ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2024
A comparison of GOLD 2019 and 2023 recommendations to contemporaneous real-world inhaler treatment patterns for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease management in Singapore.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Singapore: Current Perspectives on Prevalence, Disease Burden, and Treatment.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2026Review
- The burden and risk factors of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Asia and its countries from 1990 to 2021: a systematic analysis based on the 2021 global burden of disease study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In 2019 and 2023, the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) provided updated strategies for modifying the therapy of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and high exacerbation risk. A key update since the 2019 guidelines recommends considering blood eosinophil count to guide decisions on inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) treatment. To evaluate the potential impact of these updated recommendations, this study aimed to assess how extensively future practice would diverge from contemporaneous prescribing practices at a single center in Singapore, assuming adherence to the 2019 and 2023 GOLD guidelines. Methods: Retrospective cohort analysis of the Changi General Hospital COPD data warehouse involving patients aged ≥40 years hospitalized for a COPD exacerbation (October 2018-April 2020) receiving long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), LAMA plus a long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA), or an ICS plus LABA at admission. The proportion of patients eligible for treatment escalations per GOLD 2019 and 2023 recommendations was calculated. Results: In total, 268 patients were included (mean age 73 years; 91% male). At admission, 19%, 59%, and 22% of patients were receiving LAMA, LAMA + LABA, and ICS + LABA, respectively. Overall, 226 patients would have been eligible for treatment escalation per GOLD 2019 or 2023 recommendations; 31 (13.7%) had treatment escalations consistent with GOLD 2019 guidelines and 34 (15%) received treatment escalations consistent with GOLD 2023 guidelines. A total of 205 patients (76.5%) remained on the same treatment regimen at hospital discharge as they were receiving at admission. Lower measured post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second was associated with treatment escalations that would have been GOLD-concordant (P=0.028), as was increased number of emergency department/hospital visits in the last year (P=0.048). Conclusions: Compared with real-world clinical practice, a significantly higher proportion of patients may be eligible for treatment escalation under the GOLD 2019 and 2023 eosinophil-directed algorithms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.