- Open Access
COPD exacerbations and patient-reported outcomes according to post-bronchodilator FEV1 – a post-hoc analysis of pooled data
BMC Pulmonary Medicine volume 23, Article number: 150 (2023)
Management strategies of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) need to be tailored to the forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), exacerbations, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of individual patients. In this study, we analyzed the association and correlation between the FEV1, exacerbations, and PROs of patients with stable COPD.
This was a post-hoc analysis of pooled data from two cross-sectional studies that were previously conducted in Malaysia from 2017 to 2019, the results of which had been published separately. The parameters measured included post-bronchodilator FEV1 (PB-FEV1), exacerbations, and scores of modified Medical Research Council (mMRC), COPD Assessment Test (CAT), and St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire for COPD (SGRQ-c). Descriptive, association, and correlation statistics were used.
Three hundred seventy-four patients were included in the analysis. The PB-FEV1 predicted was < 30% in 85 (22.7%), 30–49% in 142 (38.0%), 50–79% in 111 (29.7%), and ≥ 80% in 36 (9.6%) patients. Patients with PB-FEV1 < 30% predicted had significantly more COPD exacerbations than those with PB-FEV1 30–49% predicted (p < 0.001), 50–79% predicted (p < 0.001), and ≥ 80% predicted (p = 0.002). The scores of mMRC, CAT, and SGRQ-c were not significantly higher in patients with more severe airflow limitation based on PB-FEV1 (p = 0.121–0.271). The PB-FEV1 predicted had significant weak negative correlations with exacerbations (r = − 0.182, p < 0.001), mMRC (r = − 0.121, p = 0.020), and SGRQ-c scores (r = − 0.114, p = 0.028). There was a moderate positive correlation between COPD exacerbations and scores of mMRC, CAT, and SGRQ-c (r = 0.407–0.482, all p < 0.001). There were significant strong positive correlations between mMRC score with CAT (r = 0.727) and SGRQ-c scores (r = 0.847), and CAT score with SGRQ-c score (r = 0.851) (all p < 0.001).
In COPD patients, different severity of airflow limitation was not associated with significant differences in the mMRC, CAT, and SGRQ-c scores. Exacerbations were significantly more frequent in patients with very severe airflow limitation only. The correlation between airflow limitation with exacerbations, mMRC, and SGRQ-c was weak.
“Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common, preventable, and treatable airway disease characterized by persistent respiratory symptoms and airflow limitation caused by prolonged exposure to noxious particles or gases.”  The estimated global prevalence of COPD is 13.1% with a continent-based prevalence of 12.4% in Europe, 13.2% in the Americas, 13.5% in Asia, 11.6% in Oceania, and 13.9% in Africa . Worldwide, COPD is currently the fourth leading cause of mortality resulting in 3.2 million deaths annually, and the second leading cause of disease burden accounting for 63.9 million disability-adjusted life-years .
Forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), exacerbations, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) such as dyspnea symptom and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) are important endpoints used to evaluate the severity of COPD and its impacts on health  COPD patients with lower FEV1 have been shown to have a significantly higher exacerbation frequency, symptoms burden, disabilities, and all-causes mortalities . Similarly, those who experience frequent COPD exacerbations are shown to have poorer lung function, exercise tolerance, and survival [6, 7]. Physical disabilities, sleep disturbances, psychological distress, and comorbidities are more common in COPD patients who report higher symptoms burden or poorer HRQOL [8, 9]. Besides, these patients also have a poorer long-term prognosis, such as being at higher risk of exacerbations, hospitalizations, and death [8, 9].
COPD is a heterogenous disease, of which its management strategies need to be tailored to the FEV1, exacerbations, and PROs of individual patients . However, data on the relationship between these clinical endpoints in COPD patients are generally limited to the Western population and in clinical trials setting . Studies have shown COPD patients in Asia have different clinical phenotypes,  as well as higher disability, hospitalisations, and mortality compared to those in advanced Western countries . Besides, poverty, pulmonary tuberculosis, and indoor biomass fuel burning are unique and yet common risks of COPD in Asia. [14, 15] Difference in cultural background, literacy level, languages, and daily activities between Asia and Western population may cause discrepancy in COPD PROs response . Compared to in real-world, patients involved in COPD clinical trials often report better clinical endpoints due to various advantages such as sample selection, use of newer drugs, and Hawthrone effect. [17, 18] Therefore, it is essential to look into these clinical endpoints among patients in Asia and real-world setting in order to develop a region-specific evidence-based management policy for COPD .
