Retrospective cohort study identifies a cut-off for frequent exacerbations in COPD, suggesting clinical utility for risk stratification.
Objective: Acute exacerbations (AECOPD) are primary determinants of clinical instability in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and the “frequent exacerbator” (≥2/year) phenotype markedly increases morbidity and healthcare utilization. In this study, we evaluated the association between the Systemic Immune-Inflammation Index (SII), calculated from routine hemogram parameters during the stable period, and the occurrence of frequent exacerbations within the subsequent 1 year, and aimed to define a clinically applicable SII threshold (cut-off). Materials and Methods: In this retrospective observational cohort study conducted at a tertiary care center, patients who attended the outpatient clinic between January 2020 and February 2025 and had COPD confirmed by post-bronchodilator spirometric criteria (FEV1/FVC < 70%) were identified through electronic medical records. The index date was defined as a routine outpatient visit during stable COPD; patients were followed for AECOPD for 365 days after the index date. The stable period was defined as a visit occurring ≥4 weeks after the last exacerbation and without signs of acute infection. Patients with positive COVID-19 PCR results were excluded due to the uncertainty in distinguishing exacerbation from COVID-19. The primary endpoint was the development of frequent exacerbations (≥2 AECOPD) within 365 days. AECOPD was defined as an acute worsening of dyspnea, cough, and/or sputum requiring additional pharmacotherapy (systemic corticosteroids and/or antibiotics). SII, NLR, PLR, LMR, and PPN were calculated using hemogram parameters. Groups (<2 vs. ≥2 exacerbations) were compared; a ROC–Youden analysis was performed to determine cut-offs. After ROC-based dichotomization, univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate associations; multicollinearity was assessed using the VIF. To address potential optimism bias, diagnostic performance metrics (AUC, sensitivity, specificity) were internally validated using 1000 stratified bootstrap replicates. Results: A total of 159 patients were included. The cohort was predominantly male (91.2%). Demographic characteristics and most spirometric parameters were similar between groups; a trend toward lower absolute FVC was observed in the ≥2 exacerbation group (p = 0.051). Platelet counts were higher in the ≥2 exacerbation group (p = 0.029). In the ROC analysis, AUC values ranged from 0.505 to 0.591 across indices. For the SII, the AUC was 0.591 (95% CI: 0.500–0.677; p = 0.049), and the optimal cut-off was 1082.79. The LMR cut-off was 1.76; however, the LMR did not demonstrate statistically significant discriminatory performance in the ROC analysis (AUC 0.535; p = 0.448). In univariate analyses, SII > 1082.79 (OR = 3.028, 95% CI: 1.522–6.027; p = 0.002) was associated with frequent exacerbations. In a multivariable logistic regression adjusted for cardiovascular disease and overall comorbidity status, SII > 1082.79 remained independently associated (OR = 3.029, 95% CI: 1.485–6.179; p = 0.002). Other hemogram-derived indices did not retain independent prognostic significance in this outpatient cohort. Conclusion: SII measured during stable COPD was independently associated with frequent exacerbations over the subsequent 1 year. The SII > 1082.79 threshold may offer a practical risk stratification approach to flag “high-risk” patients in outpatient care. However, given the modest discriminative performance and the single-cohort derivation, this cut-off should be considered exploratory despite the use of bootstrap internal validation. Because this was a single-center study with a predominantly male cohort, the generalizability—particularly to female patients and other settings—requires prospective external validation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dikiş et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: