Search

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.)

Background: Consensus on the definition of airflow obstruction to diagnose COPD remains unresolved., Methods: We undertook systematic case finding for COPD in primary care using the fixed ratio (FR) criterion (forced expiratory volume in 1 s/forced vital capacity [FEV 1 /FVC] <0.7) for defining airflow obstruction and also using the lower limit of normal (LLN). We then compared the clinical characteristics of those identified by the 2 criteria., Results: A total of 3,721 individuals reporting respiratory symptoms were invited for spirometry. A total of 2,607 attended (mean age 60.4 years, 52.8% male, 29.8% current smokers) and 32.6% had airflow obstruction by FR ("FR+") and 20.2% by LLN ("LLN+"). Compared with the LLN+/FR+ group, the LLN-/FR+ group (12.4%) was significantly older, had higher FEV 1 and FEV 1 /FVC, lower COPD assessment test scores, and less cough, sputum, and wheeze, but was significantly more likely to report a diagnosis of heart disease (14.2% versus 6.9%, p <0.001). Compared with the LLN+/FR+ group, the LLN-/FR- group was younger, had a higher body mass index, fewer pack-years, a lower prevalence of respiratory symptoms except for dyspnea, and lower FVC and higher FEV 1 . The probability of known heart disease was significantly lower in the LLN+/FR+ group compared with those with preserved lung function (LLN-/FR-) (adjusted odds ratio 0.62, 95% CI: 0.43-0.90) but this was not seen in the LLN-/FR+ group (adjusted odds ratio 0.90, 95% CI: 0.63-1.29)., Conclusion: In symptomatic individuals, defining airflow obstruction by FR instead of LLN identifies a significant number of individuals who have less respiratory and more cardiac clinical characteristics., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is greatly underdiagnosed worldwide and more efficient methods of case-finding are required. We developed and externally validated a risk score to identify undiagnosed COPD using primary care records.We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled case-finding trial in the West Midlands, UK. Participants aged 40-79 years with no prior diagnosis of COPD received a postal or opportunistic screening questionnaire. Those reporting chronic respiratory symptoms were assessed with spirometry. COPD was defined as presence of relevant symptoms with a post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s/forced vital capacity ratio below the lower limit of normal. A risk score was developed using logistic regression with variables available from electronic health records for 2398 participants who returned a postal questionnaire. This was externally validated among 1097 participants who returned an opportunistic questionnaire to derive the c-statistic, and the sensitivity and specificity of cut-points.A risk score containing age, smoking status, dyspnoea, prescriptions of salbutamol and prescriptions of antibiotics discriminated between patients with and without undiagnosed COPD (c-statistic 0.74, 95% CI 0.68-0.80). A cut-point of ≥7.5% predicted risk had a sensitivity of 68.8% (95% CI 57.3-78.9%) and a specificity of 68.8% (95% CI 65.8.1-71.6%).A novel risk score using routine data from primary care electronic health records can identify patients at high risk for undiagnosed symptomatic COPD. This score could be integrated with clinical information systems to help primary care clinicians target patients for case-finding., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: Disclosures can be found alongside this article at erj.ersjournals.com, (Copyright ©ERS 2017.)

Background: Many individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remain undiagnosed worldwide. Health-care organisations are implementing case-finding programmes without good evidence of which are the most effective and cost-effective approaches. We assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two alternative approaches to targeted case finding for COPD compared with routine practice., Methods: In this cluster-randomised controlled trial, participating general practices in the West Midlands, UK, were randomly assigned (1:1), via a computer-generated block randomisation sequence, to either a targeted case-finding group or a routine care group. Eligible patients were ever-smokers aged 40-79 years without a previously recorded diagnosis of COPD. Patients in the targeted case-finding group were further randomly assigned (1:1) via their household to receive either a screening questionnaire at the general practitioner (GP) consultation (opportunistic) or a screening questionnaire at the GP consultation plus a mailed questionnaire (active). Respondents reporting relevant respiratory symptoms were invited for post-bronchodilator spirometry. Patients, clinicians, and investigators were not masked to allocation, but group allocation was concealed from the researchers who performed the spirometry assessments. Primary outcomes were the percentage of the eligible population diagnosed with COPD within 1 year (defined as post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1] to forced vital capacity [FVC] ratio <0·7 in patients with symptoms or a new diagnosis on their GP record) and cost per new COPD diagnosis. Multiple logistic and Poisson regression were used to estimate effect sizes. Costs were obtained from the trial. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN14930255., Findings: From Aug 10, 2012, to June 22, 2014, 74 818 eligible patients from 54 diverse general practices were randomly assigned and completed the trial. At 1 year, 1278 (4%) cases of COPD were newly detected in 32 789 eligible patients in the targeted case-finding group compared with 337 (1%) cases in 42 029 patients in the routine care group (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 7·45 [95% CI 4·80-11·55], p<0·0001). The percentage of newly detected COPD cases was higher in the active case-finding group (822 [5%] of 15 378) than in the opportunistic case-finding group (370 [2%] of 15 387; adjusted OR 2·34 [2·06-2·66], p<0·0001; adjusted risk difference 2·9 per 100 patients [95% CI 2·3-3·6], p<0·0001). Active case finding was more cost-effective than opportunistic case finding (£333 vs £376 per case detected, respectively)., Interpretation: In this well established primary care system, routine practice identified few new cases of COPD. An active targeted approach to case finding including mailed screening questionnaires before spirometry is a cost-effective way to identify undiagnosed patients and has the potential to improve their health., Funding: National Institute for Health Research., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is widely underdiagnosed. A number of studies have evaluated the accuracy of screening tests for COPD, but their findings have not been formally summarised. We therefore sought to determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of such screening tests in primary care., Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of screening tests for COPD confirmed by spirometry in primary care. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and other bibliographic databases from 1997 to 2013 for diagnostic accuracy studies that evaluated 1 or more index tests in primary care among individuals aged ≥35 years with no prior diagnosis of COPD. Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity was performed where appropriate. Methodological quality was assessed independently by 2 reviewers using the QUADAS-2 tool., Results: 10 studies were included. 8 assessed screening questionnaires (the COPD Diagnostic Questionnaire (CDQ) was the most evaluated, n=4), 4 assessed handheld flow meters (eg, COPD-6) and 1 assessed their combination. Among ever smokers, the CDQ (score threshold ≥19.5; n=4) had a pooled sensitivity of 64.5% (95% CI 59.9% to 68.8%) and specificity of 65.2% (52.9% to 75.8%), and handheld flow meters (n=3) had a sensitivity of 79.9% (95% CI 74.2% to 84.7%) and specificity of 84.4% (68.9% to 93.0%). Inadequate blinding between index tests and spirometry was the main risk of bias., Conclusions: Handheld flow meters demonstrated higher test accuracy than the CDQ for COPD screening in primary care. The choice of alternative screening tests within whole screening programmes should now be fully evaluated., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42012002074., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is common but largely underdiagnosed. Case-finding initiatives have been evaluated in primary care, but few studies have explored the views of service providers on implementing them in practice., Aim: To explore the views of primary health care providers on case finding for COPD., Methods: A total of 20 semi-structured interviews were conducted from March 2014 to September 2014 among general practitioners, nurses, and managers from practices participating in a large COPD case-finding trial based in primary care in the West Midlands, UK. Participants' views were sought to explore perceived benefits, harms, barriers, and facilitators to implementing COPD case finding in practice. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using the framework method., Results: Participants felt that case finding improves patient care but also acknowledged potential harms to providers (increase in workload) and to patients (overdiagnosis). Insufficient resources, poor knowledge of COPD, and limited access to diagnostic services were viewed as barriers to diagnosis, while provision of community respiratory services, including COPD specialist nurses, and support from secondary care were thought to be facilitators. Participants also expressed a need for more education on COPD for both patients and clinicians., Conclusion: Care providers believe that early detection of COPD improves patient care but also has accompanying harms. Barriers to diagnosing COPD, such as insufficient expertise in primary care and limited access to diagnostic services in the community, should be explored and addressed. The knowledge and attitudes of the public about COPD and its symptoms should also be investigated to inform future education and awareness-raising strategies.

