The many faces of COPD in real life: a longitudinal analysis of the NOVELTY cohort

Alvar Agustí, Rod Hughes, Eleni Rapsomaki, Barry Make, Ricardo del Olmo, Alberto Papi, David Price, Laura Benton, Stefan Franzen, Jørgen Vestbo, Hana Mullerova for the NOVELTY Scientific Community and the NOVELTY study investigators
ERJ Open Research 2024 10: 00895-2023; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00895-2023

Abstract

Background The diagnosis of COPD requires the demonstration of non-fully reversible airflow limitation by spirometry in the appropriate clinical context. Yet, there are patients with symptoms and relevant exposures suggestive of COPD with either normal spirometry (pre-COPD) or preserved ratio but impaired spirometry (PRISm). Their prevalence, clinical characteristics and associated outcomes in a real-life setting are unclear.

Methods To investigate them, we studied 3183 patients diagnosed with COPD by their attending physician included in the NOVELTY study (clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02760329), a global, 3-year, observational, real-life cohort that included patients recruited from both primary and specialist care clinics in 18 countries.

Results We found that 1) approximately a quarter of patients diagnosed with (and treated for) COPD in real life did not fulfil the spirometric diagnostic criteria recommended by the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD), and could be instead categorised as pre-COPD (13%) or PRISm (14%); 2) disease burden (symptoms and exacerbations) was highest in GOLD 3–4 patients (exacerbations per person-year (PPY) 0.82) and lower but similar in those in GOLD 1–2, pre-COPD and PRISm (exacerbations range 0.27–0.43 PPY); 3) lung function decline was highest in pre-COPD and GOLD 1–2, and much less pronounced in PRISm and GOLD 3-4; 4) PRISm and pre-COPD were not stable diagnostic categories and change substantially over time; and 5) all-cause mortality was highest in GOLD 3–4, lowest in pre-COPD, and intermediate and similar in GOLD 1–2 and PRISm.

Conclusions Patients diagnosed COPD in a real-life clinical setting present great diversity in symptom burden, progression and survival, warranting medical attention.

Shareable abstract

This study presents the prevalence, clinical characteristics and associated outcomes of 3183 patients diagnosed with COPD, pre-COPD or PRISm in a global, real-life practice setting in the NOVELTY cohort https://bit.ly/41d9PPz

Introduction

According to the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD), the diagnosis of COPD requires the demonstration of non-fully reversible airflow limitation, as indicated by the presence of a post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio <0.70, in the appropriate clinical context [1]. However, in real-life there are patients without spirometric evidence of airflow limitation (i.e. FEV1/FVC ratio >0.70), but with symptoms and/or other functional or structural alterations named pre-COPD [2], and others with preserved ratio but impaired spirometry (PRISm) (FEV1/FVC >0.70 and FEV1 <80% predicted) [3, 4]; both pre-COPD and PRISm patients are at risk of progression to airflow limitation (i.e. COPD), exacerbations and death [3–6]. This realisation can open new windows of opportunity for their prevention, early diagnosis and treatment, hence preventing the occurrence of COPD and facilitating healthier ageing [7–9].

Previous studies in pre-COPD or PRISm patients have been conducted either in the general population [6, 10–18] or in clinical cohorts of COPD patients [5, 19–26], so their prevalence, characteristics, treatment and temporal evolution in a real-life healthcare practice setting are unclear. Here, we sought to investigate these many faces of COPD in the NOVELTY cohort [27, 28], a global, large, prospective, observational (3-year), study in patients with a physician diagnosis of COPD recruited from both primary and specialist care clinics, including many who would not usually be included in clinical trials with more strictly defined COPD.

Methods

Study design, patients and ethics

The design of the NOVELTY study (clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02760329) has been described in detail previously [27, 28]. Briefly, patients with a physician diagnosis of COPD and/or asthma (n=11 226) were enrolled prospectively between September 2015 and March 2017 by their attending physicians, which included primary care physicians, pulmonologists and allergists, in community and hospital outpatient settings across 271 sites in 18 countries [27]. Patients were aged ≥12 years, had not participated in a respiratory interventional trial within the previous 12 months, and were likely to complete 3 years of follow-up. The current analysis only included those with a physician-assigned diagnosis of COPD (without concomitant asthma) for whom valid spirometric data was available at recruitment (n=3183). These patients were stratified based on their post-bronchodilator spirometry values into the following four diagnostic categories. 1) COPD GOLD 1–2 (FEV1/FVC ratio <0.70 and FEV1 ≥50% to <80% pred) [1]; 2) COPD GOLD 3–4 (FEV1/FVC ratio <0.7 and FEV1 <50% pred) [1]; 3) pre-COPD: diagnosis of COPD with normal spirometry (FEV1/FVC ratio ≥0.70 and FEV1 ≥80% pred) [2]; or 4) PRISm: diagnosis of COPD with FEV1/FVC ratio ≥0.70 and FEV1 <80% pred [29, 30]. The NOVELTY study was approved by the institutional review boards of each participating institution, and all patients provided written informed consent [27].

Measurements

As detailed elsewhere [27, 28], at recruitment and yearly during 3 years of follow-up, demographics, smoking history, comorbidities, medications, respiratory symptoms and health status (modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) questionnaire on breathlessness, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and Chronic Airways Assessment Test (CAAT)), and rate of moderate-to-severe exacerbations in the previous 12 months as reported by the attending physician were registered. Frequent productive cough was defined as cough and sputum production most or several days/weeks for the past 3 months and derived from the SGRQ (scoring ≥3 for both SGRQ questions), as described previously [31]. Pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry values were recorded following international recommendations [32], and FEV1 reversibility was defined by a change ≥12% and ≥200 mL after the administration of salbutamol (400 μg pressurised metered-dose inhaler). Reference values were those of the Global Lung Function Initiative [33]. Biomarker assessment included fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) and blood cell counts.

