Derivation and validation of clinical phenotypes for COPD: a systematic review.

Lancelot M Pinto, Majed Alghamdi, Andrea Benedetti, Tasneem Zaihra, Tara Landry, Jean Bourbeau

Journal: Respiratory research 2016;16(1):50

PMID: 25928208

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The traditional classification of COPD, which relies solely on spirometry, fails to account for the complexity and heterogeneity of the disease. Phenotyping is a method that attempts to derive a single or combination of disease attributes that are associated with clinically meaningful outcomes. Deriving phenotypes entails the use of cluster analyses, and helps individualize patient management by identifying groups of individuals with similar characteristics. We aimed to systematically review the literature for studies that had derived such phenotypes using unsupervised methods.

METHODS

Two independent reviewers systematically searched multiple databases for studies that performed validated statistical analyses, free of definitive pre-determined hypotheses, to derive phenotypes among patients with COPD. Data were extracted independently.

RESULTS

9156 citations were retrieved, of which, 8 studies were included. The number of subjects ranged from 213 to 1543. Most studies appeared to be biased: patients were more likely males, with severe disease, and recruited in tertiary care settings. Statistical methods used to derive phenotypes varied by study. The number of phenotypes identified ranged from 2 to 5. Two phenotypes, with poor longitudinal health outcomes, were common across multiple studies: young patients with severe respiratory disease, few cardiovascular co-morbidities, poor nutritional status and poor health status, and a phenotype of older patients with moderate respiratory disease, obesity, cardiovascular and metabolic co-morbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

The recognition that two phenotypes of COPD were often reported may have clinical implications for altering the course of the disease. This review also provided important information on limitations of phenotype studies in COPD and the need for improvement in future studies.

Address: Respiratory Division, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. [email protected].; Respiratory Epidemiology and Clinical Research Unit, Montreal Chest Institute, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. [email protected].; Respiratory Division, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. [email protected].; Respiratory Epidemiology and Clinical Research Unit, Montreal Chest Institute, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. [email protected].; Respiratory Epidemiology and Clinical Research Unit, Montreal Chest Institute, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. [email protected].; Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics & Occupational Health, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. [email protected].; School of PH & OT, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Quebec, Canada. [email protected].; Division of Clinical Epidemiology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. [email protected].; Medical Library, Montreal General Hospital, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. [email protected].; Respiratory Division, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. [email protected].; Respiratory Epidemiology and Clinical Research Unit, Montreal Chest Institute, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. [email protected].; Montreal Chest Institute, McGill University Health Centre, 3650 St.Urbain, Room K1.32, H2X 2P4, Montréal (Québec), Canada. [email protected].
Bant logo

© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence

NED wishes to thank the following organisations for their support:

We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.