Anders Østrem

Symptom-based questionnaire for identifying COPD in smokers

Background: Symptom-based questionnaires may enhance chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) screening in primary care. Objectives: We prospectively tested questions to help identify COPD among smokers without prior history of lung disease. Methods: Subjects were recruited via random mailing to primary care practices in Aberdeen, UK, and Denver, Colo., USA. Current and former smokers aged 40 or older with no prior respiratory diagnosis and no respiratory medications in the past year were enrolled. Participants answered questions covering demographics and symptoms and then underwent spirometry with reversibility testing. A study diagnosis of COPD was defined as fixed airway obstruction as measured by postbronchodilator FEV1/FVC <0.70. We examined the ability of individual questions in a multivariate framework to correctly discriminate between persons with and without COPD. Results: 818 subjects completed all investigations and proceeded to analysis. The list of 54 questions yielded 52 items for analysis, which was reduced to 17 items for entry into multivariate regression. Eight items had significant relationships with the study diagnosis of COPD, including age, pack-years, body mass index, weather-affected cough, phlegm without a cold, morning phlegm, wheeze frequency, and history of any allergies. Individual items yielded odds ratios ranging from 0.23 to 12. This questionnaire demonstrated a sensitivity of 80.4 and specificity of 72.0. Conclusions: A simple patient self-administered questionnaire can be used to identify patients with a high likelihood of having COPD, for whom spirometric testing is particularly important. Implementation of this questionnaire could enhance the efficiency and diagnostic accuracy of current screening efforts.

Symptom-Based Questionnaire for Differentiating COPD and Asthma

Background: Many patients with obstructive lung disease (OLD) carry an inaccurate diagnostic label. Symptom-based questionnaires could identify persons likely to need spirometry. Objectives: We prospectively tested questions derived from a comprehensive literature review and an international Delphi panel to help identify chronic OLD (COPD) in persons with prior evidence of OLD. Methods: Subjects were recruited via random mailing to primary-care practices in Aberdeen, Scotland, and Denver, Colorado. Persons aged 40 and older reporting any prior diagnosis of OLD or any respiratory medications in the past year were enrolled. Participants answered 54 questions covering demographics and symptoms and underwent spirometry with reversibility testing. A study diagnosis of COPD was defined by fixed airway obstruction as measured by post-bronchodilator FEV1/FVC <0.70. We examined ability of individual questions in a multivariate framework to discriminate between persons with and without the study diagnosis of COPD. Results: 597 persons completed all investigations and proceeded to analysis. The list of 54 questions yielded 52 items for analyses, which was reduced to 19 items for entry into a multivariate regression model. Nine items had significant relationships with the study diagnosis of COPD, including increased age, pack-years, worsening cough, breathing-related disability or hospitalization, worsening dyspnea, phlegm quantity, cold going to the chest, and receipt of treatment for breathing. Individual items yielded odds ratios ranging from 0.33 to 20.7. This questionnaire demonstrated a sensitivity of 72.0 and a specificity of 82.7. Conclusions: A short, symptom-based questionnaire identifies persons more likely to have COPD among persons with prior evidence of OLD.

The International Primary Care Respiratory Group (IPCRG) Research Needs Statement 2010

AIM Respiratory diseases are a public health issue throughout the world, with high prevalence and morbidity. This Research Needs Statement from the International Primary Care Respiratory Group (IPCRG) aims to highlight unanswered questions on the management of respiratory diseases that are of importance to practising primary care clinicians. METHODS An informal but inclusive consultation process was instigated in 2009. Draft statements in asthma, rhinitis, COPD, tobacco dependence, and respiratory infections were circulated widely to IPCRG members, other recognised experts, and representatives from a range of economic and healthcare backgrounds. An iterative process was used to generate, prioritise and refine research questions in each section. RESULTS Two overarching themes emerged. Firstly, there is a real need for research to be undertaken within primary care, which recruits patients representative of primary care populations, evaluates interventions realistically delivered within primary care, and draws conclusions that will be meaningful to professionals working within primary care. Secondly, international and national guidelines exist, but there is little evidence on the best strategies for implementing recommendations. Disease-specific research questions focus on effective and cost-effective ways to prevent disease, confirm the diagnosis, assess control, manage treatment, and empower selfmanagement. Practical questions about how to deliver this comprehensive agenda in diverse primary care settings are highlighted. CONCLUSIONS We hope that this Research Needs Statement will be used by clinicians and patients campaigning for answers to relevant questions, by researchers seeking funding to provide answers to these questions, and by funding bodies to enable them to prioritise research agendas.