Statistical analysis

Results are presented as mean±sd or number and proportions (denominators excluding patients with missing data). p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes and are based on the Chi-squared test for the comparison of categorical variables and the one-way ANOVA or Kruskal–Wallis H-test for normal or non-normal continuous variables, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, smoking status and (unless otherwise specified) body mass index (BMI) was used to identify individual clinical factors associated with pre-COPD versus PRISm. We used alluvial plots to illustrate potential changes of disease category at recruitment (pre-COPD, PRISm, GOLD 1–2 and GOLD 3–4) over time that included all patients with complete data at all time points (n=995). These same population (n=995) was used to estimate FEV1 changes during follow-up in these four groups. Kaplan–Meier curves were used to compare all-cause mortality during follow-up across diagnostic categories established at baseline in the entire study population (n=3183), and Cox proportional hazards models (unadjusted and adjusted for age and sex) were used to estimate hazard ratios for the association between diagnostic categories and mortality. All analyses were performed in R (version 4.1.0).

Results

Characteristics of patients at recruitment

We included in this analysis 3183 patients diagnosed with COPD by their attending physician, mostly of Caucasian origin, many of them with a recent COPD diagnosis (47.5% diagnosed within the prior 5 years). As shown in figure 1, according to their spirometric values at recruitment, 417 (13%) had pre-COPD, 432 (14%) had PRISm, 1288 (41%) were GOLD 1–2 and 1046 (33%) GOLD 3–4.

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1

Scatter plot of post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) (%) values versus post-bronchodilator FEV1 (% predicted) in patients with a physician-assigned diagnosis of COPD included in this analysis (n=3183). According to their measured spirometric values, patients are categorised as pre-COPD, preserved ratio but impaired spirometry (PRISm), Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 1–2 or GOLD 3–4. Proportions indicate the prevalence of each diagnostic category.

Table 1 summarises the main demographic, clinical and biological characteristics of these four groups of patients. Pre-COPD and PRISm patients were ~5 years younger, included a larger proportion of females and had a higher BMI (particularly those with PRISm) than GOLD 1–2 or GOLD 3–4 patients. Their spirometric values are in line with their diagnostic criteria, defined in the methods section. The categorisation of patients in each of these four groups was similar when airway obstruction was defined using a fixed FEV1/FVC ratio <0.7 or its lower limit of normal (LLN). As shown in supplementary figure S1, reclassification was basically nonexistent in patients with pre-COPD, PRISm or GOLD 3–4. In patients with GOLD 1–2, 122 (9.5%) patients would have been reclassified to pre-COPD and 186 (14.4%) to PRISm if the LLN had been used instead. FEV1 reversibility was present in 11–15% of patients in each group (table 1). Pre-COPD and PRISm included a higher proportion of both never and current smokers, and cumulative smoking exposure (pack-years) was higher in GOLD 1–2 and GOLD 3–4 patients. Industrial and air pollution exposures were substantial and similar across groups. Symptom burden, as determined by mMRC, SGRQ, CAAT or frequent productive cough was higher in GOLD 3–4, but the respiratory symptom load and health status impairment was remarkable and similar in GOLD 1–2, pre-COPD and PRISm (table 1). A physician diagnosis of emphysema or bronchiectasis (sometimes, but not always, based on computed tomography imaging) was more frequent in patients with GOLD 1–2 or GOLD 3–4 than in those with pre-COPD or PRISm. Moderate–severe exacerbations of COPD in the year before recruitment were most frequent in GOLD 3–4 (47.8% with one or more events) but approximately a quarter of patients with GOLD 1–2, pre-COPD or PRISm reported 1 or more events according to the attending physician.

View this table:
TABLE 1

Characteristics of participants with a physician diagnosis of COPD at recruitment in NOVELTY, by spirometric categories

Comorbidities, including chronic heart disease (prior myocardial infarction or congestive heart failure), type 2 diabetes, rhinosinusitis, gastro-oesophageal reflux and depression/anxiety were more prevalent in pre-COPD and PRISm than in those with GOLD grades 1–2 or GOLD 3–4 (table 1). FENO values were similar across groups and about a quarter of patients in all groups had values >25 ppb. Blood eosinophil levels tended to be higher in GOLD 1–2 and GOLD 3–4, but blood neutrophils were similar in all groups (table 1). Finally, table 1 presents the medications used by these patients in the 12 months before recruitment. Of note, most patients with pre-COPD or PRISm were treated with one or two long-acting bronchodilators, often in combination with inhaled corticosteroids. All differences across the four groups were statistically significant at the ≤0.01 level, except for environmental exposures and blood eosinophils (table 1).

Clinical factors associated with pre-COPD versus PRISm at recruitment

Multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, sex and smoking status showed that, compared to pre-COPD, PRISm was significantly associated with the following variables at baseline (supplementary figures S2–S4): obesity, more breathlessness (but not other respiratory symptoms) from a younger age, more frequent exacerbations and hospital admissions and some comorbidities, including type 2 diabetes and chronic heart disease; however, after adjusting for BMI, the association with these comorbidities disappear, suggesting a potentially relevant role of obesity. As a result, COPD was reported by the attending physician as being more severe in patients with PRISm than in patients with pre-COPD.

Observations during follow-up

Supplementary table S1 shows the proportion of patients who remained in (or changed) their baseline diagnostic category for 3 years of follow-up. Approximately three-quarters of GOLD 1–2 remained in the same diagnostic category over time, but 13–15% deteriorated and became GOLD 3–4, whereas 5–10% of them moved to pre-COPD or PRISm. In contrast, 90% of GOLD 3–4 were stable over time and only a few (10%) changed to either GOLD 1–2, pre-COPD or PRISm. Diagnostic variability over time in patients labelled at baseline as pre-COPD or PRISm was much larger, with only about 65% of them remaining in the same initial diagnostic category over time (supplementary table S1). These changes are illustrated graphically as an alluvial plot in figure 2, which only includes patients with complete data at all time points (n=995). The characteristics of this subgroup of patients at recruitment were not substantially different from the rest of the population studied (supplementary table S2). By and large, the four groups shown in figure 2 are stable over time, but there is the possibility of individual plasticity, particularly among pre-COPD and PRISm patients.

FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2

Alluvial plot of annual changes of the four diagnostic categories analysed here during follow-up, which includes all patients with complete data at all time points (n=995) and sets the minimum group change to 10 patients for visual clarity. Proportions denote the percentage of patients in each group. PRISm: preserved ratio but impaired spirometry; GOLD: Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease.

Figure 3 shows that symptom burden (figure 3a and b), exacerbation rate (figure 3c) and exacerbation severity (figure 3d) were highest in GOLD 3–4 patients, as expected. However, it is of note that they were similar in GOLD 1–2, pre-COPD and PRISm patients. By and large, there was a tendency towards decrease of these four variables during follow-up in all four groups. This is probably due to attrition of the study population over time (this graph includes all patients with data per visit, irrespective of whether they have data at other visits) and the well-described effect of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on exacerbations rate between year 2 and year 3 [35, 36].

FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3

Mean values of health status as assessed by a) total St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score or b) total Chronic Airways Assessment Test (CAAT) score; c) moderate/severe annual exacerbations; and d) proportion of patients with more than one hospitalisation because of a COPD exacerbation per year in patients with pre-COPD, preserved ratio but impaired spirometry (PRISm), Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 1–2 or GOLD 3–4, at baseline and each year during the 3-year follow-up. This graph includes all patients with data per visit, irrespective of whether they have data at other visits.

Figure 4a shows that the annual FEV1 change was highest in pre-COPD (−65.8±9.5 mL·year−1) and GOLD 1–2 (−54.6±4.3 mL·year−1), and considerably less in GOLD 3–4 (−21.8±5.1 mL·year−1) and PRISm (−14.1±9.1 mL·year−1). Figure 4b shows the change in FEV1 during follow-up in the four groups of patients studied, expressed as percentage change from the baseline value, and confirms that PRISm and GOLD 3–4 patients had the lower change over time and that it was higher and similar in pre-COPD and GOLD 1–2. This is unlikely to be explained by changes in smoking status, because they were minor and similar across groups over time.

FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4

a) Mean±sem of forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) values determined at baseline and during follow-up (3 years) versus mean age (years) in patients with pre-COPD, preserved ratio but impaired spirometry (PRISm), Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 1–2 and GOLD 3–4 with valid data in all four visits (n=995). The mean±sem rate of absolute annual FEV1 decline is shown for each group. b) FEV1 values in each group at years (Y)1, 2 and 3 of follow-up, expressed as a percentage of the baseline (BSL) value (calculated as 100×(FEV1(Y1, Y2, Y3) – FEV1BSL)/FEV1BSL).

Finally, figure 5 shows that all-cause mortality during follow-up was highest in GOLD 3–4, lowest in pre-COPD and intermediate and similar in GOLD 1–2 and PRISm patients. These comparisons were similar after adjustment for age and sex (supplementary table S3).

FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5

All-cause mortality during 3-year follow-up in pre-COPD, preserved ratio but impaired spirometry (PRISm), Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 1–2 and GOLD 3–4 patients.

Discussion

This study shows that 1) approximately a quarter (27%) of patients diagnosed with (and treated for) COPD in real-life primary and specialised care clinics do not actually have evidence of post-bronchodilator airflow limitation (the diagnostic COPD criteria recommended by GOLD [1]) and can instead be categorised as pre-COPD [2] (13%) or PRISm [3, 4] (14%); 2) as expected, disease burden (symptoms and exacerbations) was highest in GOLD 3–4 but, of note, it was similar in pre-COPD, PRISm and GOLD 1–2 patients; 3) membership of the pre-COPD and PRISm diagnostic categories established at recruitment is dynamic and can change over time (3-year follow-up); 4) FEV1 decline was abnormally accelerated in pre-COPD and GOLD 1–2, but normal in PRISm and GOLD 3–4; and 5) all-cause mortality was highest in GOLD 3–4, lowest in pre-COPD, and intermediate and similar in GOLD 1–2 and PRISm. Collectively, these observations provide a unique picture of the many faces of COPD in a real healthcare setting.

Previous studies

Several previous studies have investigated the characteristics and clinical relevance of pre-COPD and PRISm patients in the general population [6, 10–18] or in clinical cohorts of COPD patients [5, 19–26]. To our knowledge, this is the first to investigate them in a global, large, prospective healthcare practice setting that include patients with a physician diagnosis of COPD recruited from both primary and specialist care clinics [27, 28].

Interpretation of findings and clinical implications

Our understanding of COPD has changed significantly over the past few years. Traditionally, COPD was considered a self-inflicted disease by tobacco smoking occurring in older males [37]. Now we know that other risk factors besides smoking also increase the risk of COPD [38–40]; that the disease similarly affects males and females [41]; that different lung function trajectories through the lifetime involving abnormal lung development and/or accelerated ageing can lead to COPD [40, 42–44]; and that, as a result, the disease can also be identified in young adults [18]. The results of this study contribute to better delineate some of these many faces of COPD in a real-life setting.

