33
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Enhancing the diagnosis and management of COPD in Primary care

      editorial
      Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine
      BioMed Central

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Achieving the optimal management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a major challenge facing all countries where smoking is and has been highly prevalent. The consequences of missed or delayed diagnosis represent a source of distress to patients, unnecessary expense to health care systems, and a missed opportunity to implement the many things we can now do to reduce the burden of this disease. Others have described the story of COPD as being a story with no beginning, a middle that is a way of life, and an unpredictable and unanticipated end [1]. If we are to give the story a beginning it can be achieved either by the recognition of symptoms leading to an accurate objective diagnosis, or less satisfactorily by a major event such as an exacerbation starting the story. In the latter case the opportunity for support with smoking cessation, pulmonary rehabilitation and initiation of guideline recommended therapies is missed. The immense value of flu vaccination, stop smoking support, pulmonary rehabilitation and simple bronchodilator therapy, compared to more complex therapies and interventions, has been graphically displayed in the Pyramid of value for COPD interventions to which further attention has been drawn recently [2]. So how do we start the story earlier to ensure that those with COPD are offered and take these cost effective interventions? In the article recently published in Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine [3] Sanguinetti and colleagues [3] report a nationwide study of this and related issues and whilst highlighting an appreciation of the role of spirometry in specialist and General Practice they report on the latters concern re difficulty in accessing spirometry and other barriers to implementation. This by itself is not new and others have demonstrated how easier access to well conducted spirometry can reveal how clinical impressions are insufficient to make a diagnosis and mistakenly lead to those with no evidence of airway narrowing receiving often expensive bronchodilators [4]. It is thus a challenge for all countries to address how well conducted spirometry can be promptly available and Sanguinetti’s study is encouraging in that it demonstrates GP recognition of this need. Others have also demonstrated GPs awareness of this, and that of Junior Doctors, although the latter report losing interest if specialists do not pay attention to the results [5]. It is quite possible for good quality spirometry to be undertaken safely and interpreted correctly in primary care but in the same way that arrangements for provision of Chest Radiographs are organised by locality, conducted to a high standard and reported accurately, a similar more central service for spirometry, if promptly available, would clearly be appreciated by General Practitioners. This is not however the end of the story. Case finding is essential if patients are to be referred for spirometry and accurate recording of smoking habits during all consultations for whatever cause, provides a data base of those needing to be investigated. In those presenting with suggestive symptoms a second caveat is to be aware of the problem of the patient with significant breathlessness who has only mild obstruction and where the brunt of damage is borne by the alveoli — dominant air sac disease or emphysema. Recording a breathlessness score at the time of performing spirometry can permit the reporter to highlight this possibility to the primary care physician, and some of these patients clearly need more detailed lung function tests and CT scans. Obesity as a confounding cause of breathlessness is also underappreciated [4]. In the ideal world a prompt diagnosis is made, the patient supported to stop smoking, appropriate vaccinations given and the patient referred for pulmonary rehabilitation to a programme that appreciates the importance of motivating the patient and supporting them as they self manage their own condition following appropriate behavioural change. Not all will require pharmacological interventions other than smoking cessation treatments, but many who are symptomatic will require a minimum of bronchodilator therapy. As Sanguinetti points out this and other regular therapies then need to be monitored by prescription monitoring, for non-adherence is common in long term conditions [6] and more focus on optimal doctor patient communication, determining the patients goals, shared decision making and permitting the patient to ask about any concerns regarding side effects is essential. Even within a large clinical trial when those with COPD knew that their use of therapy was being monitored a fifth of patients did not take medicine as previously discussed with the doctor with one trial showing a significantly deleterious effect of this behaviour on hospitalisation rates and upon mortality [7]. The Pneumocafé project [3] represents a further way of demonstrating the importance of this subject to primary care physicians. Integrated care approaches to the management of this common disease are proven to improve outcomes [8] and in a number of formats appropriate to a country’s health care system must surely be the way forward?

