Search

Objectives: To assess the feasibility of delivering a culturally tailored pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programme and conducting a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT)., Design: A two-arm, randomised feasibility trial with a mixed-methods process evaluation., Setting: Secondary care setting in Georgia, Europe., Participants: People with symptomatic spirometry-confirmed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease recruited from primary and secondary care., Interventions: Participants were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to a control group or intervention comprising 16 twice-weekly group PR sessions tailored to the Georgian setting., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: Feasibility of the intervention and RCT were assessed according to: study recruitment, consent and follow-up, intervention fidelity, adherence and acceptability, using questionnaires and measurements at baseline, programme end and 6 months, and through qualitative interviews., Results: The study recruited 60 participants (as planned): 54 (90%) were male, 10 (17%) had a forced expiratory volume in 1 second of ≤50% predicted. The mean MRC Dyspnoea Score was 3.3 (SD 0.5), and mean St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) 50.9 (SD 17.6). The rehabilitation specialists delivered the PR with fidelity. Thirteen (43.0%) participants attended at least 75% of the 16 planned sessions. Participants and rehabilitation specialists in the qualitative interviews reported that the programme was acceptable, but dropout rates were high in participants who lived outside Tbilisi and had to travel large distances. Outcome data were collected on 63.3% participants at 8 weeks and 88.0% participants at 6 months. Mean change in SGRQ total was -24.9 (95% CI -40.3 to -9.6) at programme end and -4.4 (95% CI -12.3 to 3.4) at 6 months follow-up for the intervention group and -0.5 (95% CI -8.1 to 7.0) and -8.1 (95% CI -16.5 to 0.3) for the usual care group at programme end and 6 months, respectively., Conclusions: It was feasible to deliver the tailored PR intervention. Approaches to improve uptake and adherence warrant further research., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN16184185., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To examine the accuracy and cost-effectiveness of various chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) screening tests and combinations within a Chinese primary care population., Design: Screening test accuracy study., Setting: Urban and rural community health centres in four municipalities of China: Beijing (north), Chengdu (southwest), Guangzhou (south) and Shenyang (northeast)., Participants: Community residents aged 40 years and above who attended community health centres for any reason were invited to participate. 2445 participants (mean age 59.8 (SD 9.6) years, 39.1% (n=956) male) completed the study (February-December 2019), 68.9% (n=1684) were never-smokers and 3.6% (n=88) had an existing COPD diagnosis. 13.7% (n=333) of participants had spirometry-confirmed airflow obstruction., Interventions: Participants completed six index tests (screening questionnaires (COPD Diagnostic Questionnaire, COPD Assessment in Primary Care To Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk (CAPTURE), Chinese Symptom-Based Questionnaire (C-SBQ), COPD-SQ), microspirometry (COPD-6), peak flow (model of peak flow meters used in the study (USPE)) and the reference test (ndd Easy On-PC)., Primary and Secondary Outcomes: Cases were defined as those with forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV 1 )/forced vital capacity (FVC) below the lower limit of normal (LLN-GLI) on the reference test. Performance of individual screening tests and their combinations was evaluated, with cost-effectiveness analyses providing cost per additional true case detected., Results: Airflow measurement devices (sensitivities 64.9% (95% CI 59.5% to 70.0%) and 67.3% (95% CI 61.9% to 72.3%), specificities 89.7% (95% CI 88.4% to 91.0%) and 82.6% (95% CI 80.9% to 84.2%) for microspirometry and peak flow, respectively) generally performed better than questionnaires, the most accurate of which was C-SBQ (sensitivity 63.1% (95% CI 57.6% to 68.3%) specificity 74.2% (95% CI 72.3% to 76.1%)). The combination of C-SBQ and microspirometry used in parallel maximised sensitivity (81.4%) (95% CI 76.8% to 85.4%) and had specificity of 68.0% (95% CI 66.0% to 70.0%), with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £64.20 (CNY385) per additional case detected compared with peak flow., Conclusions: Simple screening tests to identify undiagnosed COPD within the primary care setting in China is possible, and a combination of C-SBQ and microspirometry is the most sensitive and cost-effective. Further work is required to explore optimal cut-points and effectiveness of programme implementation., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN13357135., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: The latest chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) epidemiology survey in China estimated that there were 99 million potential COPD patients in the country, the majority of whom are undiagnosed. Screening for COPD in primary care settings is of vital importance for China, but it is not known which strategy would be the most suitable for adoption in primary care. Studies have been conducted to test the accuracy of questionnaires, expiratory peak flow meters and microspirometers to screen for COPD, but no study has directly evaluated and compared the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these methods in the Chinese setting., Methods and Analysis: We present the protocol for a multicentre cross-sectional study, to be conducted in eight community hospitals from four cities among Chinese adults aged 40 years or older to investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different case-finding methods for COPD, and determine the test performance of individual and combinations of screening tests and strategies in comparison with quality diagnostic spirometry. Index tests are screening questionnaires (COPD Diagnostic Questionnaire (CDQ), COPD Assessment in Primary Care To Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk Questionnaire (CAPTURE), symptom-based questionnaire, COPD Screening Questionnaire (COPD-SQ)), microspirometer and peak flow. Each participant will complete all of these tests in one assessment. The primary analysis will compare the performance of a screening questionnaire with a handheld device. Secondary analyses will include the comparative performance of each index test, as well as a comparison of strategies where we use a screening questionnaire and a handheld device. Approximately 2000 participants will be recruited over 9 to 12 months., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has been approved by Peking University Hospital and University of Birmingham. All study participants will provide written informed consent. Study results will be published in appropriate journal and presented at national and international conferences, as well as relevant social media and various community/stakeholder engagement activities., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN13357135., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To investigate the impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) case finding on clinical care., Design: We conducted a prospective observational analysis of data from a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care in the West Midlands, UK (TargetCOPD). This compared alternative methods of COPD case finding against usual care. Data were extracted from electronic healthcare records and self-reported questionnaires for a subset of patients with newly diagnosed COPD., Setting: 50 general practices that participated in the TargetCOPD trial., Participants: Patients aged 40-79 years newly identified with COPD by targeted case finding or by usual care, from 10 August 2012 to 22 June 2014., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was addition to a COPD register by the end of the trial. The secondary outcome was a clinical care score, derived from the sum of clinical assessments and relevant interventions. Associations between participant characteristics and the primary and secondary outcomes were assessed using multilevel regression., Results: 857 patients identified with COPD by case finding and 764 by usual care were included. Only 21.2% of case-found patients had been added to a COPD register, compared with 92.7% of those diagnosed by usual care. The odds of being added were greater in smokers (adjusted OR 8.68, 95% CI 2.53 to 29.8), and in those with lower percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s (adjusted OR 0.96 per percentage rise, 95% CI 0.95 to 0.98). Patients who had been added to a COPD register had a significantly higher clinical care score (mean difference 5.06, 95% CI 4.36 to 5.75)., Conclusions: Only one in five case-found patients had been registered with COPD. Patients added to a COPD register received significantly higher levels of appropriate clinical care., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN14930255; Post-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PA, REJ and DAF were principle investigators for the Birmingham Lung Improvement StudieS (BLISS) programme, funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research (grant reference number RP-PG-0109-10061). We report grants from various NIHR studies. PA is the Chair of the NIHR Public Health Research (PHR) Funding committee., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)