First, 27% of patients diagnosed with COPD in primary and specialised care did not exhibit the diagnostic criteria proposed by GOLD [1]. Instead, 13% had a normal spirometry (pre-COPD) and 14% PRISm (figure 1). These figures are in the range of those reported previously in the general population [6, 10–18] or COPD patient cohorts [5, 19–24]. It is possible that other potential comorbidities (e.g. chronic heart failure/diastolic dysfunction) may mimic the symptoms of COPD and lead to an incorrect diagnosis; unfortunately, NOVELTY does not include any echocardiographic measurement that allow us to explore this possibility, albeit it may be of note that PRISm patients had a higher reported incidence of coronary artery disease (table 1). Conversely, it may be informative to explore how these two diagnostic categories without airflow obstruction (pre-COPD and PRISm) compare to canonical COPD with airflow obstruction. In this context, it is of note that pre-COPD and PRISm patients were younger, included more females, and, interestingly, a higher proportion of both never-smokers and current smokers than COPD (table 1). Nonetheless, disease burden (symptoms, exacerbations) in both groups was similar to that of GOLD 1–2 patients and most of them were treated with one or two bronchodilators, often in combination with inhaled corticosteroids, like COPD (table 1). This is in keeping with previous observations in the SPIROMICS study [45] and clearly illustrates the need for well-designed clinical trials in these patients [8, 24]. Recent evidence has shown that inhaled dual bronchodilator therapy does not decrease respiratory symptoms in symptomatic, tobacco-exposed persons with normal spirometry in the short term (12 weeks) [24]. Clearly, longer studies exploring the potential impact of this or other treatment options in other clinically relevant outcomes such as FEV1 decline (figure 3), rate of exacerbations (figure 4) and/or long-term mortality (figure 5) in pre-COPD and PRISm patients are needed [8]. In the meantime, careful monitoring and lex artis therapeutic management is advised in pre-COPD and PRISm patients through the search and treatment of potential treatable traits in each individual patient [46, 47].

Second, another clinically relevant question is to what extent the pre-COPD and PRISm diagnostic categories describe similar or different subpopulations of patients. Our results show that the proportion of females and smoking exposure was similar in both groups, but PRISm patients were more obese, more symptomatic from a younger age, and tended to suffer more comorbidities, exacerbations and hospital admissions, as other studies have shown [4]; as a result, their disease may have been considered more severe by the attending physician. Besides, pre-COPD and PRISm patients followed very different FEV1 trajectories during follow-up. Whereas the former exhibited accelerated FEV1 decline over 3 years [48], similar to that of GOLD 1–2, PRISm patients remained essentially stable during follow-up (figure 3), in keeping with observations in the general population in the Rotterdam Study [10] and in the COPDGene cohort [5]. Finally, mortality was lowest in pre-COPD but higher and similar in PRISm and GOLD 1–2 (figure 4). Collectively, therefore, these differences support that pre-COPD and PRISm identify different subpopulations of patients. That PRISm patients are more obese, more symptomatic and comorbid, likely not to present accelerated lung function decline with time, but at a higher risk of mortality than pre-COPD, is compatible with previous reports in the Framingham Offspring Cohort showing that patients with reduced lung function in early adulthood have a higher incidence of premature comorbidities and early death [49]. These observations are compatible with the hypothesis that PRISm individuals may have not developed their lungs (and perhaps other organ systems too (multimorbidity)) properly during infancy and adolescence, and may therefore represent a distinct population from pre-COPD patients [50].

Third, the longitudinal design of our study allowed us to investigate the stability of the pre-COPD, PRISm, GOLD 1–2 and GOLD 3–4 diagnostic categories over time. As illustrated graphically in the alluvial plot shown in figure 2 (and numerically in supplementary table S1) we found that during the 3-year follow-up most COPD patients (particularly GOLD 3–4) remained in the same diagnostic category, whereas only about 65% of pre-COPD and PRISm patients remaining stable in the same initial diagnostic category over time, the rest deteriorating or improving in roughly the same proportion. This temporal variability is in keeping with previous studies [5, 10, 15, 20, 51–53].

Finally, some observations in relation to FEV1 decline over time are worth discussing. First, as already known [1], FEV1 decline was higher in GOLD 1–2 than GOLD 3–4 (both in absolute values and when expressed as percentage of the baseline value; figure 4a and b). This is in keeping with the well-known “horse-racing effect” which describes the fact that those with more preserved lung function have more to lose and thus may have larger absolute decline [54]. Of note, all-cause mortality was much higher in GOLD 3–4 (figure 5). This may be in keeping with previous observations reporting that individuals with reduced peak lung function in early adulthood have reduced FEV1 decline [42], but increased mortality later in life [49]. And second, FEV1 decline was highest in pre-COPD patients (figure 4). This is compatible with these individuals belonging to a supranormal lung function trajectory characterised by accelerated lung function decline starting from a supranormal peak lung function in early adulthood [44, 55, 56], supporting again the horse-racing effect discussed earlier [54]. Whether or not patients with pre-COPD or PRISm in the NOVELTY cohort will eventually develop airflow obstruction (i.e. COPD) cannot be ascertained from our observations. We know from other studies that not all PRISm or pre-COPD patients will do so [1]. We speculate that, given that the patients studied here are in their sixties, the development of severe COPD is unlikely. However, a recent analysis of the SPIROMICS cohort showed that symptomatic smokers with normal spirometry do not have accelerated rates of FEV1 decline or increased incidence of COPD versus those with without symptoms, but experience more exacerbations during follow-up [26]. In any case, collectively, our observations clearly support that it is possible to identify different lung function trajectories in a real-life setting that are probably associated to different mechanisms [42–44], biomarkers [57] and outcomes (figure 5). However, a word of caution is necessary here since the observations on FEV1 decline (figure 3) are based on a relatively small (n=995) fraction of patients (i.e. those who with valid spirometry at all four points), and some of them may not have linear deterioration, or may even improve, as the alluvial plot indicates (figure 2).

Strengths and limitations

Our study has several strengths and limitations. Among the former, 1) while several of these observations have been reported in other cohorts, a clear strength of these findings is an unselected global population of subjects diagnosed with COPD, thereby supporting similar findings in selected cohorts (COPDGene [25], SPIROMICS [26, 58]) in a more general population; 2) these data support the evolving concepts in the diagnosis of COPD, showing that a traditional spirometric cut-off of an FEV1/FVC <0.70 to support the diagnosis of COPD may not be necessary to diagnose (or rule out) COPD [59]; and 3) this analysis provides novel and relevant data on the longitudinal stability of these diagnostic categories as well as about their relationship with clinically relevant outcomes, which has not been precisely defined by previous studies in other general population [6, 10–18] or clinical cohorts of patients with COPD [5, 19–24].

Among potential limitations we acknowledge that, first, the criteria to determine a diagnosis of COPD used by physicians caring for these patients may potentially not conform to current guidelines [1]. For instance, we used post-bronchodilator spirometric values for the diagnosis of COPD [1] and we excluded patients with a diagnosis of asthma. However, we admit that in real life there are patients diagnosed with “asthma” who may actually have COPD, and that post-bronchodilator (or even pre-bronchodilator) spirometry is often not measured. Second, the study population was not a random sample of the general population, as there were target numbers for recruitment by diagnosis and severity to ensure adequate samples for subgroup analyses, there was patient dropout during follow-up and findings of this analysis represent the characteristics of patients already on treatment, which may differ from those at the time of initial diagnosis; in addition, our mortality findings are short-term (3 years) and we do not have specific information on cause(s) of death; and finally, we cannot exclude a healthy survivor effect in the analysis of longitudinal data since the analysis of change of lung function over time used completers only, as it would not be possible to compare across time points if different patients were contributing to each time point. Third, NOVELTY lacks imaging data to better understand the potential structural alterations of pre-COPD and PRISm patients. Fourth, because there was considerable attrition (69%) over the follow-up period, the analysis of the longitudinal FEV1 changes (figure 4) was restricted to those with complete follow-up data at all four time points (n=995); this may have led to some selection bias, albeit most baseline characteristics were similar (supplementary table S2) in those with incomplete data (n=2188) versus those with complete follow-up data (n=995). Furthermore, because we studied patients in their sixties and follow-up was only 3 years, the proposal that pre-COPD and PRISM patients are actually members of certain lung function trajectories is speculative. Finally, despite that NOVELTY also includes patients diagnosed by their attending physicians of asthma or asthma and COPD [28], in this analysis we focused exclusively on those diagnosed by their attending COPD physician to reduce the heterogeneity of the population studied.

Conclusions

This analysis shows that approximately a quarter of patients diagnosed and treated as COPD in real life do not fulfil the COPD definition of non-fully reversible airflow limitation and can be classified instead as pre-COPD or PRISm; yet their disease burden and temporal progression is similar to that of those with spirometrically confirmed GOLD 1–2 COPD. These patients deserve careful attention and eventual treatment, particularly those with pre-COPD, who lose lung function at a very high rate. Well-designed, randomised clinical trials are urgently needed to determine the best therapeutic options for all these patient types [8].

Supplementary material

Supplementary Material

Please note: supplementary material is not edited by the Editorial Office, and is uploaded as it has been supplied by the author.

Supplementary material 00895-2023.SUPPLEMENT

Figure S1 00895-2023.FIGURES1

Figure S2 00895-2023.FIGURES2

Figure S3a 00895-2023.FIGURES3A

Figure S3b 00895-2023.FIGURES3B

Figure S3c 00895-2023.FIGURES3C

Figure S4 00895-2023.FIGURES4

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the participating patients and their families for their willingness to contribute to medical research, as well as the very many field investigators involved in NOVELTY for their commitment to the study. The full list of NOVELTY investigators is shown in supplementary tables S4 and S5.

Footnotes

  • Provenance: Submitted article, peer reviewed.

  • NOVELTY is not a randomised controlled trial, but it is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov with identifier number NCT02760329.

  • Author contributions: All authors participated in the NOVELTY study, discussed the analysis and results, and approved the final manuscript.

  • Conflict of Interest: A. Agustí reports support for the present manuscript as a member of the scientific committee of NOVELTY; and grants from GSK and AstraZeneca, consulting fees from GSK, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Menarini and Sanofi, lecture honoraria from GSK, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Menarini and Zambon, and an unpaid leadership role as chair of the board of directors of GOLD, outside the submitted work.

  • Conflict of interest: R. Hughes is an employee of AstraZeneca.

  • Conflict of interest: E. Rapsomaniki, L. Benton, S. Franzen and H. Mullerova report support for the present manuscript from AstraZeneca, and stock or stock options in AstraZeneca.

  • Conflict of interest: B. Make reports support for the present manuscript from AstraZeneca; and grants from the NHLBI, the American Lung Association, the Department of Defense and AstraZeneca, royalties from Wolters Kluwer Health (Up-To-Date), consulting fees from AstraZeneca and Third Pole; lecture honoraria from AstraZeneca, Mt Sinai, Web MD, Novartis, the American College of Chest Physicians, Projects in Knowledge, the Eastern Pulmonary Society, Optimum Patient Care Global Limited, GlaxoSmithKline, Boston University Medical Center and Integritas Communications, advisory board participation with Spiration, GlaxoSmithKline, Mt Sinai, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mylan, Quintiles, the University of Wisconsin, Baystate Medical Center and AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work.

  • Conflict of interest: R. del Olmo reports support for the present manuscript for medical writing from AstraZeneca; and reports lecture honoraria from AstraZeneca, GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, Elea and Sanofi, and travel support from AstraZeneca, GSK and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work.

  • Conflict of interest: A. Papi reports support for the present manuscript from AstraZeneca; and grants from Chiesi, AstraZeneca, GSK, Sanofi and Agenzia Italiana Del Farmaco, consulting fees from Chiesi, AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis, Sanofi, Avillion and Elpen Pharmaceutica, lecture honoraria from Chiesi, AstraZeneca, GSK, Menarini, Novartis, Zambon, Mundipharma, Sanofi, Edmond Pharma, Iqvia, Avillion and Elpen Pharmaceuticals, and advisory board participation with Chiesi, AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi, Iqvia, Avillion and Elpen Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work.