In this study, we analysed the relationship between FEV1, exacerbations, and PROs among patients with stable COPD in Malaysia. The primary objective was to determine the association between the objectively measured FEV1 versus subjectively reported exacerbations and PROs. The secondary objective was to determine the correlation and its strength between FEV1, exacerbations, and PROs.
Study Design and patients
This is a post-hoc analysis of pooled data from two cross-sectional studies that were previously conducted in Malaysia from 2017 to 2019, the results of which had been published separately. [19, 20] Both studies aimed to compare the HRQOL of patients with stable COPD according to their clinical phenotypes. The inclusion criterion of the first study was patients aged 40 years and above with the ratio of post-bronchodilator FEV1 (PB-FEV1) to post-bronchodilator forced vital capacity (PB-FVC) of < 0.7; while the inclusion criterion for the second study was patients aged 35 years and above with the ratio of PB-FEV1 to PB-FVC in six seconds (PB-FVC6) of < 0.7. Otherwise, both studies had similar exclusion criteria as reported. These studies were conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethics approval was obtained from the respective institutions and all patients provided written informed consent.
In both studies, eligible patients were consecutively identified from the respective clinics. Spirometry was performed according to the American Thoracic Society and European Respiratory Society guidelines . Patient demographic characteristics and exacerbation frequency were obtained by face-to-face interviews and from the case notes. Demographic characteristics included age, gender, ethnicity, smoking status, smoking quantity, and history of biomass smoke exposure. The PROs included the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) Dyspnea Scale, COPD Assessment Test (CAT), and St. George Respiratory Questionnaire for COPD (SGRQ-c) which patients were instructed to answer independently. (Supplement 1).
PB-FEV1 was expressed in percent of predicted value based on the patients’ age, gender, ethnicity, and height. Patients were divided into four groups according to the severity of airflow limitation based on PB-FEV1: < 30% predicted (very severe); 30–49% predicted (severe); 50–79% predicted (moderate); and ≥ 80% predicted (mild) . The ethnic composition of Malaysians includes Malay, Chinese, Indian, and others (such as natives). A never smoker was defined as an individual who smoked < 100 cigarettes in a lifetime; while former or current smokers were individuals who had smoked ≥ 100 cigarettes in a lifetime . An former smoker was one who had quit smoking for more than a year at the time of interview. Smoking quantity was calculated in pack-year (number of cigarettes smoked per day/20 x number of years smoking). Exposure to biomass smoke was defined as ever exposure to smoke from the burning of wood, crop, or charcoal for ≥ 100 h per year ..
Both studies only counted the number of moderate and severe exacerbations over the past one year that constitutes the definition of “exacerbator” . A moderate exacerbation was defined as acute worsening of COPD symptoms that required outpatient treatment with corticosteroids and/or antibiotics; whereas a severe exacerbation was the one that warranted hospitalization . Patients’ mMRC,  CAT,  and SGRQ-c scores were calculated and interpreted as per original validation of the questionnaires. [27, 28].
Categorical variables were expressed as percentages while continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) or median with interquartile range. The difference between groups for the categorical variables was compared using the chi-squared test, with post-hoc analysis taking adjusted standardized residual of > 2 as significant. The difference between more than two groups for the continuous variables was compared using the one-way ANOVA test or Kruskal-Wallis H test. The post-hoc analysis for the former was the Tukey test and for the latter was Dunn’s procedure with Bonferroni adjustment. The correlation of continuous variables was calculated using Pearson or Spearman correlation test followed by linear regression test. The correlation coefficient (r) was defined as weak or small (0.10–0.29); moderate or medium (0.30–0.49); and strong or large (≥ 0.50) based on Cohen classification . A 2-sided p-value of less than 0.05 was considered significant. Statistical analyses were performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS for Windows version 25.0, SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA).