          Related collections

          Most cited references6

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Integrated disease management interventions for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

          In people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) there is considerable variation in symptoms, limitations and well-being, which often complicates medical care. To improve quality of life (QoL) and exercise tolerance, while reducing the number of exacerbations, a multidisciplinary program including different elements of care is needed. To evaluate the effects of integrated disease management (IDM) programs or interventions in people with COPD on health-related QoL, exercise tolerance and number of exacerbations. We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register of trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL for potentially eligible studies (last searched 12 April 2012). Randomized controlled trials evaluating IDM programs for COPD compared with controls were included. Included interventions consisted of multidisciplinary (two or more health care providers) and multi-treatment (two or more components) IDM programs with a duration of at least three months. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data; if required, we contacted authors for additional data. We performed meta-analyses using random-effects modeling. We carried out sensitivity analysis for allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessment, study design and intention-to-treat analysis. A total of 26 trials involving 2997 people were included, with a follow-up ranging from 3 to 24 months. Studies were conducted in 11 different countries. The mean age of the included participants was 68 years, 68% were male and the mean forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1)% predicted value was 44.3% (range 28% to 66%). Participants were treated in all types of healthcare settings: primary (n = 8), secondary (n = 12), tertiary care (n = 1), and in both primary and secondary care (n = 5). Overall, the studies were of high to moderate methodological quality.Compared with controls, IDM showed a statistically and clinically significant improvement in disease-specific QoL on all domains of the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire after 12 months: dyspnea (mean difference (MD) 1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.36); fatigue (MD 0.82; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.17); emotional (MD 0.61; 95% CI 0.26 to 0.95) and mastery (MD 0.75; 95% CI 0.38 to 1.12). The St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) for QoL reached the clinically relevant difference of four units only for the impact domain (MD -4.04; 95% CI -5.96 to -2.11, P < 0.0001). IDM showed a significantly improved disease-specific QoL on the activity domain of the SGRQ: MD -2.70 (95% CI -4.84 to -0.55, P = 0.01). There was no significant difference on the symptom domain of the SGRQ: MD -2.39 (95% CI -5.31 to 0.53, P = 0.11). According to the GRADE approach, quality of evidence on the SGRQ was scored as high quality, and on the CRQ as moderate quality evidence. Participants treated with an IDM program had a clinically relevant improvement in six-minute walking distance of 43.86 meters compared with controls after 12 months (95% CI 21.83 to 65.89; P < 0.001, moderate quality). There was a reduction in the number of participants with one or more hospital admissions over three to 12 months from 27 per 100 participants in the control group to 20 (95% CI 15 to 27) per 100 participants in the IDM group (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.99, P = 0.04; number needed to treat = 15). Hospitalization days were significantly lower in the IDM group compared with controls after 12 months (MD -3.78 days; 95% CI -5.90 to -1.67, P < 0.001). Admissions and hospital days were graded as high quality evidence. No adverse effects were reported in the intervention group. No difference between groups was found on mortality (OR 0.96; 95%CI 0.52 to 1.74). There was insufficient evidence to refute or confirm the long term effectiveness of IDM. In these COPD participants, IDM not only improved disease-specific QoL and exercise capacity, but also reduced hospital admissions and hospital days per person.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Emphysema: time to say farewell to therapeutic nihilism

