Clinical and economic burden of acute exacerbations of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a prospective observational study in Spain (OASIS study).

BACKGROUND: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a fatal progressive lung disease entailing significant impairment in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and high socioeconomic burden. The course of IPF includes episodes of acute exacerbations (AE-IPF) leading to poor outcomes. This study aimed to compare management, costs and HRQoL of patients with AE-IPF to patients without AE-IPF during one year in Spain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a 12-month, prospective, observational, multicenter study of IPF patients, healthcare resource use was recorded and costs related to AE-IPF were estimated and compared between patients with and without AE-IPF. HRQoL was measured with the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), EuroQoL 5 dimensions 5 levels questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L), EQ-5D visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) and the Barthel Index. RESULTS: 204 IPF patients were included: 22 (10.8%) experienced ≥ 1 acute exacerbation, and 182 (89.2%) did not. Patients with exacerbations required more primary care visits, nursing home visits, emergency visits, hospital admissions, pharmacological treatments and transport use (p < 0.05 for all comparisons). Likewise, patients with exacerbations showed higher annual direct health AE-IPF-related costs. In particular, specialized visits, emergency visits, days of hospitalization, tests, palliative care, transport in ambulance and economic aid (p < 0.05 for all comparisons). Exploratory results showed that patients with AE-IPF reported a non-significant but substantial decline of HRQoL compared with patients without AE-IPF, although causality can be inferred. CONCLUSION: We observed significantly higher resource use and cost consumption and lower HRQoL among patients suffering exacerbations during the study. Thus, preventing or avoiding AE-IPF is key in IPF management.

[Over-diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Primary Care. Prevalence and determining factors]. / Sobrediagnóstico de enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica en atención primaria. Prevalencia y condicionantes.

INTRODUCTION: COPD under-diagnosis is common in Primary Health Care medicine, due to the low use of spirometry, but there is less information about over-diagnosis of the disease in patients that have a clinical diagnosis of COPD. OBJECTIVE: The main objective of the study was to investigate the prevalence of COPD over-diagnosis in Primary Care medicine. Secondary objectives were to determine the factors associated with an incorrect clinical diagnosis of COPD and to analyse whether the pharmacological treatment is different for patients with correct or incorrect diagnosis. METHOD: A prospective, observational, cross-sectional study was conducted using the spirometry results of 206 patients with a clinical diagnosis of COPD, with no prior lung function testing, and who were treated with inhaled therapy. Characteristics and treatment of patients with a correct or incorrect COPD diagnosis were compared. RESULTS: The prevalence of COPD over-diagnosis was 42.7% in the study population. Factors associated with an incorrect diagnosis were female sex (P<.0001), obesity (P=.009), absence of smoking history (P<.0001), lower age (P=.001), and less severe dyspnoea (P=.001). Long-acting muscarinic agents were more frequently prescribed to patients with a correct COPD diagnosis. There were no other differences regarding inhaled therapies between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Over-diagnosis is a frequent phenomenon in patients with a clinical diagnosis of COPD managed in Primary Care medicine. There are different features between patients with a correct and incorrect diagnosis. Spirometry is an essential tool to reduce COPD over-diagnosis.