A total of 374 patients were included in the analysis (Fig. 1). Their demographic characteristics are shown in Table 1. The overall mean PB-FEV1 was 47.5 ± 21.3% predicted. The PB-FEV1 was < 30% predicted in 85 patients (22.7%), 30–49% predicted in 142 patients (38.0%), 50–79% predicted in 111 patients (29.7%), and ≥ 80% predicted in 36 patients (9.6%). The proportion of patients with a history of biomass smoke exposure was significantly higher in those with PB-FEV1 < 30% predicted (48.2%) compared to those with less severe airflow limitation [PB-FEV1 30–49% (31.7%), PB-FEV1 50–79% (35.1%), and PB-FEV1 ≥ 80% (19.4%), p = 0.012]. Otherwise, the age, gender, ethnicity, smoking status, and smoking quantity of the patients were not significantly different across the different categories of severity of airflow limitation based on PB-FEV1.
PB-FEV1 and COPD exacerbations
The frequency of all and moderate COPD exacerbations was significantly different across the patient groups with different severity of airflow limitation based on PB-FEV1 (Table 2). Patients with PB-FEV1 < 30% predicted had significantly more frequent exacerbations of all types than those with PB-FEV1 30–49% predicted (4.0 versus 1.8, p < 0.001), PB-FEV1 50–79% predicted (4.0 versus 1.6, p < 0.001), and PB-FEV1 ≥ 80% predicted (4.0 versus 1.1, p = 0.002). Moderate exacerbations were also significantly more frequent in patients with PB-FEV1 < 30% predicted than that of patients with PB-FEV1 30–49% predicted (3.0 versus 1.0, p < 0.001), PB-FEV1 50–79% predicted (3.0 versus 1.0, p < 0.001) and PB-FEV1 ≥ 80% predicted (3.0 versus 0.7, p = 0.001). When compared between the COPD patients with PB-FEV1 30–49% predicted, PB-FEV1 50–79% predicted, and PB-FEV1 ≥ 80% predicted, there was no significant difference in the frequency of all (p = 0.851–0.984) and moderate exacerbation (p = 0.970–0.999). Even though patients with more severe airflow limitation had more frequent severe exacerbations, the difference was not significant (p = 0.106).
PB-FEV1 and PROs – mMRC, CAT, and SGRQ-c
The patients’ CAT and SGRQ-c scores were higher than normal regardless of their PB-FEV1 (Table 3). Patients with more severe airflow limitation based on their PB-FEV1 had higher scores of mMRC, CAT (total) and SGRQ-c (total) compared to those with less severe airflow limitation, but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.053, p = 0.230, and p = 0.121, respectively).
There was no significant difference in the scores of each of the SGRQ-c domains according to the severity of airflow limitation based on PB-FEV1, except for symptoms. For the symptoms domain, patients with PB-FEV1 < 30% predicted had a significantly higher score than those with PB-FEV1 ≥ 80% predicted (47.0 versus 31.8, p = 0.020). The score of symptoms domain, however, was not statistically different between COPD patients with PB-FEV1 < 30% predicted, PB-FEV1 30–49% predicted, and PB-FEV1 50–79% predicted (p = 0.405–0.858); or between those with PB-FEV1 30–49% predicted, PB-FEV1 50–79% predicted, and PB-FEV1 ≥ 80% predicted (p = 0.058–0.798).
Correlation and regression between PB-FEV1, exacerbations, and PROs
There were weak negative correlations between PB-FEV1 and exacerbations (r = − 0.182, p < 0.001), mMRC score (r = − 0.121, p = 0.020), and SGRQ-c score (r = − 0.114, p = 0.028), respectively (Table 4). There was no correlation between PB-FEV1 and CAT score (r = − 0.072, p = 0.162). Exacerbations were positively correlated to the mMRC, CAT, and SGRQ-c scores, respectively with moderate co-efficient (r = 0.407–0.482, all p < 0.001). There were strong positive correlations between mMRC score and CAT score (r = 0.727) and SGRQ-c score (r = 0.847), respectively while CAT score was strongly correlated to SGRQ-c score (r = 0.851) (all p < 0.001). The linear regressions involving PB-FEV1, exacerbations, mMRC, CAT, and SGRQ-c are as shown in Table 4.
