Development and validation of a quantitative score for the criteria clinical control in stable COPD proposed in the spanish COPD guidelines (GesEPOC): results of the EPOCONSUL audit
Metadatos
Mostrar el registro completo del ítemAutor
Calle Rubio, Myriam; Soler Cataluña, Juan José; Miravitlles, Marc; Alcázar Navarrete, Bernardino; López-Campos, José Luis; Fuentes Ferrer, Manuel E.; Rodríguez Hermosa, Juan LuisEditorial
MDPI
Materia
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease degree clinical control predicted probability
Fecha
2025-01-22Referencia bibliográfica
Calle Rubio, M.; Cataluña, J.J.S.; Miravitlles, M.; Navarrete, B.A.; López-Campos, J.L.; Ferrer, M.E.F.; Rodríguez Hermosa, J.L. Development and Validation of a Quantitative Score for the Criteria Clinical Control in Stable COPD Proposed in the Spanish COPD Guidelines (GesEPOC): Results of the EPOCONSUL Audit. J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14, 707. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/jcm14030707
Patrocinador
Spanish Society of Pneumology and Thoracic Surgery (SEPAR)Resumen
The concept of clinical control of COPD is a measure
proposed in the Spanish COPD Guidelines (GesEPOC), which aims to help clinicians assess
the clinical status in order to adapt the treatment plan at follow-up. However, studies that
have evaluated clinical practice reveal that the degree of control of COPD is not always
assessed, which underlines the need to promote its assessment through a scoring system.
To develop a scoring system that quantitatively assesses the validated criteria defining
the degree of COPD control. Methods: this study used data from the EPOCONSUL
audit in respiratory clinics across Spain. We included in this analysis all patients with a
COPD clinical control grade estimated and reported by the physician at the visit, who
had registered the criteria necessary to define the degree of clinical control validated and
established in GesEPOC. Patients were randomly assigned to either the development or
validation cohorts. The development cohort included 485 patients and the validation
cohort included 341 patients. Score modelling was conducted using a multivariate logistic
regression model, and calibration of the model and score was assessed using the Hosmer-
Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test and GiViTi Calibration belts. The model and generated
score’s discrimination capacity were analyzed by calculating the Area Under the Curve
(AUC). Results: the scoring system was developed using four criteria as predictors of poor
clinical control of COPD reported by the treating physician:adjusted dyspnoea severity,
use of rescue inhaler more than three times per week, walking less than 30 min per day,
and COPD exacerbations in the last three months. The scoring system attributed scores from 0 to 8. Calibration was satisfactory in both development and validation cohorts,
and the score’s discrimination power, as indicated by the AUC, was 0.892. Conclusions:
this scoring system provides an easy-to-use quantitative assessment of clinical control of
COPD that we believe will help to measure COPD control and its evolution during patient
follow-up. Future research will be needed to prospectively evaluate this score as a predictor
of outcome.





