4.2 Article

Prevalence, clinical characteristics and morbidity of the Asthma-COPD overlap in a general population sample

Journal

JOURNAL OF ASTHMA
Volume 55, Issue 5, Pages 461-469

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02770903.2017.1339799

Keywords

Epidemiology; risk factors; smoking; lung function

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Although asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have been regarded as distinct conditions, emerging literature suggests that overlapping phenotypes, called asthma-COPD overlap (ACO), exists. The aim of this study was to describe prevalence, patient characteristics and morbidity of ACO. Methods: From a cross-sectional population sample, the West Sweden Asthma Study, subjects with suspected asthma, chronic bronchitis or COPD, and a random sample, were invited to clinical examinations. ACO was defined as doctor-diagnosed asthma, or clear clinical signs of asthma at examination, with a FEV1/FVC < 0.7. Results: Subjects were categorized as ACO (N = 181), COPD only (N = 89), asthma only (N = 651) or healthy (n = 1036) based on clinical examinations. Prevalence of ACO was 3.4% in the random sample (N = 1172) and 18.1% among asthmatics (N = 138) in the random sample. Subjects with ACO (mean age 59 years, 54% women) had an age and gender distribution in between asthma only (45 years, 63% women) and COPD only (62 years, 41% women). Ever-smoking was reported by 71%, 48% and 74% in the ACO, asthma only and COPD only groups, respectively. Subjects with ACO had worse lung function (mean FEV1% of predicted normal 76%) than asthma only (100%) and COPD only (87%) and reported more respiratory symptoms. Also respiratory related emergency visits were more common in ACO compared to asthma only and COPD only, respectively. Conclusions: ACO is present in 3.4% of the population and common among subjects with both asthma and COPD. Subjects with ACO had worse lung function and more symptoms than subjects with asthma or COPD only.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available