The majority (60.7%) of the COPD patients in this analysis had severe or very severe airflow limitation. Biomass smoke exposure was significantly more common among patients with very severe airflow limitation. Similarly, all and moderate COPD exacerbations were significantly more frequent in those with very severe airflow limitation. Severe exacerbations, mMRC, CAT and SGRQ-c scores, however, were not significantly different across the severity of airflow limitation groups. PB-FEV1 was only weakly correlated with exacerbations, mMRC, and SGRQ-c; exacerbations were moderately correlated with mMRC, CAT, and SGRQ-c; while mMRC was strongly correlated with CAT and SGRQ-c.
Hurst el at reported COPD exacerbations were more frequent and more severe as the severity of airflow limitation increased . Oca et al. and Lutter et al. respectively reported significantly more frequent exacerbations among patients with severe to very severe airflow limitation. [30, 31] A study by Bikov et al. reported COPD patients in the lowest quantiles (FEV1 < 53.5% predicted) of airflow limitation had a significantly higher risk of moderate-to-severe and severe exacerbations . Halpin et al. and a systemic review by Westwood et al. reported an inverse relationship between exacerbations and FEV1 but the correlation was weak (r = − 0.12, and − 0.27, respectively). [33, 34] The findings of significantly more frequent exacerbations in our patients with very severe airflow limitation and a weak correlation with PB-FEV1 are consistent with the findings of these studies.
Even though studies have shown COPD patients with more severe airflow limitation reported higher mMRC score, the significant of this association was not reported . With regard to FEV1 and mMRC, Oga et al. reported a moderate correlation (r = − 0.37),  whereas Huang et al. and Kostikas et al. reported a weak correlation (r = − 0.234 and − 0.121, respectively). [37, 38] ) The present analysis showed a weak negative correlation between PB-FEV1 and mMRC is similar to that reported by Huang et al. and Kostikas et al. [37, 38].
Unlike the present study, Jones et al. and Ghobadi et al. reported significantly higher CAT score, [39, 40]; while Agrawal et al. and Balcells et al. reported significantly higher SGRQ-c score in COPD patients with more severe airflow limitation. [41, 42] Majority of the existing studies reported a moderate-to-strong negative correlation between FEV1 and SGRQ-c (r = − 0.372 to − 0.86). [34, 36, 43,44,45] Only Sundh et al. reported a weak negative correlation between FEV1 and CAT ( r = − 0.13) that similar to our study ..
Studies have shown patients with frequent COPD exacerbations have significantly higher mMRC, CAT, and SGRQ-c scores. . [47, 48] For exacerbations, a moderate positive correlation with mMRC (r = 0.31) and CAT (r = 0.42) was reported by Kelly et al.,  while with SGRQ-c was reported by Burgel et al. (r = 0.31) and Deslee et al. (r = 0.391), respectively. [44, 50] A strong positive correlation between mMRC, CAT, and SGRQ-c (r = 0.50–0.88) was consistently reported in numerous studies of COPD. [43, 44, 49,50,51] In our study, similar correlation and strength was also seen between exacerbations and PROs, as well as between the PROs.
The present study highlighted that there was a lack of association and only a weak correlation between FEV1, mMRC, and SGRQ-c in patients with COPD in Malaysia when compared to studies in other part of the world. Environment, genetic, and cultural factors that cause different in clinical characteristics and PROs response of these patients could be the main explanation. [12, 14,15,16] FEV1 is a unidimensional measurement that reflects the pathophysiology of COPD while exacerbations and PROs are multidimensional measurements of COPD consequences from the patients’ perspective . This explains the absence or small correlation between FEV1 with exacerbations and PROs in this study. The interaction between smoking, air pollution, respiratory tract infection, bronchiectasis, blood eosinophil count, the severity of airflow limitation, prior exacerbations, and comorbidities leads to the occurrence of COPD exacerbation . For dyspnea symptom, the mechanisms encompass the interaction of physiological, psychological, and emotional factors of COPD patients . Meanwhile, the HRQOL of COPD patients depends on the interaction of their physical, functional, emotional, social, and economic well-being . The moderate correlation between COPD exacerbations, mMRC, CAT, and SGRQ-c in this study could be attributed to the partial overlap between their dimensions. On the other hand, most of the dimensions are overlapped between mMRC, CAT, and SGRQ-c explains the strong correlation. Even though symptoms such as cough, sputum, and wheezing are also assessed, the majority of questions in CAT (CAT 3 – CAT 8) and SQRQ-c (part of symptoms component, most of activity and impact component) still assess dyspnea symptom or their complications as the main outcomes. [26, 27].