  • Conflict of interest: D. Price reports grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Mylan, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, the Respiratory Effectiveness Group, Sanofi Genzyme, Theravance and the UK National Health Service, consulting fees from Airway Vista Secretariat, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, EPG Communication Holdings Ltd, FIECON Ltd, Fieldwork International, GlaxoSmithKline, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, OM Pharma SA, PeerVoice, Phadia AB, Spirosure Inc, Strategic North Limited, Synapse Research Management Partners S.L., Talos Health Solutions, Theravance, WebMD Global LLC, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, GlaxoSmithKline, Kyorin, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi Genzyme; payment for expert testimony from GlaxoSmithKline; travel support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mundipharma, Mylan, Novartis and Thermofisher, advisory board membership with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Mylan, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme and Thermofisher, stock or stock options from AKL Research and Development Ltd, Optimum Patient Care Ltd (Australia and the UK), the Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd (Singapore) and Timestamp, and acts as peer reviewer for grant committees for UK Efficacy and the Mechanism Evaluation Programme and Health Technology Assessment, outside the submitted work.

  • Conflict of interest: J. Vestbo reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, ALK, Chiesi, GSK and Teva, and lecture honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi and GSK, outside the submitted work.

  • Support statement: The NOVELTY study is funded by AstraZeneca. The sponsor participated in the design of the study, data analysis and preparation of the manuscript. Funding information for this article has been deposited with the Crossref Funder Registry.

  • Ethics statement: The NOVELTY study was approved by the institutional review boards of each participating institution and all patients provided written informed consent.