Optimising pharmacological maintenance treatment for COPD in primary care

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a multi-faceted disease that is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and is a significant burden in terms of healthcare resource utilisation and cost. Despite the availability of national and international guidelines, and effective, well-tolerated pharmacological treatments, COPD remains substantially under-diagnosed and under-treated within primary care. As COPD is both preventable and treatable there is an urgent need to raise the awareness and profile of the disease among primary care physicians and patients. Increasing evidence suggests that initiation of long-acting bronchodilator treatment at an early stage can significantly improve the patients long-term health and quality of life (QoL). Recent large-scale trials in COPD have confirmed the longterm benefits of maintenance treatment with long-acting bronchodilators. A wide range of benefits have been shown in selected patient groups including improved lung function and QoL, reduced exacerbations and, in some studies, delayed disease progression and improved survival. In this review, we consider recent developments in our understanding of COPD, including current and emerging pharmacological treatment options, and identify steps for optimising early diagnosis and pharmacological treatment of COPD within the primary care environment.

Dual bronchodilation in COPD: lung function and patient-reported outcomes – a review

Several fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of long-acting bronchodilators (a long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA] plus a long-acting β2-agonist [LABA]) are available for the treatment of COPD. Studies of these FDCs have demonstrated substantial improvements in lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 second) in comparison with their respective constituent monocomponents. Improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms and health status, as well as exacerbation rates, have been reported compared with a LABA or LAMA alone, but results are less consistent. The inconsistencies may in part be owing to differences in study design, methods used to assess study end points, and patient populations. Nevertheless, these observations tend to support an association between improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 second and improvements in symptom-based outcomes. In order to assess the effects of FDCs on PROs and evaluate relationships between PROs and changes in lung function, we performed a systematic literature search of publications reporting randomized controlled trials of FDCs. Results of this literature search were independently assessed by two reviewers, with a third reviewer resolving any conflicting results. In total, 22 Phase III randomized controlled trials of FDC bronchodilators in COPD were identified, with an additional study including a post-literature search (ten for indacaterol–glycopyrronium once daily, eight for umeclidinium–vilanterol once daily, three for tiotropium–olodaterol once daily, and two for aclidinium–formoterol twice daily). Results from these studies demonstrated that the LAMA–LABA FDCs significantly improved lung function compared with their component monotherapies or other single-agent treatments. Furthermore, LABA–LAMA combinations also generally improved symptoms and health status versus monotherapies, although some discrepancies between lung function and PROs were observed. Overall, the safety profiles of the FDCs were similar to placebo. Further research is required to examine more closely any relationship between lung function and PROs in patients receiving LABA–LAMA combinations.

Treating tobacco dependence: guidance for primary care on life-saving interventions. Position statement of the IPCRG

Tobacco smoking is the world’s leading cause of premature death and disability. Global targets to reduce premature deaths by 25% by 2025 will require a substantial increase in the number of smokers making a quit attempt, and a significant improvement in the success rates of those attempts in low, middle and high income countries. In many countries the only place where the majority of smokers can access support to quit is primary care. There is strong evidence of cost-effective interventions in primary care yet many opportunities to put these into practice are missed. This paper revises the approach proposed by the International Primary Care Respiratory Group published in 2008 in this journal to reflect important new evidence and the global variation in primary-care experience and knowledge of smoking cessation. Specific for primary care, that advocates for a holistic, bio-psycho-social approach to most problems, the starting point is to approach tobacco dependence as an eminently treatable condition. We offer a hierarchy of interventions depending on time and available resources. We present an equitable approach to behavioural and drug interventions. This includes an update to the evidence on behaviour change, gender difference, comparative information on numbers needed to treat, drug safety and availability of drugs, including the relatively cheap drug cytisine, and a summary of new approaches such as harm reduction. This paper also extends the guidance on special populations such as people with long-term conditions including tuberculosis, human immunodeficiency virus, cardiovascular disease and respiratory disease, pregnant women, children and adolescents, and people with serious mental illness. We use expert clinical opinion where the research evidence is insufficient or inconclusive. The paper describes trends in the use of waterpipes and cannabis smoking and offers guidance to primary-care clinicians on what to do faced with uncertain evidence. Throughout, it recognises that clinical decisions should be tailored to the individual’s circumstances and attitudes and be influenced by the availability and affordability of drugs and specialist services. Finally it argues that the role of the International Primary Care Respiratory Group is to improve the confidence as well as the competence of primary care and, therefore, makes recommendations about clinical education and evaluation. We also advocate for an update to the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines to optimise each primary-care intervention. This International Primary Care Respiratory Group statement has been endorsed by the Member Organisations of World Organization of Family Doctors Europe.

