Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of Five Clinical Questionnaires for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains one of the most prevalent pathologies in the world and is among the leading causes of mortality and morbidity, partially due to underdiagnosis. The use of clinical questionnaires to identify high-risk individuals to take them to further diagnostic procedures has emerged as a strategy to address this problem. Objective: To compare the performance of the COULD IT BE COPD, CDQ, COPD-PS, LFQ, and PUMA questionnaires for COPD diagnosis. Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out on subjects who underwent spirometry in the third-level center. Data were collected between January 2015 and March 2020. Bivariate analysis was performed between the study variables and the presence of COPD. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC-ROC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (LR+), and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) for each questionnaire were calculated. The AUC-ROCs were compared with the DeLong test, considering a p value <0.05 statistically significant. Results: 681 subjects met the inclusion criteria and were taken to the final analysis. The prevalence of COPD was 27.5% (187/681). The mean age of the subjects was 65.9 years (SD ± 11.79); 46.3% (315/681) were female, and 83.6% (569/681) reported respiratory symptoms. Statistically significant relationship was found for COPD diagnosis with male sex, older age, respiratory symptoms, and exposure to wood smoke (p value <0.05). The AUC-ROCs of the questionnaires were between 0.581 and 0.681. The COULD IT BE COPD questionnaire had a lower discriminatory capacity AUC-ROC of 0.581, concerning the other scores (DeLong test, p = 0.0002). Conclusion: The CDQ, COPD-PS, LFQ, PUMA, and COULD IT BE COPD questionnaires have acceptable performance for the diagnosis of COPD together with low sensitivity and specificity. Therefore, its use must be complemented with other diagnostic tests or techniques such as pulmonary function tests.

Long-term survival in venous thromboembolic disease: rivaroxaban vs. warfarin - propensity score matching study.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolic disease (VTE) is characterized by obstruction of venous blood flow by a thrombus. Survival data, frequency of disease recurrence, and bleeding rate in patients on anticoagulant therapy with warfarin compared to rivaroxaban in the Latin American population are limited in VTE. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study with propensity score matching analysis was conducted in patients with pulmonary embolism and/or deep vein thrombosis anticoagulated with warfarin or rivaroxaban treated. Survival analysis was performed using a Kaplan-Meier curve for each of the intervention groups, and it was compared using a Log Rank test. RESULTS: Of 2193 potentially eligible patients with a suspected diagnosis of VTE, 505 patients entered the analysis; of these, 285 subjects were managed with warfarin and 220 anticoagulated with rivaroxaban. Major bleeding at 12 months occurred in 2.7% (6/220) of patients treated with Rivaroxaban, compared to 10.2% (29/285) in the Warfarin group in the unmatched population (p = 0.001). In the matched population, bleeding at 12 months occurred in 2.9% (6/209) of patients on Rivaroxaban and in 11.0% (23/209) of patients on Warfarin (p = 0.001). The survival rates at 6 months were 97.1% for Rivaroxaban and 97.6% for Warfarin (p = 0.76). At 12 months, the survival rates were 94.7% for Rivaroxaban and 95.7% for Warfarin (p = 0.61). CONCLUSION: In the treatment of VTE, there is no differences on 6 and 12-month survival or a reduction in the occurrence of new thromboembolic events when comparing rivaroxaban to warfarin. However, a lower risk of major bleeding is observed at 12 months with Rivaroxaban.