Functional Status of Patients with COPD Assessed by London Chest Activity of Daily Living Scale: Gender Association and Validity of a Cutoff Point.

PURPOSE: Whether the difference in the impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on the functional status of men and women stems from clinical distinctions or to the measuring instrument used is unclear. Like most instruments for assessing functional limitation in COPD, the interpretation of the results of the London Chest Activity of Daily Living (LCADL) scale is limited because a lack of a valid cutoff point to this scale. For that, this study sought to compare the functional status between men and women with COPD; and propose a cutoff point for LCADL capable of discriminating the prognosis of these individuals. METHODS: A sample of 138 subjects with moderate-severe COPD was evaluated by the LCADL. The percentage of the individual maximum score was used to obtain a cutoff point capable of discriminating patients with the worse prognosis according to the BODE Index. The cutoff point was also tested in an independent sample (n = 70). RESULTS: Regarding the total score, domestic and leisure domains of the LCADL, men had better scores than women (P ≤ 0.01). The cutoff point found was 37% (area under the curve = 0.70, 95% confidence interval = 0.60-0.80, sensitivity = 0.55 and specificity = 0.74). Individuals who scored ≥ 37% had a worse prognosis and level of physical activities of daily living than those who scored below (P ≤ 0.02). CONCLUSION: When evaluated by the LCADL, men and women with COPD present difference in the functional status. The established cutoff point (37%) adequately discriminates individuals regarding the prognosis, contributing to improve the interpretation capacity of the LCADL.

A breath of fresh air: Validity and reliability of a Portuguese version of the Multidimensional Dyspnea Profile for patients with COPD.

AIM: To provide a Portuguese version of the Multidimensional Dyspnea Profile (MDP), investigating its validity and reliability in Brazilian patients with COPD. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study for translation and linguist validation of the Portuguese MDP version for patients with COPD. The process occurred according to the protocol of Mapi Research Trust, Lyon, France. Three scores of MDP were used for the analysis: the immediate unpleasantness of dyspnea (A1); the "immediate perception domain" (S) (sum of A1 plus the sensory descriptors) and the "emotional response domain" (A2) (sum of the emotional descriptors). The questionnaires COPD assessment Test (CAT), Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HADS) and Medical Research Council scale (MRC) were used as anchors to investigate MDP's validity. Internal consistency was assessed with Cronbach's alpha. Test-retest reliability was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and concurrent validity was assessed with Spearman correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Thirty patients with moderate-severe COPD were studied for MDP's validation analysis (43% male, 63±8years, body mass index [BMI] 27±6Kg/m2, forced expiratory volume in the first second [FEV1] 48±15%predicted, six-minute walking test [6MWT] 464±84m and 84±16%predicted), whereas 10 patients were excluded from the test-retest reliability analysis due to missing data, resulting in a sample of 20 subjects for this purpose (50% male, 62±8years, BMI 27±6Kg/m2, FEV1 48±15%predicted, 6MWT 452±93m and 82±19%predicted). Both samples were similar regarding general characteristics (P>0,05 for all variables). MDP presented strong correlations, i.e., ICC intra-rater: A1: 0.77 (0.48-0.90), S: 0.78 (0.52-0.91), and A2: 0.85 (0.66-0.94), with high internal consistency (Cronbach's α 0.86, 0.88 and 0.92 respectively); and ICC inter-rater: A1: 0.74 (0.46-0.89), S: 0.75 (0.48-0.89) and A2: 0.91 (0.78-0.96) with Cronbach's α 0.85, 0.86 and 0.95 respectively. CONCLUSION: The Portuguese version of the MDP is the first valid and reliable instrument to assess dyspnea multidimensionally in Portuguese-speaking patients with COPD.