» Articles » PMID: 31999900

Assessment of the COPD Assessment Test Within U.S. Primary Care

Overview
Date 2020 Jan 31
PMID 31999900
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Rationale: Uptake of the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) is not yet widespread in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) within U.S. primary care and its alignment with other assessments has not been evaluated in U.S. clinical practice.

Objectives: To assess the alignment of the CAT with other standard measures of COPD severity and its usability in a U.S. primary care population.

Methods: This was a multicenter, prospective, observational, longitudinal study of patients with COPD and their primary care physicians. Patients with spirometry-confirmed airflow restriction completed a daily electronic diary (eDiary) over 12 weeks; surveys were also administered at baseline and at 6- and 12-week follow-up.

Measurements And Main Results: In the study population (=178), statistically significant differences (<0.05) were found across 4 CAT impact score groups where at all time points patients in the Low Impact CAT score group had superior lung function and physical/mental health status than patients in the Medium, High, and Very High Impact groups. Numerical, though lesser, differences were also found across these latter 3 groups. Furthermore, the average total EXAcerbations of COPD Tool (EXACT®) score was significantly worse in patients in the highest CAT score group over the first 7 days.

Conclusions: COPD severity; respiratory symptoms; frequency, severity, and duration of pulmonary exacerbations; and overall physical and mental health status are linked concurrently and prospectively to CAT impact score categories. The stratification of patients according to CAT impact scores, and application of clinical and functional health status information to these categories, enhances the usability of the CAT in practice settings for COPD management.

Citing Articles

Real-World Evaluation of an EHR-Enabled Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Assessment Test.

Gaeckle N, Corazalla E, Kelloway J, Liberman J, Darer J, Kahle-Wrobleski K Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2025; 20:325-334.

PMID: 39975688 PMC: 11835772. DOI: 10.2147/COPD.S479853.


Clinical implications of the SERPINA1 variant, M, and alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency in Türkiye.

Karadogan D, Dreger B, Osaba L, Ahmetoglu E, Ozyurt S, Yilmaz Kara B BMC Pulm Med. 2024; 24(1):622.

PMID: 39696116 PMC: 11657439. DOI: 10.1186/s12890-024-03421-y.


How can the findings of the EMAX trial on long-acting bronchodilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease be applied in the primary care setting?.

Kerwin E, Jones P, Bjermer L, Maltais F, Boucot I, Naya I Chron Respir Dis. 2023; 20:14799731231202257.

PMID: 37800633 PMC: 10903204. DOI: 10.1177/14799731231202257.

References
1.
Mackay A, Kostikas K, Murray L, Martinez F, Miravitlles M, Donaldson G . Patient-reported Outcomes for the Detection, Quantification, and Evaluation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbations. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018; 198(6):730-738. DOI: 10.1164/rccm.201712-2482CI. View

2.
Jones P, Harding G, Wiklund I, Berry P, Leidy N . Improving the process and outcome of care in COPD: development of a standardised assessment tool. Prim Care Respir J. 2009; 18(3):208-15. PMC: 6619275. DOI: 10.4104/pcrj.2009.00053. View

3.
Gruffydd-Jones K, Marsden H, Holmes S, Kardos P, Escamilla R, Negro R . Utility of COPD Assessment Test (CAT) in primary care consultations: a randomised controlled trial. Prim Care Respir J. 2013; 22(1):37-43. PMC: 6442750. DOI: 10.4104/pcrj.2013.00001. View

4.
Jones P, Harding G, Wiklund I, Berry P, Tabberer M, Yu R . Tests of the responsiveness of the COPD assessment test following acute exacerbation and pulmonary rehabilitation. Chest. 2012; 142(1):134-140. DOI: 10.1378/chest.11-0309. View

5.
Barry C, Bradley C, Britten N, Stevenson F, Barber N . Patients' unvoiced agendas in general practice consultations: qualitative study. BMJ. 2000; 320(7244):1246-50. PMC: 27368. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.320.7244.1246. View