"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases-Journal of the Copd Foundation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15326/jcopdf.2025.0628","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains a challenging condition to manage due to its variability in clinical presentation and progression. While disease control is a well-defined concept in asthma, its relevance in COPD is less clear. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of a COPD control framework, developed in Spain, in Portuguese outpatients by analyzing exacerbation rates among controlled and uncontrolled patients.

Methods: This prospective, observational study enrolled 133 COPD outpatients, evaluated at baseline (V0), 6 months (V1), and one year (V2). Patients were classified as controlled or uncontrolled based on criteria assessing clinical stability and disease impact, incorporating dyspnea severity, rescue medication use, physical activity, sputum color, and recent exacerbation history. Patients classified as controlled and uncontrolled were compared regarding the occurrence of an exacerbation (hospitalization, emergency visit, or ambulatory exacerbation) during follow-up.

Results: At baseline, 33.1% of patients were classified as controlled. This proportion increased to 46.2% at V1 but decreased to 31.6% at V2. Notably, only 12% remained consistently controlled throughout follow-up. There was a consistent trend of higher exacerbation rates among those previously uncontrolled. Only the difference in emergency visits at 12 months reached statistical significance (27.1% versus 7.8% in controlled patients, p=0.023).

Conclusion: This study provides the first independent validation of COPD control criteria in a Portuguese cohort. Although the control framework proved feasible for clinical application, its predictive value for exacerbations was low in this severe-disease cohort. Future research should expand on these findings in diverse populations to optimize COPD management strategies.

探索慢性阻塞性肺病的临床控制:来自葡萄牙门诊人群的见解。
目的:慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)由于其临床表现和进展的可变性,仍然是一种具有挑战性的疾病。虽然疾病控制在哮喘中是一个定义明确的概念,但其与COPD的相关性尚不清楚。本研究旨在通过分析受控和非受控患者的加重率,评估西班牙开发的COPD控制框架在葡萄牙门诊患者中的临床应用。方法:这项前瞻性观察性研究纳入了133名COPD门诊患者,分别在基线(V0)、6个月(V1)和1年(V2)进行评估。根据评估临床稳定性和疾病影响的标准,包括呼吸困难严重程度、抢救药物使用、身体活动、痰液颜色和近期加重史,将患者分为控制或不控制两组。对照和非对照患者在随访期间的恶化发生率(住院、急诊或动态恶化)进行比较。结果:基线时,33.1%的患者被归为对照。这一比例在V1时上升到46.2%,在V2时下降到31.6%。值得注意的是,只有12%的患者在整个随访过程中始终保持控制。在先前不受控制的患者中,有较高的恶化率的一致趋势。只有12个月急诊率差异有统计学意义(对照组为27.1% vs 7.8%, p=0.023)。结论:本研究首次在葡萄牙队列中提供了COPD控制标准的独立验证。尽管该控制框架在临床应用中被证明是可行的,但在这一严重疾病队列中,其对病情恶化的预测价值较低。未来的研究应在不同人群中扩展这些发现,以优化COPD管理策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
45
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信