Respiratory Symptoms, Disease Burden, and Quality of Life in Australian Adults According to GOLD Spirometry Grades: Data from the BOLD Australia Study

Le résumé fourni par la source

Purpose: Population data on the burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are often based on patient-reported diagnoses of COPD, emphysema or chronic bronchitis, without spirometry. We aimed to investigate the relationship between health burden, quality of life and severity of airway obstruction in Australian adults aged ≥ 40 years. Methods: We used data from the BOLD Australia study, which included randomly selected adults aged ≥ 40 years from six study sites to reflect the sociodemographic and geographic diversity of the Australian population (n = 3522). Participants with post-bronchodilator airflow limitation (ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1 second FEV 1 to forced vital capacity < 0.7) were grouped by GOLD spirometry grades 1– 4. Quality of life was assessed with Short Form 12 (SF-12) Health Survey Questionnaire. Health burden was assessed as lost time off work or social activities, and healthcare utilization. Results: Of the study sample, 2969 participants did not have airflow limitation, 294 (8.4%) were classified as GOLD Grade 1, 212 (6.0%) as GOLD 2 and 43 (1.2%) as GOLD 3– 4. Participants with higher GOLD grades had more respiratory symptoms, more comorbidities and greater burden than those with lower GOLD grades. The scores of mental and physical subscales of SF-12 were lower, indicating worse quality of life, from the no airflow limitation group to the GOLD 3– 4 group (P = 0.03 and P < 0.001, respectively). Conclusion: Greater airflow limitation is associated with greater burden and poor quality of life. Interventions to prevent, or reduce the level of, airflow limitation will reduce the symptom burden and improve quality of life for patients. Keywords: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, airflow limitation, comorbidities, The Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease, quality of life

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.