Exploring the causes of COPD misdiagnosis in primary care: A mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Within primary care there exists a cohort of patients misdiagnosed with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Misdiagnosis can have a detrimental impact on healthcare finances and patient health and so understanding the factors leading to misdiagnosis is crucial in order to reduce misdiagnosis in the future. The objective of this study is to understand and explore the perceived causes of COPD misdiagnosis in primary care. METHODS: A sequential mixed methods study, quantifying prevalence and features of patients misdiagnosed with COPD in primary care followed by a qualitative analysis to explore perceived causes of misdiagnosis. Quantitative data was collected for 206 patients identified as misdiagnosed with COPD within the INTEGR COPD study (NCT03482700). Qualitative data collected from 21 healthcare professionals involved in providing COPD care and 8 misdiagnosed patients who were recruited using a maximum variation purposive sampling. RESULTS: Misinterpretation of spirometry results was the prevailing factor leading to patients initially being misdiagnosed with COPD, affecting 59% of misdiagnosed patients in this cohort. Of the 99 patients who were investigated for their underlying diagnosis; 41% had normal spirometry and 40% had asthma. Further investigation through qualitative methodology uncovered reluctance to challenge historical misdiagnoses and challenges in differential diagnosis as the underlying explanations for COPD misdiagnosis in this cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Patients historically diagnosed with COPD without spirometric evidence are at risk of remaining labelled and treated for COPD despite non-obstructive respiratory physiology, leading to a persistent cohort of patients misdiagnosed with COPD in primary care. The lack of spirometry services during and after the COVID19 pandemic in primary care risks adding to the cohort of misdiagnosed patients. Support from respiratory specialists can potentially help to reduce the prevalence of COPD misdiagnosis in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03482700.

Cluster randomised controlled trial of specialist-led integrated COPD care (INTEGR COPD).

OBJECTIVE: Studies in hospital settings demonstrate that there is greater guideline adherence when care is delivered by a respiratory specialist, however, this has not been explored in primary care. The aim of this study is to determine the impact integrating respiratory specialists into primary care has on the delivery of guideline adherent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) care. METHODS: 18 general practitioner (GP) practices were randomised to provide either usual or specialist-led COPD care. Patients at participating practices were included if they had an existing diagnosis of COPD. Outcomes were measured at the individual patient level. The primary outcome was guideline adherence, assessed as achieving four or more items of the COPD care bundle. Secondary outcome measures included quality of life, number of exacerbations, number of COPD-related hospitalisations and respiratory outpatient attendances. RESULTS: 586 patients from 10 practices randomised to the intervention and 656 patients from 8 practices randomised to the control arm of the study were included. The integration of respiratory specialists into GP practices led to a statistically significant (p<0.001) improvement in the provision of guideline adherent care when compared with usual care in this cohort (92.7% vs 70.1%) (OR 4.14, 95% CI 2.14 to 8.03). CONCLUSION: This is the first study to demonstrate that guideline adherence is improved through the integration of respiratory specialists into GP practices to deliver annual COPD reviews. To facilitate changes in current healthcare practice and policy, the findings of this paper need to be viewed in combination with qualitative research exploring the acceptability of specialist integration. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03482700.

Engaging stakeholders to level up COPD care in LMICs: lessons learned from the "Breathe Well" programme in Brazil, China, Georgia, and North Macedonia.

BACKGROUND: Effective stakeholder engagement in health research is increasingly being recognised and promoted as an important pathway to closing the gap between knowledge production and its use in health systems. However, little is known about its process and impacts, particularly in low-and middle-income countries. This opinion piece draws on the stakeholder engagement experiences from a global health research programme on Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) led by clinician researchers in Brazil, China, Georgia and North Macedonia, and presents the process, outcomes and lessons learned. MAIN BODY: Each country team was supported with an overarching engagement protocol and mentored to develop a tailored plan. Patient involvement in research was previously limited in all countries, requiring intensive efforts through personal communication, meetings, advisory groups and social media. Accredited training programmes were effective incentives for participation from healthcare providers; and aligning research findings with competing policy priorities enabled interest and dialogue with decision-makers. The COVID-19 pandemic severely limited possibilities for planned engagement, although remote methods were used where possible. Planned and persistent engagement contributed to shared knowledge and commitment to change, including raised patient and public awareness about COPD, improved skills and practice of healthcare providers, increased interest and support from clinical leaders, and dialogue for integrating COPD services into national policy and practice. CONCLUSION: Stakeholder engagement enabled relevant local actors to produce and utilise knowledge for small wins such as improving day-to-day practice and for long-term goals of equitable access to COPD care. For it to be successful and sustained, stakeholder engagement needs to be valued and integrated throughout the research and knowledge generation process, complete with dedicated resources, contextualised and flexible planning, and commitment.