The findings from this study suggest that FEV1 is not a reliable parameter to measure during the follow-up of COPD patients in Malaysia due to its weak correlation with exacerbations and other PROs. Exacerbations should be routinely assessed as it is the prognosis hallmark of COPD and is only moderately reflected by the mMRC, CAT, or SGRQ-c. mMRC can predicts the value of CAT and SGRQ-c strongly. Therefore, during a busy clinic, a simpler and time-saving tool such as mMRC should precede CAT and SGRQ-c. In short, exacerbations and mMRC are still the recommended parameters to evaluate during the follow-up of COPD patients in Malaysia. This is in line with the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease guidelines that recommend grouping of COPD patients based on exacerbation frequency in the past one year and mMRC or CAT score at diagnosis and evaluating exacerbations and dyspnea symptom during follow-up visits . Only in selected circumstances, spirometry is used to identify alternative diagnoses, suitability for interventional procedures, and to detect a rapid decline in FEV1.
This study evaluates the core endpoints of COPD simultaneously, namely FEV1, exacerbations, mMRC, CAT, and SGRQ-c. Even though studies looking at these endpoints have been conducted in other parts of the world, this is one of the very few studies in the South-East Asia region. Data from different regions of the world is needed for various reasons. First, the etiology of COPD can be different. In the present study, biomass smoke exposure was reported in more than one-third of the patients. Even though FEV1 decline due to biomass smoke exposure is slower,  biomass smoke exposure and cigarette smoking have an additive adverse effect on airflow obstruction . Second, genetic heterogeneity can affect the presentation and outcomes of COPD. This study included the population from Peninsular Malaysia and the Island of Borneo. Third, the culture and economic activity of the population could have an impact on the perceived symptom and HRQOL. Other strengths of this study include representative sample was obtained from both the primary and tertiary care centers, as well as a similar methodology was used in both studies, therefore, minimizing any data bias. However, there are several limitations to this study. First, this was a cross-sectional study. PROs may vary over time and such variation may not be reflected in a cross-sectional study. Serial changes of FEV1 may give a better understanding of the exacerbations and PROs. Second, the inclusion criteria of the studies were slightly different in terms of age and definition of fixed airway obstruction. The use of PB-FVC6 in the second study potentially excludes a proportion of patients with mild COPD. Third, the study outcome was decided later in this post-hoc analysis. However, this study fulfilled the minimum sample size of 208 patients as calculated. Fourth, recall errors in exacerbation frequency cannot be discounted but minimized by counter checks with the medical records and family members. A future study that prospectively evaluates the FEV1, exacerbations, and PROs among COPD patients in local setting is expected to mitigate these limitations.
We conclude that different severity of airflow limitation based on PB-FEV1 was not associated with significant differences in the mMRC, CAT, or SGRQ-c of COPD patients. Exacerbations was significantly more frequent in patients with very severe airflow limitation only. The correlation between the severity of airflow limitation with exacerbations, mMRC, CAT, and SGRQ-c was weak. Therefore, PB-FEV1 measurement during the routine clinic follow-up of COPD patients does not provide additional information on top of mMRC or CAT scores and exacerbations history that may influence treatment decisions.
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
forced expiratory volume in one second
health-related quality of life
post-bronchodilator forced vital capacity
PB-FVC in six seconds
modified Medical Research Council
COPD Assessment Tool
health-related quality of life
St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire for COPD
Global Strategy for the Diagnosis., Management and Prevention of COPD, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2020 [Available from: https://goldcopd.org/.
Blanco I, Diego I, Bueno P, Casas-Maldonado F, Miravitlles M. Geographic distribution of COPD prevalence in the world displayed by Geographic Information System maps. Eur Respir J. 2019;54(1):1900610.