            It is an interesting time for the management of emphysema. In this condition, destruction of lung parenchyma associated with reduced elastic recoil and dynamic airways closure produce gas trapping and increased operating lung volumes, leading to breathlessness and exercise limitation. It has historically been defined as an irreversible process, which has led to a degree of therapeutic nihilism. One manifestation of this has been the curious neglect of lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS). Clinical guidelines,1 reflecting trial evidence,2 recommend consideration of LVRS in selected patients with upper lobe predominant emphysema and poor exercise capacity, the phenotype where surgery has been shown to produce a survival benefit. Modern surgical techniques, unilateral treatment and improved postoperative care and patient selection mean that LVRS is also associated with lower morbidity and mortality than data published at the turn of the century had suggested,3 4 with one recent case series reporting zero 90-day mortality following unilateral surgery.5 Nevertheless, little effort seems to be going into identifying this patient population and LVRS remains vastly underused with just 90 procedures taking place in the UK in 2010–2011. A partial explanation for this may be found in a recent survey of British Thoracic Society members that revealed that a significant proportion overestimated the morbidity and mortality associated with LVRS.6 Only 30% had access to a dedicated chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) multidisciplinary meeting to review patients, and there was no consensus as to the correct strategy to adopt to identify appropriate patients. Over the last decade, bronchoscopic approaches for lung volume reduction in emphysema have proliferated. These include one-way endobronchial valves to induce lobar collapse,7–10 airway bypass approaches to create low-resistance extra-anatomical pathways that allow trapped gas to escape,11 12 lung volume reduction coils (LVRC) that re-tension the lung preventing dynamic airway collapse13 and techniques intended to reduce lung volumes by scarring either through bronchial thermal vapour ablation (‘steam’)14 or the use of biological agents.15 16 These approaches offer the potential to achieve lung volume reduction, improving symptoms and even prolonging survival8 while avoiding the problems inherent in an invasive surgical intervention. However, for each approach issues around the magnitude and duration of effect, optimum patient selection, safety profile and cost need to be addressed through properly conducted clinical trials with robust endpoints. Deslee and colleagues present 6-month and 12-month data from a multicentre, single-arm study of staged, bilateral LVRC treatment in patients with severe emphysema.17 They report improvements in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores of −11.1±13.3 points 12 months following therapy as compared with baseline, with persistent benefits in 6 minute walking distance (6MWD), forced expiratory flow in the 1st second (FEV1) and residual volume (RV) exceeding accepted minimal clinically important differences. These data are encouraging and add to existing data from short-term controlled trials,13 but the limitations of this study merit some consideration when considering the general issues for bronchoscopic therapies outlined above. It was uncontrolled and unblinded, with only roughly half the cohort followed up beyond 6 months and the primary outcome was a quality of life score. This is questionable in a single-arm study without a sham procedure, given the powerful placebo effect seen with this sort of intervention. Nevertheless, the sustained improvement in lung volumes seems to indicate a persistent physiological effect. Longer-term follow-up in randomised controlled studies will be needed to be able to comment definitively on sustained benefits of LVRC. The RENEW trial (clinicaltrials.gov NCT01608490), which is currently underway with a primary endpoint of 6MWD 12 months post-recruitment will address this. The authors do not clarify what the distribution of recruitment among the 11 participating centres was or their prior experience with the technique. Two patients recruited for bilateral coil treatment were then thought to be unsuitable for contralateral treatment on a ‘second look’ at their imaging. In addition, the trial was meant to enrol only patients with heterogeneous disease, yet 13 and 17 of 33 patients reaching 12 months’ follow-up were deemed ‘homogeneous’ on visual and computerised scoring, respectively. The authors propose that homogeneous emphysema responds to treatment with LVRC to a similar extent to heterogeneous disease, but this must be considered hypothesis generating only and to some extent seems to reflect a failure in the application of the initial protocol. The problem of recruiting patients for lung volume reduction trials who on post hoc analysis do not fulfil entry criteria is not unique to this study.7 11 Safety is another key issue. It has been assumed that bronchoscopic lung volume reduction is safer and cheaper than LVRS. Pneumothorax occurred within 30 days in 4 of 155 procedures (3.5%), with a per patient rate of 11.7% (7/60) during the follow-up period. Pneumothorax following bronchoscopic lung volume reduction procedures can be delayed and can be fatal. This means that as well as formal safety criteria around lung function and exercise capacity a general clinical assessment of the patient's likely ability to cope with this complication needs to be made. In practice, relatively few people judged ‘too unwell for LVRS’ may be eligible for a bronchoscopic approach. All patients treated as part of this trial had general anaesthesia in an operating theatre, but it should be noted that these procedures can be performed safely in the bronchoscopy suite under sedation.13 A review article written a decade ago posed the question ‘Endobronchial lung volume reduction, a myth, or a marvel?’18 The proliferation of techniques and publications mean that these approaches can no longer be considered mythical, but nor any longer are they ‘a marvel’. Rather, they must be considered as techniques with a developing evidence base and varying response rates and complications where a case must be made that they represent good value, considered in terms of the resources employed and the health outcomes obtained. The London Respiratory Network has produced a value pyramid for COPD interventions19 (figure 1), but it remains to be established where each bronchoscopic approach will sit. LVRS was estimated as costing $40,000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) based on the US National Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT),20 but the likely true figure is considerably lower, given improvements in technique with reduced mortality, morbidity and length of stay.5 21 The cost of LVRCs is at present high with the list price of the devices themselves significantly exceeding the national LVRS tariff in the UK. Figure 1 The pyramid of value for COPD interventions developed by the London Respiratory Network with The London School of Economics (modified from19) gives estimates of cost per quality adjusted life year gained. LABA long-acting β2 agonist; QALY, quality adjusted life year. As with LVRS, the response rates for bronchoscopic techniques are crucially dependent on appropriate patient selection, with different criteria for different devices. This takes us back to the need to develop an multi-disciplinary team (MDT) approach for emphysema5 21 (table 1). Given trial data indicating improved survival, a failure to offer LVRS to appropriate patients with COPD and by extension a failure to make the effort to identify them seems to us to border on negligence. The development of a network of emphysema MDTs should also facilitate the more rapid delivery of trials to investigate the efficacy of experimental treatments and ensure that appropriate criteria are used to select individuals for more established interventions such as endobronchial valves to ensure a high responder rate and the best value for the healthcare system. Table 1 Approach to selecting patients with emphysema for a possible lung volume reduction procedure General criteria when considering a lung volume reduction procedure▸ Significantly reduced exercise capacity.▸ Lung function impairment with significant hyperinflation.▸ Sufficiently well to cope with surgery.▸ Prepared to accept some procedural risk (requires clinicians to be able to communicate this accurately).▸ There is a ‘window of opportunity’ for intervention. In ‘end-stage’ patients, it may be too late to intervene safely. Considerations Criteria ▸ Are they too well to consider intervention? ▸ Lung function, exercise capacity, prognosis, Medical Research Council dyspnoea score <3 ▸ Are they too unwell for intervention to be safe? ▸ Lung function, frailty, exercise capacity <100 m, oxygen dependence ▸ Is treatment optimal? ▸ Smoking cessation, pulmonary rehabilitation, flu vaccination, inhaled and oral medication ▸ Is their lung function likely to rule out a procedure on safety grounds? ▸ All three of FEV1, TLco and Kco <20% predicted ▸ Do they have comorbidities that limit likely benefit or increase risk? ▸ For example, pulmonary hypertension, unstable cardiac disease, malignancy, cerebrovascular disease. Ongoing smoking (possibility of intervention may help to promote quit attempts) ▸ Have they ever had a CT thorax and if so has it been reported in terms of emphysema pattern? ▸ Review existing CT's or obtain a CT if a potential candidate as above Review CT and lung function in multi-disciplinary teams including respiratory physician, radiologist, thoracic surgeonFurther investigations including echocardiogram, lung perfusion scan and a formal field exercise test (shuttle walk or 6 minute walk test) may be indicated.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Living and dying with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: multi-perspective longitudinal qualitative study.