Randomised controlled trial testing effectiveness of feedback about lung age or exhaled CO combined with very brief advice for smoking cessation compared to very brief advice alone in North Macedonia: findings from the Breathe Well group.

INTRODUCTION: In 2019, smoking prevalence in North Macedonia was one of the world's highest at around 46% in adults. However, access to smoking cessation treatment is limited and no co-ordinated smoking cessation programmes are provided in primary care. METHODS: We conducted a three parallel-armed randomised controlled trial (n = 1368) to investigate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lung age (LA) or exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) feedback combined with very brief advice (VBA) to prompt smoking cessation compared with VBA alone, delivered by GPs in primary care in North Macedonia. All participants who decided to attempt to quit smoking were advised about accessing smoking cessation medications and were also offered behavioural support as part of the "ACT" component of VBA. Participants were aged ≥ 35 years, smoked ≥ 10 cigarettes per day, were recruited from 31 GP practices regardless of motivation to quit and were randomised (1:1:1) using a sequence generated before the start of recruitment. The primary outcome was biochemically validated 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 4 weeks (wks). Participants and GPs were not blinded to allocation after randomisation, however outcome assessors were blind to treatment allocation. RESULTS: There was no evidence of a difference in biochemically confirmed quitting between intervention and control at 4wks (VBA + LA RR 0.90 (97.5%CI: 0.35, 2.27); VBA + CO RR 1.04 (97.5%CI: 0.44, 2.44)), however the absolute number of quitters was small (VBA + LA 1.6%, VBA + CO 1.8%, VBA 1.8%). A similar lack of effect was observed at 12 and 26wks, apart from in the VBA + LA arm where the point estimate was significant but the confidence intervals were very wide. In both treatment arms, a larger proportion reported a reduction in cigarettes smoked per day at 4wks (VBA + LA 1.30 (1.10, 1.54); VBA + CO 1.23 (1.03, 1.49)) compared with VBA. The point estimates indicated a similar direction of effect at 12wks and 26wks, but differences were not statistically significant. Quantitative process measures indicated high fidelity to the intervention delivery protocols, but low uptake of behavioural and pharmacological support. VBA was the dominant intervention in the health economic analyses. CONCLUSION: Overall, there was no evidence that adding LA or CO to VBA increased quit rates. However, a small effect cannot be ruled out as the proportion quitting was low and therefore estimates were imprecise. There was some evidence that participants in the intervention arms were more likely to reduce the amount smoked, at least in the short term. More research is needed to find effective ways to support quitting in settings like North Macedonia where a strong smoking culture persists. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered at http://www.isrctn.com (ISRCTN54228638) on the 07/09/2018.

Identification of key opportunities for optimising the management of high-risk COPD patients in the UK using the CONQUEST quality standards: an observational longitudinal study.

Background: This study compared management of high-risk COPD patients in the UK to national and international management recommendations and quality standards, including the COllaboratioN on QUality improvement initiative for achieving Excellence in STandards of COPD care (CONQUEST). The primary comparison was in 2019, but trends from 2000 to 2019 were also examined. Methods: Patients identified in the Optimum Patient Care Research Database were categorised as newly diagnosed (≤12 months after diagnosis), already diagnosed, and potential COPD (smokers having exacerbation-like events). High-risk patients had a history of ≥2 moderate or ≥1 severe exacerbations in the previous 12 months. Findings: For diagnosed patients, the median time between diagnosis and first meeting the high-risk criteria was 617 days (Q1-Q3: 3246). The use of spirometry for diagnosis increased dramatically after 2004 before plateauing and falling in recent years. In 2019, 41% (95% CI 39-44%; n = 550/1343) of newly diagnosed patients had no record of spirometry in the previous year, and 45% (95% CI 43-48%; n = 352/783) had no record of a COPD medication review within 6 months of treatment initiation or change. In 2019, 39% (n = 6893/17,858) of already diagnosed patients had no consideration of exacerbation rates, 46% (95% CI 45-47%; n = 4942/10,725) were not offered or referred for pulmonary rehabilitation, and 41% (95% CI 40-42%; n = 3026/7361) had not had a COPD review within 6 weeks of respiratory hospitalization. Interpretation: Opportunities for early diagnosis of COPD patients at high risk of exacerbations are being missed. Newly and already diagnosed patients at high-risk are not being assessed or treated promptly. There is substantial scope to improve the assessment and treatment optimisation of these patients. Funding: This study is conducted by the Observational & Pragmatic Research International Ltd and was co-funded by Optimum Patient Care and AstraZeneca. No funding was received by the Observational & Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd (OPRI) for its contribution.

Feasibility of a pulmonary rehabilitation programme for patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Georgia: a single-site, randomised controlled trial from the Breathe Well Group.

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.

Community lung health service design for COPD patients in China by the Breathe Well group.

COPD is increasingly common in China but is poorly understood by patients, medications are not used as prescribed and there is no access to recommended non-pharmacological treatment. We explored COPD patients' and general practitioners' (GPs) knowledge of COPD, views on its management and the acceptability of a flexible lung health service (LHS) offering health education, exercise, self-management, smoking cessation and mental health support. Using a convergent mixed methods design, data were collected from patients and GPs using focus groups (FGs) in four Chinese cities, questionnaires were also used to collect data from patients. FGs were audio-recorded and transcribed. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, thematic framework analysis was used for the qualitative data. Two-hundred fifty-one patients completed the questionnaire; 39 patients and 30 GPs participated in ten separate FGs. Three overarching themes were identified: patients' lack of knowledge/understanding of COPD, current management of COPD not meeting patients' needs and LHS design, which was well received by patients and GPs. Participants wanted COPD education, TaiChi, psychological support and WeChat for social support. 39% of survey responders did not know what to do when their breathing worsened and 24% did not know how to use their inhalers. 36% of survey respondents requested guided relaxation. Overall, participants did not fully understand the implications of COPD and current treatment was sub-optimal. There was support for developing a culturally appropriate intervention meeting Chinese patients' needs, health beliefs, and local healthcare delivery. Further research should explore the feasibility of such a service.

Ethical Considerations for the Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Research: The PRO Ethics Guidelines.

Importance: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can inform health care decisions, regulatory decisions, and health care policy. They also can be used for audit/benchmarking and monitoring symptoms to provide timely care tailored to individual needs. However, several ethical issues have been raised in relation to PRO use. Objective: To develop international, consensus-based, PRO-specific ethical guidelines for clinical research. Evidence Review: The PRO ethics guidelines were developed following the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's guideline development framework. This included a systematic review of the ethical implications of PROs in clinical research. The databases MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, AMED, and CINAHL were searched from inception until March 2020. The keywords patient reported outcome* and ethic* were used to search the databases. Two reviewers independently conducted title and abstract screening before full-text screening to determine eligibility. The review was supplemented by the SPIRIT-PRO Extension recommendations for trial protocol. Subsequently, a 2-round international Delphi process (n = 96 participants; May and August 2021) and a consensus meeting (n = 25 international participants; October 2021) were held. Prior to voting, consensus meeting participants were provided with a summary of the Delphi process results and information on whether the items aligned with existing ethical guidance. Findings: Twenty-three items were considered in the first round of the Delphi process: 6 relevant candidate items from the systematic review and 17 additional items drawn from the SPIRIT-PRO Extension. Ninety-six international participants voted on the relevant importance of each item for inclusion in ethical guidelines and 12 additional items were recommended for inclusion in round 2 of the Delphi (35 items in total). Fourteen items were recommended for inclusion at the consensus meeting (n = 25 participants). The final wording of the PRO ethical guidelines was agreed on by consensus meeting participants with input from 6 additional individuals. Included items focused on PRO-specific ethical issues relating to research rationale, objectives, eligibility requirements, PRO concepts and domains, PRO assessment schedules, sample size, PRO data monitoring, barriers to PRO completion, participant acceptability and burden, administration of PRO questionnaires for participants who are unable to self-report PRO data, input on PRO strategy by patient partners or members of the public, avoiding missing data, and dissemination plans. Conclusions and Relevance: The PRO ethics guidelines provide recommendations for ethical issues that should be addressed in PRO clinical research. Addressing ethical issues of PRO clinical research has the potential to ensure high-quality PRO data while minimizing participant risk, burden, and harm and protecting participant and researcher welfare.

Prioritising primary care respiratory research needs: results from the 2020 International Primary Care Respiratory Group (IPCRG) global e-Delphi exercise.

Respiratory diseases remain a significant cause of global morbidity and mortality and primary care plays a central role in their prevention, diagnosis and management. An e-Delphi process was employed to identify and prioritise the current respiratory research needs of primary care health professionals worldwide. One hundred and twelve community-based physicians, nurses and other healthcare professionals from 27 high-, middle- and low-income countries suggested 608 initial research questions, reduced after evidence review by 27 academic experts to 176 questions covering diagnosis, management, monitoring, self-management and prognosis of asthma, COPD and other respiratory conditions (including infections, lung cancer, tobacco control, sleep apnoea). Forty-nine questions reached 80% consensus for importance. Cross-cutting themes identified were: a need for more effective training of primary care clinicians; evidence and guidelines specifically relevant to primary care, adaption for local and low-resource settings; empowerment of patients to improve self-management; and the role of the multidisciplinary healthcare team.

Performance of the EQ-5D-5L Plus Respiratory Bolt-On in the Birmingham Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: A respiratory bolt-on dimension for the EQ-5D-5L has recently been developed and valued by the general public. This study aimed to validate the EQ-5D-5L plus respiratory dimension (EQ-5D-5L+R) in a large group of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: Validation was undertaken with data from the Birmingham COPD Cohort Study, a longitudinal UK study of COPD primary care patients. Data on the EQ-5D-5L+R were collected from 1008 responding participants during a follow-up questionnaire in 2017 and combined with (previously collected) data on patient and disease characteristics. Descriptive and correlation analyses were performed on the EQ-5D-5L+R dimensions and utilities, in relation to COPD characteristics and compared with the EQ-5D-5L without respiratory dimension. Multivariate regression models were estimated to test whether regression coefficients of clinical characteristics differed between the EQ-5D-5L+R utility and the EQ-5D-5L utility. RESULTS: Correlation coefficients for the EQ-5D-5L+R utility with COPD parameters were slightly higher than the EQ-5D-5L utility. Both instruments displayed discriminant validity but analyses in clinical subgroups of patients showed larger absolute differences in utilities for the EQ-5D-5L+R. In the multivariate analyses, only the coefficient for the COPD Assessment Test score was higher for the model using the EQ-5D-5L+R utility as outcome. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the addition of a respiratory domain to the EQ-5D-5L led to small improvements in the instrument's performance. Comparability of the EQ-5D across diseases, currently considered one of its strengths, would have to be traded off against a modest improvement in utility difference when adding the respiratory dimension.

Accuracy and cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies for identifying undiagnosed COPD among primary care patients (≥40 years) in China: a cross-sectional screening test accuracy study: findings from the Breathe Well group.

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 (FEV1)/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.

Study to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies for identifying undiagnosed COPD among residents (≥40 years) in four cities in China: protocol for a multicentre cross-sectional study on behalf of the Breathe Well group.

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.

Impact of COPD case finding on clinical care: a prospective analysis of the TargetCOPD trial.

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.

External Validation Of The Updated ADO Score In COPD Patients From The Birmingham COPD Cohort.

Background: Reviews suggest that the ADO score is the most discriminatory prognostic score for predicting mortality among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, but a full evaluation and external validation within primary care settings is critical before implementation. Objectives: To validate the ADO score in prevalent and screen-detected primary care COPD cases at 3 years and at shorter time periods. Patients and methods: One thousand eight hundred and ninety-two COPD cases were recruited between 2012 and 2014 from 71 United Kingdom general practices as part of the Birmingham COPD Cohort study. Cases were either on the practice COPD register or screen-detected. We validated the ADO score for predicting 3-year mortality with 1-year and 2-year mortality as secondary endpoints using discrimination (area-under-the-curve (AUC)) and calibration plots. Results: One hundred and fifty-four deaths occurred within 3 years. The ADO score was discriminatory for predicting 3-year mortality (AUC= 0.74; 95% CI: 0.69-0.79). Similar performance was found for 1- (AUC= 0.73; 0.66-0.80) and 2-year mortality (0.72; 0.67-0.76). The ADO score showed reasonable calibration for predicting 3-year mortality (calibration slope 0.95; 0.70-1.19) but over-predicted in cases with higher predicted risks of mortality at 1 (0.79; 0.45-1.13) and 2-year (0.79; 0.57-1.01) mortality. Discussion: The ADO score showed promising discrimination in predicting 3-year mortality in a primary care population including screen-detected cases. It may need to be recalibrated if it is used to provide risk predictions for 1- or 2-year mortality since, in these time-periods, over-prediction was evident, especially in cases with higher predicted mortality risks.

