Prospective cohort study assesses physical frailty in severe COPD patients, indicating fair agreement of screening tools.
Background: Physical frailty is a prevalent and clinically important manifestation of COPD. While the ERS/ATS recommends the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), handgrip strength (HGS), 30 s sit-to-stand (30secSTS), and Timed-Up-and-Go (TUG) as frailty screening tools, their agreement and predictive performance remain unclear. Furthermore, the trajectory of frailty is poorly understood in patients who decline pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). Objective: To assess the prevalence of and change in physical frailty and its association with 12-month all-cause hospitalizations and mortality. Secondarily, to assess the agreement and predictive value (positive; PPV/negative; NPV) of recommended screening tests in COPD patients declining PR. Methods: In this prospective cohort study, 102 patients with COPD (61 females, mean ± SD age 70 ± 9 years, FEV1 34 ± 11%, SPPB 8.0 ± 3.2 points, CAT 19 ± 7) underwent repeated frailty assessments at baseline and after 12 months using the SPPB (reference), TUG, 30secSTS, and HGS. Results: At baseline, 39% were physically frail (SPPB ≤ 7). Frailty persisted in 86%, and 23% had died at 12 months. Baseline age-adjusted physical frailty was not statistically associated with 12-month all-cause hospitalization (OR 1.79 [0.61-5.24]) or mortality (OR 3.54 [0.95-13.16]). Agreement with SPPB was moderate for TUG (κ = 0.53) and fair for 30secSTS (κ = 0.38) and HGS (κ = 0.26), with similar findings at 12 months. TUG had the highest PPV/NPV (0.85/0.71). Conclusions: Physical frailty is prevalent and persistent in patients with severe COPD who decline PR. ERS/ATS-recommended tools showed fair to moderate agreement and predictive value. TUG was the most robust proxy, though tool selection should be guided by clinical context and purpose.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hansen et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: