Subgroup Analysis Makes GOLD2019's New Comprehensive Assessment More Convincing:A Cross-Sectional Study in Hunan Province, China

Ziyu Dai,Yan Chen,Hui-Hui Zeng,Yanan Cui
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-712096/v1
2021-01-01
Abstract:Abstract Purpose: 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 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2019. Methods: COPD outpatients from 21 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 comprehensive assessment. Demography, clinical characteristics and medications were compared between groups. Results: In 1,017 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. The clinical characteristics of patients vary from group to group. 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, group D, 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. Conclusion: The disease severity of outpatients with COPD in Hunan Province was more common in group B and D and patients in groups A– D had different demography, clinical characteristics and medications, according to the GOLD 2016. Subgroup analysis can explain to a certain extent that GOLD2019's new comprehensive assessment is more reasonable and reliable than GOLD 2016.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?