Global regional. National deaths, prevalence, disability-adjusted life years, and years lived with disability for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the global burden of Disease Study 2015. The Lancet Respiratory medicine. 2017;5(9):691–706.
Afroz N, Gutzwiller FS, Mackay AJ, Naujoks C, Patalano F, Kostikas K. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in COPD clinical trials: Trends and gaps. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2020;15:1789–800.
Doherty DE. A review of the role of FEV1 in the COPD paradigm. Copd. 2008;5(5):310–8.
Anzueto A, Leimer I, Kesten S. Impact of frequency of COPD exacerbations on pulmonary function, health status and clinical outcomes. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2009;4:245–51.
Soler-Cataluña JJ, Martínez-García MA, Román Sánchez P, Salcedo E, Navarro M, Ochando R. Severe acute exacerbations and mortality in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Thorax. 2005;60(11):925–31.
Miravitlles M, Ribera A. Understanding the impact of symptoms on the burden of COPD. Respir Res. 2017;18(1):67.
Hurst JR, Siddiqui MK, Singh B, Varghese P, Holmgren U, de Nigris E. A systematic literature review of the Humanistic Burden of COPD. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2021;16:1303–14.
Miravitlles M, Soler-Cataluña JJ, Calle M, Molina J, Almagro P, Quintano JA, et al. Spanish COPD guidelines (GesEPOC) 2017. Pharmacological treatment of stable chronic obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Arch de Bronconeumología. 2017;53(6):324–35.
de la Loge C, Tugaut B, Fofana F, Lambert J, Hennig M, Tschiesner U, et al. Relationship between FEV(1) and patient-reported Outcomes Changes: results of a Meta-analysis of randomized trials in stable COPD. Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis. 2016;3(2):519–38.
Kim KY, Miravitlles M, Sliwinski P, Costello R, Carter V, Tan J, et al. Comparison of clinical baseline characteristics between asian and western COPD patients in a prospective, international, multicenter study. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2019;14:1595–601.
Tan WC, Seale P, Ip M, Shim YS, Chiang CH, Ng TP, et al. Trends in COPD mortality and hospitalizations in countries and regions of Asia-Pacific. Respirology. 2009;14(1):90–7.
Rhee CK, Yoo KH, Lee JH, Park MJ, Kim WJ, Park YB, et al. Clinical characteristics of patients with tuberculosis-destroyed lung. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2013;17(1):67–75.
Gordon SB, Bruce NG, Grigg J, Hibberd PL, Kurmi OP, Lam KB, et al. Respiratory risks from household air pollution in low and middle income countries. Lancet Respir Med. 2014;2(10):823–60.
Chang EM, Gillespie EF, Shaverdian N. Truthfulness in patient-reported outcomes: factors affecting patients’ responses and impact on data quality. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2019;10:171–86.
Heneghan C, Goldacre B, Mahtani KR. Why clinical trial outcomes fail to translate into benefits for patients. Trials. 2017;18(1):122.
Jones PW, Rennard S, Tabberer M, Riley JH, Vahdati-Bolouri M, Barnes NC. Interpreting patient-reported outcomes from clinical trials in COPD: a discussion. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2016;11:3069–78.
Chai C-S, Liam C-K, Pang Y-K, Ng DL-C, Tan S-B, Wong T-S, et al. Clinical phenotypes of COPD and health-related quality of life: a cross-sectional study. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2019;14:565–73.
Chai C-S, Mos SB, Ng D-L-C, Goh G-M-K-C, Su A-T, Ibrahim MAB, et al. Clinical phenotypes and heath-related quality of life of COPD patients in a rural setting in malaysia – a cross-sectional study. BMC Pulm Med. 2020;20(1):254.
Miller MR, Hankinson J, Brusasco V, Burgos F, Casaburi R, Coates A, et al. Standardisation of spirometry. Eur Respir J. 2005;26(2):319–38.
Cigarette smoking among adults and trends in smoking cessation - United States., 2008. MMWR Morbidity and mortality weekly report. 2009;58(44):1227-32.