Reducing asthma attacks: consider patients' beliefs

Dear Sirs, The editorial by Mike Thomas and Eric Bateman1 focusses on a very important, clinical challenge—how to reduce asthma attacks. One of the issues discussed is the apparent lack of the patients understanding of the information regarding self-management, which can lead to non-adherence. We agree with the authors that ‘persuading some patients that they need to take regular ICS (even as a combination inhaler) is an ongoing challenge’. We find it timely to emphasise the knowledge we have regarding how we can improve asthma control by understanding the patient’s perspective. Patients do not blindly follow the treatment advice but are strongly influenced by their ‘common-sense’ beliefs about their illness and treatment.2,3 Even if the advice comes from a trusted health-care worker the patient will evaluate whether it makes sense in the light of their understanding and beliefs. Adherence to medication is especially influenced by the patients’ beliefs about the prescribed medication, particularly how they judge their personal need for it relative to their concerns about the potential adverse consequences of taking it. A recent meta-analysis showed that this simple Necessity Concerns Framework was helpful in explaining non-adherence across 94 peer-reviewed publications from 18 countries involving over 25,000 patients, across 24 long-term conditions including asthma.4 Many patients with asthma doubt their personal need for daily doses of ICS or have concerns about them, even when they experience no ‘side-effects’.5–7 Doubts about the necessity of ICS often arise from the patients beliefs about asthma.7 In order to perceive that we need treatment we have to see a close fit between our understanding of the problem (the illness) and the proposed solution (the treatment). Many patients with asthma simply don’t see a good fit. The medical model of asthma as a chronic condition that requires daily preventative medication may be at odds with their experience of asthma as an episodic condition in which symptoms come and go. Daily ICS may not make sense to them if their belief is ‘no symptoms, no asthma.’8 One could suspect that in many of the patients included in the linked paper by Patel et al.,9 the extreme overuse of SABA (short-acting β2-agonist) could be explained by the patient’s own beliefs about asthma and how best it can be treated. The challenge for the health-care worker, be it the GP, practice nurse, pharmacist or hospital specialist, is to understand the patient’s beliefs about asthma and its treatment. This is the starting point for tailoring the prescription and providing support to meet the needs of the individual. A three-point perceptions and practicalities approach2 might be a good start to tailor the support to enhance the patient’s motivation and ability to get the best from the appropriate treatment: Present a ‘common-sense’ rationale or ‘story’ explaining why daily treatment is necessary, even in the absence of symptoms. Elicit and address the concerns about medication. Make the regimen as easy and convenient as possible to check that the patient is able to use the treatment (including inhaler technique where appropriate). We agree with the authors of the editorial that we still have a long way to go before optimal, effective self-management is achieved, but we suggest that an understanding of the patient’s perspective about asthma and its treatment offers the gateway to this.

We must join forces in the battle against COPD

The recently published American Thoracic Society (ATS)/European Respiratory Society (ERS) statement on research questions in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) [1] is an excellent and extensive document. It will, without doubt, contribute to better understanding of COPD and hopefully direct research to important unmet needs. Our only disappointment is that the authors did not include significant representation from primary care or public health: disappointing because globally most people with COPD are diagnosed and managed in the community by primary care clinicians, and many of the unmet individual and population research needs can only be defined and answered by professionals working in these settings. Specialists and primary care physicians must join forces in the battle against COPD! http://ow.ly/Q8A3L