0
Original Research: COPD |

The COPD Assessment Test: What Do We Know So Far?: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis About Clinical Outcomes Prediction and Classification of Patients Into GOLD Stages

Manuela Karloh, PT, MSc; Anamaria Fleig Mayer, PT, PhD; Rosemeri Maurici, MD, PhD; Marcia M.M. Pizzichini, MD, PhD; Paul W. Jones, MD, PhD; Emilio Pizzichini, MD, PhD
Author and Funding Information

FUNDING/SUPPORT: The authors have reported to CHEST that no funding was received for this study.

CORRESPONDENCE TO: Emilio Pizzichini, MD, PhD, NUPAIVA, Hospital Universitário, Campus Universitário, Rua Professora Maria Flora Pausewang, s/n°, Trindade Florianópolis, SC, Brasil, CEP 88036-800


Copyright 2016, . All Rights Reserved.


Chest. 2016;149(2):413-425. doi:10.1378/chest.15-1752
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background  The COPD Assessment Test (CAT) was developed as a simple instrument to assess health status in patients with COPD. This study aimed to systematically review the determinants of the CAT score, its ability to predict clinical outcomes, and the agreement between CAT (≥ 10) and the modified Medical Research Council scale (mMRC ≥ 2) to categorize patients into the new Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease classification system.

Methods  From January 1, 2009, to June 30, 2015, databases were searched for studies using CAT in adults with COPD and in general populations aiming to detect COPD. Two investigators independently screened, selected, and extracted data by using a standardized form. Where appropriate, the results were combined in a random effects meta-analysis.

Results  Of 453 studies, 17 were included, and eight were used in the meta-analysis. The models to predict the CAT score were able to explain < 50% of its variance. CAT scores can indicate risk of exacerbation, depression, acute deterioration in health status, and mortality. All studies found a different proportion of patients in each Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease category using CAT ≥ 10 or mMRC ≥ 2. On average, the distribution was 13% different according to the instrument used. The κ agreement between CAT and mMRC ranged from 0.13 to 0.77.

Conclusions  CAT may be used as a complementary tool in a patient's clinical assessment to predict COPD exacerbation, health status deterioration, depression, and mortality. The interpretation of this meta-analysis does not support the use of the recommended cutoff points of ≥10 for CAT and ≥2 for mMRC as equivalents for the purpose of assessing patient symptoms.

Figures in this Article

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Figures

Tables

References

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Find Similar Articles
CHEST Journal Articles
PubMed Articles
  • CHEST Journal
    Print ISSN: 0012-3692
    Online ISSN: 1931-3543