Montes de Oca M, Zabert G, Moreno D, Laucho-Contreras ME, Lopez Varela MV, Surmont F, Smoke. Biomass exposure, and COPD Risk in the primary care setting: the PUMA Study. Respir Care. 2017;62(8):1058–66.
Hurst JR, Vestbo J, Anzueto A, Locantore N, Mullerova H, Tal-Singer R, et al. Susceptibility to exacerbation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(12):1128–38.
Bestall JC, Paul EA, Garrod R, Garnham R, Jones PW, Wedzicha JA. Usefulness of the Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnoea scale as a measure of disability in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Thorax. 1999;54(7):581–6.
Jones PW, Harding G, Berry P, Wiklund I, Chen WH, Kline Leidy N. Development and first validation of the COPD Assessment Test. Eur Respir J. 2009;34(3):648–54.
Meguro M, Barley EA, Spencer S, Jones PW. Development and validation of an Improved, COPD-Specific Version of the St. George Respiratory Questionnaire. Chest. 2007;132(2):456–63.
Ferrer M, Villasante C, Alonso J, Sobradillo V, Gabriel R, Vilagut G, et al. Interpretation of quality of life scores from the St George’s respiratory questionnaire. Eur Respir J. 2002;19(3):405–13.
Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge; 2013.
Montes de Oca M, Tálamo C, Halbert RJ, Perez-Padilla R, Lopez MV, Muiño A, et al. Frequency of self-reported COPD exacerbation and airflow obstruction in five latin american cities: the Proyecto Latinoamericano de Investigacion en Obstruccion Pulmonar (PLATINO) study. Chest. 2009;136(1):71–8.
Lutter JI, Jörres RA, Kahnert K, Schwarzkopf L, Studnicka M, Karrasch S, et al. Health-related quality of life associates with change in FEV(1) in COPD: results from the COSYCONET cohort. BMC Pulm Med. 2020;20(1):148.
Bikov A, Lange P, Anderson JA, Brook RD, Calverley PMA, Celli BR, et al. FEV(1) is a stronger mortality predictor than FVC in patients with moderate COPD and with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease. Int J Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis. 2020;15:1135–42.
Halpin DM, Decramer M, Celli B, Kesten S, Liu D, Tashkin DP. Exacerbation frequency and course of COPD. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2012;7:653–61.
Westwood M, Bourbeau J, Jones PW, Cerulli A, Capkun-Niggli G, Worthy G. Relationship between FEV1 change and patient-reported outcomes in randomised trials of inhaled bronchodilators for stable COPD: a systematic review. Respir Res. 2011;12(1):40.
Han J, Dai L, Zhong N, Young D. Breathlessness or Health Status in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: the impact of different definitions. COPD: J Chronic Obstr Pulmonary Disease. 2015;12(2):115–25.
Oga T, Nishimura K, Tsukino M, Sato S, Hajiro T, Mishima M. Longitudinal deteriorations in patient reported outcomes in patients with COPD. Respir Med. 2007;101(1):146–53.
Huang W-C, Wu M-F, Chen H-C, Hsu J-Y, The Tsg. Features of COPD patients by comparing CAT with mMRC: a retrospective, cross-sectional study. npj Prim Care Respiratory Med. 2015;25(1):15063.
Kostikas K, Greulich T, Mackay AJ, Lossi NS, Aalamian-Mattheis M, Nunez X et al. Treatment response in COPD: does FEV(1) say it all? A post hoc analysis of the CRYSTAL study. ERJ Open Res. 2019;5(1).
Jones PW, Brusselle G, Dal Negro RW, Ferrer M, Kardos P, Levy ML, et al. Properties of the COPD assessment test in a cross-sectional european study. Eur Respir J. 2011;38(1):29–35.
Ghobadi H, Ahari SS, Kameli A, Lari SM. The relationship between COPD Assessment Test (CAT) scores and severity of airflow obstruction in stable COPD patients. Tanaffos. 2012;11(2):22–6.
Agrawal SR, Joshi R, Jain A. Correlation of severity of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with health-related quality of life and six-minute walk test in a rural hospital of central India. Lung India. 2015;32(3):233–40.
Balcells E, Gea J, Ferrer J, Serra I, Orozco-Levi M, de Batlle J, et al. Factors affecting the relationship between psychological status and quality of life in COPD patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8(1):108.