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is widely underdiagnosed, but the most effective approach for identifying these patients is unknown., Aims: The aim of this study was to summarise and compare the effectiveness of different case finding approaches for undiagnosed COPD in primary care., Methods: A systematic review of primary studies of any design evaluating case finding strategies for COPD in primary care among individuals aged ⩾35 years with no prior diagnosis was conducted. Medline, Embase and other bibliographic databases were searched from 1997 to 2013, and methodological quality was assessed using standard tools. Results were described and meta-analysis of the uptake and yield from different approaches was performed where there was sufficient homogeneity., Results: Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 1 controlled trial and 35 uncontrolled studies were identified that assessed the identification of new cases of COPD through systematic case finding. A range of approaches were used including pre-screening with questionnaires (n=13) or handheld flow meters (n=5) or direct invitation to diagnostic spirometry (n=30). Overall, any approach identified more undiagnosed COPD compared with usual care. Targeting those at higher risk (e.g., smokers) and pre-screening (e.g., using questionnaires) is likely to increase the yield. However, studies were heterogeneous and were limited by a lack of comparison groups, inadequate reporting and diversity in the definition of COPD, which limited our ability to draw firm conclusions., Conclusions: There is extensive heterogeneity among studies evaluating case finding strategies for COPD, with few RCTs. Well-conducted RCTs comparing case finding approaches are needed to identify the most effective target population, recruitment strategy and screening tests, using a clinical definition of COPD, and addressing the limitations highlighted in this review. There is also a need to evaluate the impact of case finding on clinical care and patient outcomes.

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. However, much of the disease burden remains undiagnosed., Aim: To compare the yield and cost effectiveness of two COPD case-finding approaches in primary care., Design and Setting: Pilot randomised controlled trial in two general practices in the West Midlands, UK., Method: A total of 1634 ever-smokers aged 35-79 years with no history of COPD or asthma were randomised into either a 'targeted' or 'opportunistic' case-finding arm. Respiratory questionnaires were posted to patients in the 'targeted' arm and provided to patients in the 'opportunistic' arm at routine GP appointments. Those reporting at least one chronic respiratory symptom were invited for spirometry. COPD was defined as pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity (FEV1/FVC)<0.7 and FEV1<80% of predicted. Primary outcomes were the difference in the proportion of patients diagnosed with COPD and the cost per case detected., Results: Twenty-six per cent (212/815) in the 'targeted' and 13.6% (111/819) in the 'opportunistic' arm responded to the questionnaire and 78.3% (166/212) and 73.0% (81/111), respectively, reported symptoms; 1.2% (10/815) and 0.7% (6/819) of patients in the 'targeted' and 'opportunistic' arms were diagnosed with COPD (difference in proportions = 0.5% [95% confidence interval {CI} = -0.5% to 3.08%]). Over a 12-month period, the 'opportunistic' case-finding yield could be improved to 1.95% (95% CI = 1.0% to 2.9%). The cost-per case detected was £424.56 in the 'targeted' and £242.20 in the 'opportunistic' arm., Conclusion: Opportunistic case finding may be more effective and cost effective than targeting patients with a postal questionnaire alone. A larger randomised controlled trial with adequate sample size is required to test this.