  • Received November 14, 2023.
  • Accepted November 23, 2023.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence 4.0.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD)
    . Global Strategy for Prevention, Diagnosis and Management of COPD: 2023 Report. 2023. https://goldcopd.org/2023-gold-report-2/
  2. ↵
    1. Han MK,
    2. Agusti A,
    3. Celli BR, et al.
    From GOLD 0 to pre-COPD. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2021; 203: 414–423. doi:10.1164/rccm.202008-3328PP
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Wan ES,
    2. Castaldi PJ,
    3. Cho MH, et al.
    Epidemiology, genetics, and subtyping of preserved ratio impaired spirometry (PRISm) in COPDGene. Respir Res 2014; 15: 89. doi:10.1186/s12931-014-0089-y
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Wan ES
    . The clinical spectrum of PRISm. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2022; 206: 524–525. doi:10.1164/rccm.202205-0965ED
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Wan ES,
    2. Fortis S,
    3. Regan EA, et al.
    Longitudinal phenotypes and mortality in preserved ratio impaired spirometry in the COPDGene study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2018; 198: 1397–1405. doi:10.1164/rccm.201804-0663OC
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Park HJ,
    2. Byun MK,
    3. Rhee CK, et al.
    Significant predictors of medically diagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in patients with preserved ratio impaired spirometry: a 3-year cohort study. Respir Res 2018; 19: 185. doi:10.1186/s12931-018-0896-7
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Agusti A,
    2. Alcazar B,
    3. Cosio B, et al.
    Time for a change: anticipating the diagnosis and treatment of COPD. Eur Respir J 2020; 56: 2002104. doi:10.1183/13993003.02104-2020
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Martinez FJ,
    2. Agusti A,
    3. Celli BR, et al.
    Treatment trials in young patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and pre-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients: time to move forward. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2022; 205: 275–287. doi:10.1164/rccm.202107-1663SO
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Stolz D,
    2. Mkorombindo T,
    3. Schumann DM, et al.
    Towards the elimination of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a Lancet Commission. Lancet 2022; 400: 921–972. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01273-9
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. ↵
    1. Wijnant SRA,
    2. De Roos E,
    3. Kavousi M, et al.
    Trajectory and mortality of preserved ratio impaired spirometry: the Rotterdam Study. Eur Respir J 2020; 55: 1901217. doi:10.1183/13993003.01217-2019
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Wan ES,
    2. Balte P,
    3. Schwartz JE, et al.
    Association between preserved ratio impaired spirometry and clinical outcomes in US adults. JAMA 2021; 326: 2287–2298. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.20939
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Marott JL,
    2. Ingebrigtsen TS,
    3. Çolak Y, et al.
    Trajectory of preserved ratio impaired spirometry: natural history and long-term prognosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2021; 204: 910–920. doi:10.1164/rccm.202102-0517OC
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Anami K,
    2. Murata S,
    3. Nakano H, et al.
    Physical performance in relation to preserved ratio impaired spirometry: a cross-sectional study of community-dwelling older Japanese adults. Sci Rep 2021; 11: 17411. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-96830-6
    OpenUrl
    1. Kaise T,
    2. Sakihara E,
    3. Tamaki K, et al.
    Prevalence and characteristics of individuals with preserved ratio impaired spirometry (PRISm) and/or impaired lung function in Japan: the OCEAN study. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2021; 16: 2665–2675. doi:10.2147/COPD.S322041
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Higbee DH,
    2. Granell R,
    3. Davey Smith G, et al.
    Prevalence, risk factors, and clinical implications of preserved ratio impaired spirometry: a UK Biobank cohort analysis. Lancet Respir Med 2022; 10: 149–157. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00369-6
    OpenUrl
    1. Washio Y,
    2. Sakata S,
    3. Fukuyama S, et al.
    Risks of mortality and airflow limitation in Japanese individuals with preserved ratio impaired spirometry. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2022; 206: 563–572. doi:10.1164/rccm.202110-2302OC
    OpenUrl
    1. Kim J,
    2. Lee CH,
    3. Lee HY, et al.
    Association between comorbidities and preserved ratio impaired spirometry: using the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey IV–VI. Respiration 2022; 101: 25–33. doi:10.1159/000517599
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Cosío BG,
    2. Casanova C,
    3. Soler-Cataluña JJ, et al.
    Unravelling young COPD and pre-COPD in the general population. ERJ Open Res 2023; 9: 00334-2022. doi: 10.1183/23120541.00334-2022
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Fortis S,
    2. Comellas A,
    3. Kim V, et al.
    Low FVC/TLC in preserved ratio impaired spirometry (PRISm) is associated with features of and progression to obstructive lung disease. Sci Rep 2020; 10: 5169. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-61932-0
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Wan ES,
    2. Hokanson JE,
    3. Regan EA, et al.
    Significant spirometric transitions and preserved ratio impaired spirometry among ever smokers. Chest 2022; 161: 651–661. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2021.09.021
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Lu J,
    2. Ge H,
    3. Qi L, et al.
    Subtyping preserved ratio impaired spirometry (PRISm) by using quantitative HRCT imaging characteristics. Respir Res 2022; 23: 309. doi:10.1186/s12931-022-02113-7
    OpenUrl
    1. Ogata H,
    2. Sha K,
    3. Kotetsu Y, et al.
    The prognostic performance of lung diffusing capacity in preserved ratio impaired spirometry: an observational cohort study. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2022; 17: 2791–2799. doi:10.2147/COPD.S384074
    OpenUrl
    1. Shiraishi Y,
    2. Shimada T,
    3. Tanabe N, et al.
    The prevalence and physiological impacts of centrilobular and paraseptal emphysema on computed tomography in smokers with preserved ratio impaired spirometry. ERJ Open Res 2022; 8: 00063-2022. doi:10.1183/23120541.00063-2022
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. Han MK,
    2. Ye W,
    3. Wang D, et al.
    Bronchodilators in tobacco-exposed persons with symptoms and preserved lung function. N Engl J Med 2022; 387: 1173–1184. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2204752
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    1. Ragland MF,
    2. Strand M,
    3. Baraghoshi D, et al.
    10-year follow-up of lung function, respiratory symptoms, and functional capacity in the COPDGene study. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2022; 19: 381–388. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202007-873OC
    OpenUrl
  26. ↵
    1. McKleroy W,
    2. Shing T,
    3. Anderson WH, et al.
    Longitudinal follow-up of participants with tobacco exposure and preserved spirometry. JAMA 2023; 330: 442–453. doi:10.1001/jama.2023.11676
    OpenUrl
  27. ↵
    1. Reddel HK,
    2. Gerhardsson de Verdier M,
    3. Agustí A, et al.
    Prospective observational study in patients with obstructive lung disease: NOVELTY design. ERJ Open Res 2019; 5: 00036-2018. doi:10.1183/23120541.00036-2018
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. Reddel HK,
    2. Vestbo J,
    3. Agustí A, et al.
    Heterogeneity within and between physician-diagnosed asthma and/or COPD: NOVELTY cohort. Eur Respir J 2021; 58: 2003927. doi:10.1183/13993003.03927-2020
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Lowe KE,
    2. Regan EA,
    3. Anzueto A, et al.
    COPDGene® 2019: redefining the diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis 2019; 6: 384–399. doi: 10.15326/jcopdf.6.5.2019.0149
    OpenUrl
  30. ↵
    1. Wan ES,
    2. Hokanson JE,
    3. Murphy JR, et al.
    Clinical and radiographic predictors of GOLD-unclassified smokers in the COPDGene study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2011; 184: 57–63. doi:10.1164/rccm.201101-0021OC
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Hughes R,
    2. Rapsomaniki E,
    3. Janson C, et al.
    Frequent productive cough: symptom burden and future exacerbation risk among patients with asthma and/or COPD in the NOVELTY study. Respir Med 2022; 200: 106921. doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2022.106921
    OpenUrl
  32. ↵
    1. Miller MR,
    2. Hankinson J,
    3. Brusasco V, et al.
    Standardisation of spirometry. Eur Respir J 2005; 26: 319–338. doi:10.1183/09031936.05.00034805
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. ↵
    1. Quanjer PH,
    2. Stanojevic S,
    3. Cole TJ, et al.
    Multi-ethnic reference values for spirometry for the 3–95-yr age range: the Global Lung Function 2012 equations. Eur Respir J 2012; 40: 1324–1343. doi:10.1183/09031936.00080312
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Tomaszewski EL,
    2. Atkinson MJ,
    3. Janson C, et al.
    Chronic airways assessment test: psychometric properties in patients with asthma and/or COPD. Respir Res 2023; 24: 106.10.1186/s12931-023-02394-6
    OpenUrl
  35. ↵
    1. Trujillo C,
    2. Garnet B,
    3. Zadeh AV, et al.
    Decrease in exacerbations during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in a cohort of veterans with COPD. Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis 2021; 8: 572–579. doi: 10.15326/jcopdf.2021.0234.
    OpenUrl
  36. ↵
    1. Alqahtani JS,
    2. Oyelade T,
    3. Aldhahir AM, et al.
    Reduction in hospitalised COPD exacerbations during COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2021; 16: e0255659. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0255659
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Fletcher C,
    2. Peto R
    . The natural history of chronic airflow obstruction. Br Med J 1977; 1: 1645–1648. doi:10.1136/bmj.1.6077.1645
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. ↵
    1. Breyer-Kohansal R,
    2. Faner R,
    3. Breyer M-K, et al.
    Factors associated with low lung function in different age bins in the general population. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020; 202: 292–296. doi:10.1164/rccm.202001-0172LE
    OpenUrl
    1. Yang IA,
    2. Jenkins CR,
    3. Salvi SS
    . Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in never-smokers: risk factors, pathogenesis, and implications for prevention and treatment. Lancet Respir Med 2022; 10: 497–511. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00506-3
    OpenUrl
  40. ↵
    1. Agustí A,
    2. Melén E,
    3. DeMeo DL, et al.
    Pathogenesis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: understanding the contributions of gene–environment interactions across the lifespan. Lancet Respir Med 2022; 10: 512–524. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00555-5
    OpenUrl
  41. ↵
    1. Landis SH,
    2. Muellerova H,
    3. Mannino DM, et al.
    Continuing to Confront COPD International Patient Survey: methods, COPD prevalence, and disease burden in 2012–2013. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2014; 9: 597–611. doi: 10.2147/COPD.S61854
    OpenUrlPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Lange P,
    2. Celli B,
    3. Agustí A, et al.
    Lung-function trajectories leading to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 111–122. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1411532
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Agusti A,
    2. Faner R
    . Lung function trajectories in health and disease. Lancet Respir Med 2019; 7: 358–364. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30529-0
    OpenUrl
  44. ↵
    1. Agustí A,
    2. Hogg JC
    . Update on the pathogenesis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. N Engl J Med 2019; 381: 1248–1256. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1900475
    OpenUrlPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Woodruff PG,
    2. Barr RG,
    3. Bleecker E, et al.
    Clinical significance of symptoms in smokers with preserved pulmonary function. N Engl J Med 2016; 374: 1811–1821. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1505971
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Agusti A,
    2. Bel E,
    3. Thomas M, et al.
    Treatable traits: toward precision medicine of chronic airway diseases. Eur Respir J 2016; 47: 410–419. doi:10.1183/13993003.01359-2015
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. ↵
    1. Agustí A,
    2. Rapsomaniki E,
    3. Beasley R, et al.
    Treatable traits in the NOVELTY study. Respirology 2022; 27: 929–940. doi:10.1111/resp.14325
    OpenUrl
  48. ↵
    1. Kohansal R,
    2. Martinez-Camblor P,
    3. Agustí A, et al.
    The natural history of chronic airflow obstruction revisited: an analysis of the Framingham offspring cohort. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2009; 180: 3–10. doi:10.1164/rccm.200901-0047OC
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Agustí A,
    2. Noell G,
    3. Brugada J, et al.
    Lung function in early adulthood and health in later life: a transgenerational cohort analysis. Lancet Respir Med 2017; 5: 935–945. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(17)30434-4
    OpenUrl
  50. ↵
    1. Çolak Y,
    2. Afzal S,
    3. Nordestgaard BG, et al.
    Young and middle-aged adults with airflow limitation according to lower limit of normal but not fixed ratio have high morbidity and poor survival: a population-based prospective cohort study. Eur Respir J 2018; 51: 1702681. doi:10.1183/13993003.02681-2017
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. ↵
    1. He D,
    2. Sun Y,
    3. Gao M, et al.
    Different risks of mortality and longitudinal transition trajectories in new potential subtypes of the preserved ratio impaired spirometry: evidence from the English Longitudinal Study of Aging. Front Med 2021; 8: 755855. doi:10.3389/fmed.2021.755855
    OpenUrl
    1. Tanabe N,
    2. Masuda I,
    3. Shiraishi Y, et al.
    Clinical relevance of multiple confirmed preserved ratio impaired spirometry cases in adults. Respir Investig 2022; 60: 822–830. doi:10.1016/j.resinv.2022.08.006
    OpenUrl
  53. ↵
    1. Zheng J,
    2. Zhou R,
    3. Zhang Y, et al.
    Preserved ratio impaired spirometry in relation to cardiovascular outcomes: a large prospective cohort study. Chest 2022; 163: 610–623. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2022.11.003
    OpenUrl
  54. ↵
    1. Berry CE,
    2. Drummond MB
    . The horse-racing effect and lung function: can we slow the fastest horse? Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2017; 195: 1134–1135. doi:10.1164/rccm.201703-0540ED
    OpenUrl
  55. ↵
    1. Çolak Y,
    2. Nordestgaard BG,
    3. Lange P, et al.
    Supernormal lung function and risk of COPD: a contemporary population-based cohort study. EClinicalMedicine 2021; 37: 100974. doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100974
    OpenUrl
  56. ↵
    1. Çolak Y,
    2. Nordestgaard BG,
    3. Vestbo J, et al.
    Relationship between supernormal lung function and long-term risk of hospitalisations and mortality: a population-based cohort study. Eur Respir J 2021; 57: 2004055. doi:10.1183/13993003.04055-2020
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  57. ↵
    1. Bui DS,
    2. Agusti A,
    3. Walters H, et al.
    Lung function trajectory and biomarkers in the Tasmanian Longitudinal Health Study. ERJ Open Res 2021; 7: 00020-2021. doi: 10.1183/23120541.00020-2021
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. ↵
    1. Buhr RG,
    2. Barjaktarevic IZ,
    3. Quibrera PM, et al.
    Reversible airflow obstruction predicts future chronic obstructive pulmonary disease development in the SPIROMICS Cohort: an observational cohort study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2022; 206: 554–562. doi:10.1164/rccm.202201-0094OC
    OpenUrl
  59. ↵
    1. Soriano JB,
    2. Marín JM,
    3. Celli BR
    . Post-bronchodilator spirometry in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Lancet Respir Med 2023; 11: 13–14. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(22)00476-3
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Email
Print
Citation Tools
The many faces of COPD in real life: a longitudinal analysis of the NOVELTY cohort
Alvar Agustí, Rod Hughes, Eleni Rapsomaki, Barry Make, Ricardo del Olmo, Alberto Papi, David Price, Laura Benton, Stefan Franzen, Jørgen Vestbo, Hana Mullerova
ERJ Open Research Jan 2024, 10 (1) 00895-2023; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00895-2023
del.icio.us logo Technorati logo Twitter logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

Subjects