Ahmed MS, Neyaz A, Aslami AN. Health-related quality of life of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients: results from a community based cross-sectional study in Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, India. Lung India. 2016;33(2):148–53.
Burgel PR, Escamilla R, Perez T, Carré P, Caillaud D, Chanez P, et al. Impact of comorbidities on COPD-specific health-related quality of life. Respir Med. 2013;107(2):233–41.
Zamzam MA, Azab NY, El Wahsh RA, Ragab AZ, Allam EM. Quality of life in COPD patients. Egypt J Chest Dis Tuberculosis. 2012;61(4):281–9.
Sundh J, Johansson G, Larsson K, Lindén A, Löfdahl CG, Janson C, et al. Comorbidity and health-related quality of life in patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease attending swedish secondary care units. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2015;10:173–83.
Seemungal TA, Donaldson GC, Paul EA, Bestall JC, Jeffries DJ, Wedzicha JA. Effect of exacerbation on quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1998;157(5 Pt 1):1418–22.
Cheng Y, Tu X, Pan L, Lu S, Xing M, Li L, et al. Clinical characteristics of chronic bronchitic, emphysematous and ACOS phenotypes in COPD patients with frequent exacerbations. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2017;12:2069–74.
Kelly JL, Bamsey O, Smith C, Lord VM, Shrikrishna D, Jones PW, et al. Health status assessment in routine clinical practice: the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment test score in outpatients. Respiration. 2012;84(3):193–9.
Deslee G, Burgel P-R, Escamilla R, Chanez P, Court-Fortune I, Nesme-Meyer P, et al. Impact of current cough on health-related quality of life in patients with COPD. Int J Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis. 2016;11:2091–7.
Horita N, Yomota M, Sasaki M, Morita S, Shinkai M, Ishigatsubo Y, et al. Evaluation of the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment test in japanese outpatients. Clin Respir J. 2014;8(2):213–9.
Viniol C, Vogelmeier CF. Exacerbations of COPD. Eur Respiratory Rev. 2018;27(147):170103.
Parshall MB, Schwartzstein RM, Adams L, Banzett RB, Manning HL, Bourbeau J, et al. An official american thoracic society statement: update on the mechanisms, assessment, and management of dyspnea. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012;185(4):435–52.
Paap MCS, Bode C, Lenferink LIM, Groen LC, Terwee CB, Ahmed S, et al. Identifying key domains of health-related quality of life for patients with chronic obstructive Pulmonary Disease: the patient perspective. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12(1):106.
Ramírez-Venegas A, Sansores RH, Quintana-Carrillo RH, Velázquez-Uncal M, Hernandez-Zenteno RJ, Sánchez-Romero C, et al. FEV1 decline in patients with chronic obstructive Pulmonary Disease Associated with Biomass exposure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;190(9):996–1002.
Kurmi OP, Devereux GS, Smith WCS, Semple S, Steiner MFC, Simkhada P, et al. Reduced lung function due to biomass smoke exposure in young adults in rural Nepal. Eur Respir J. 2013;41(1):25.
We would like to thank the Director General of Health Malaysia for his permission to publish this article. We want to express our gratitude to all the patients who had participated in the study.
Open Access funding provided by Universiti Malaysia Sarawak.
The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest in respect to the research, authorship, and publication of this article.
Ethics approval and Informed Consent
The ethics approval for this study was obtained from the Medical Research and Ethics Committee of UMMC (MECID. No 2017814-5496) and the Ministry of Health Malaysia (KKM.NIHSEC/P18-27 . This study was also registered with the National Medical Research Register (NMRR-17-2549-38621). Written informed consent was obtained from every patient. These studies were conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
Consent for publication
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
About this article
Cite this article
Chai, CS., Ng, DLC., Bt Mos, S. et al. COPD exacerbations and patient-reported outcomes according to post-bronchodilator FEV1 – a post-hoc analysis of pooled data. BMC Pulm Med 23, 150 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-023-02436-1
- Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
- Forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1)
- Modified Medical Research Council (mMRC)
- COPD Assessment Test (CAT)
- St George’s respiratory questionnaire for COPD (SGRQ-c)