IMPORTANCEMost of the global morbidity and mortality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) occurs in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), with significant economic effects.OBJECTIVE To assess the discriminative accuracy of 3 instruments using questionnaires and peak expiratory flow (PEF) to screen for COPD in 3 LMIC settings. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSA cross-sectional analysis of discriminative accuracy, conducted between January 2018 and March 2020 in semiurban Bhaktapur, Nepal; urban Lima, Peru; and rural Nakaseke, Uganda, using a random age-and sex-stratified sample of the population 40 years or older.EXPOSURES Three screening tools, the COPD Assessment in Primary Care to Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk (CAPTURE; range, 0-6; high risk indicated by a score of 5 or more or score 2-5 with low PEF [<250 L/min for females and <350 L/min for males]), the COPD in LMICs Assessment questionnaire (COLA-6; range, 0-5; high risk indicated by a score of 4 or more), and the Lung Function Questionnaire (LFQ; range, 0-25; high risk indicated by a score of 18 or less) were assessed against a reference standard diagnosis of COPD using quality-assured postbronchodilator spirometry. CAPTURE and COLA-6 include a measure of PEF. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was discriminative accuracy of the tools in identifying COPD as measured by area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) with 95% CIs. Secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. RESULTS Among 10 709 adults who consented to participate in the study (mean age, 56.3 years (SD, 11.7); 50% female), 35% had ever smoked, and 30% were currently exposed to biomass smoke. The unweighted prevalence of COPD at the 3 sites was 18.2% (642/3534 participants) in Nepal, 2.7% (97/3550) in Peru, and 7.4% (264/3580) in Uganda. Among 1000 COPD cases, 49.3% had clinically important disease (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease classification B-D), 16.4% had severe or very severe airflow obstruction (forced expiratory volume in 1 second <50% predicted), and 95.3% of cases were previously undiagnosed. The AUC for the screening instruments ranged from 0.717 (95% CI, 0.677-0.774) for LFQ in Peru to 0.791 (95% CI, 0.770-0.809) for COLA-6 in Nepal. The sensitivity ranged from 34.8% (95% CI, 25.3%-45.2%) for COLA-6 in Nepal to 64.2% (95% CI, 60.3%-67.9%) for CAPTURE in Nepal. The mean time to administer the instruments was 7.6 minutes (SD 1.11), and data completeness was 99.5%. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThis study demonstrated that screening instruments for COPD were feasible to administer in 3 low-and middle-income settings. Further research is needed to assess instrument performance in other low-and middle-income settings and to determine whether implementation is associated with improved clinical outcomes.

Background Guidelines are critical for facilitating cost-effective COPD care. Development and implementation in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) is challenging. To guide future strategy, an overview of current global COPD guidelines is required. Research Question We systematically reviewed national COPD guidelines, focusing on worldwide availability and identification of potential development, content, context, and quality gaps that may hamper effective implementation. Study Design and Methods Scoping review of national COPD management guidelines. We assessed: (1) global guideline coverage; (2) guideline information (authors, target audience, dissemination plans); (3) content (prevention, diagnosis, treatments); (4) ethical, legal, and socio-economic aspects; and (5) compliance with the eight Institute of Medicine (IOM) guideline standards. LMICs guidelines were compared with those from high-income countries (HICs). Results Of the 61 national COPD guidelines identified, 30 were from LMICs. Guidelines did not cover 1.93 billion (30.2%) people living in LMICs, whereas only 0.02 billion (1.9%) in HICs were without national guidelines. Compared with HICs, LMIC guidelines targeted fewer health-care professional groups and less often addressed case finding and co-morbidities. More than 90% of all guidelines included smoking cessation advice. Air pollution reduction strategies were less frequently mentioned in both LMICs (47%) and HICs (42%). LMIC guidelines fulfilled on average 3.37 (42%) of IOM standards, compared with 5.29 (66%) in HICs ( P < .05). LMICs scored significantly lower compared with HICs regarding conflicts of interest management, updates, articulation of recommendations, and funding transparency (all, P < .05). Interpretation Several development, content, context, and quality gaps exist in COPD guidelines from LMICs that may hamper effective implementation. Overall, COPD guidelines in LMICs should be more widely available and should be transparently developed and updated. Guidelines may be further enhanced by better inclusion of local risk factors, case findings, and co-morbidity management, preferably tailored to available financial and staff resources.