              To understand the perspectives of people with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as their illness progresses, and of their informal and professional carers, to inform provision of care for people living and dying with COPD. Up to four serial qualitative interviews were conducted with each patient and nominated carer over 18 months. Interviews were transcribed and analysed both thematically and as narratives. 21 patients, and 13 informal carers (a family member, friend, or neighbour) and 18 professional carers (a key health or social care professional) nominated by the patients. Primary and secondary care in Lothian, Tayside, and Forth Valley, Scotland, during 2007-9. Eleven patients died during the study period. Our final dataset comprised 92 interviews (23 conducted with patient and informal carer together). Severe symptoms that caused major disruption to normal life were described, often in terms implying acceptance of the situation as a "way of life" rather than an "illness." Patients and their informal carers adapted to and accepted the debilitating symptoms of a lifelong condition. Professional carers' familiarity with the patients' condition, typically over many years, and prognostic uncertainty contributed to the difficulty of recognising and actively managing end stage disease. Overall, patients told a "chaos narrative" of their illness that was indistinguishable from their life story, with no clear beginning and an unanticipated end described in terms comparable with attitudes to death in a normal elderly population. Our findings challenge current assumptions underpinning provision of end of life care for people with COPD. The policy focus on identifying a time point for transition to palliative care has little resonance for people with COPD or their clinicians and is counter productive if it distracts from early phased introduction of supportive care. Careful assessment of possible supportive and palliative care needs should be triggered at key disease milestones along a lifetime journey with COPD, in particular after hospital admission for an exacerbation.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                m.partridge@imperial.ac.uk
                Journal
                Multidiscip Respir Med
                Multidiscip Respir Med
                Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine
                BioMed Central (London )
                1828-695X
                2049-6958
                28 November 2014
                28 November 2014
                2014
                : 9
                : 1
                : 62
                Affiliations
                Airway Diseases Section, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, Dovehouse Street, London, SW3 6LY UK
                Article
                187
                10.1186/2049-6958-9-62
                4267135
                25516797
                e8f369b0-8a03-4644-b857-e4be8b40a6fa
                © Partridge; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

                This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 18 November 2014
                : 18 November 2014
                Categories
                Editorial
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2014

                Respiratory medicine
                Respiratory medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article