Clinical characteristics of patients newly diagnosed with COPD by the fixed ratio and lower limit of normal criteria: a cross-sectional analysis of the TargetCOPD trial.

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 [FEV1/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 FEV1 and FEV1/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 FEV1. 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.

Independent determinants of disease-related quality of life in COPD - scope for nonpharmacologic interventions?

Purpose: Quality-of-life (QoL) scores in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have a weak relationship with physiologic impairment. We investigated factors associated with poor QoL, focusing on psychological measures potentially amenable to intervention. Patients and methods: We utilized a pre-existing Birmingham (UK) COPD cohort to assess factors associated with QoL impairment (COPD Assessment Test [CAT] scores). Univariate and multivariate regression models were constructed from three categories of variables: demographic, lung function/COPD-related symptoms, and psychosocial/behavioral factors. Results: Analyses were based on self-report questionnaire data from 735 participants. The multivariate model of variables independently associated with CAT included depression, dysfunctional breathing symptoms (Nijmegen score), and illness perception, in addition to COPD symptoms (wheeze, cough), exercise capacity, breathlessness, exacerbations, and deprivation; this model explained 72% of CAT score variation. In a dominance analysis assessing the relative contribution of variables, similar contributions were made by breathlessness (20.2%), illness perception (19.8%), dysfunctional breathing symptoms (17.5%), and depression (12.5%) with other variables contributing <5%. Conclusion: Psychological factors significantly contribute to disease-specific QoL impairment in COPD, and potentially explain the mismatch between objective physiologic impairment and patients' experience of their disease. Interventions targeting psychological factors, illness perception, and dysfunctional breathing should be assessed.

Self-management behaviour and support among primary care COPD patients: cross-sectional analysis of data from the Birmingham Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Cohort.

Self-management support for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients is recommended by UK national guidelines, but extent of implementation is unknown. We aimed to describe self-management behaviour and support among COPD patients and explore behaviour associated with having a self-management plan. We undertook cross-sectional analysis of self-reported data from diagnosed COPD patients in the Birmingham COPD Cohort study. Questionnaire items relevant to self-management behaviour, knowledge of COPD, receipt of self-management plans and advice from healthcare professionals were examined. Multiple regression models were used to identify behaviour associated with having a self-management plan. One-thousand seventy-eight participants (676 males, 62.7%, mean age 69.8 (standard deviation 9.0) years) were included. The majority reported taking medications as instructed (940, 94.0%) and receiving annual influenza vaccinations (962, 89.2%). Only 400 (40.4%) participants had self-management plans, 538 (49.9%) reported never having received advice on diet/exercise and 110 (42.7%) current smokers had been offered practical help to stop smoking in the previous year. General knowledge about COPD was moderate (mean total Bristol COPD Knowledge Questionnaire score: 31.5 (standard deviation 10.7); max score 65), corresponding to 48.5% of questions answered correctly. Having a self-management plan was positively associated with self-reported adherence to medication (odds ratio 3.10, 95% confidence interval 1.43 to 6.72), attendance at a training course (odds ratio 2.72, 95% confidence interval 1.81 to 4.12), attendance at a support group (odds ratio 6.28, 95% confidence interval 2.96 to 13.35) and better disease knowledge (mean difference 4.87, 95% confidence interval 3.16 to 6.58). Primary care healthcare professionals should ensure more widespread implementation of individualised self-management plans for all patients and improve the lifestyle advice provided. CHRONIC LUNG DISEASE: CALL FOR WIDER IMPLEMENTATION OF SELF-MANAGEMENT PLANS: Health professionals should ensure all patients with chronic lung disease receive individualized self-management plans and lifestyle advice. UK national guidelines state that patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) should receive personalized self-management plans and comprehensive support to help them manage their disease. Ainee Khan and colleagues at the University of Birmingham analyzed patient questionnaire data gathered during the Birmingham COPD Cohort study to explore self-management behavior, receipt of self-management plans and advice, and patient knowledge of COPD. Of 1,078 participants, only 400 had self-management plans, and less than half reported receiving lifestyle advice or support. Those with plans were more likely to adhere to medication, had greater knowledge about COPD and were more likely to attend support groups and training courses. The authors recommend carefully-planned, wider implementation of COPD self-management plans and associated support.

Barriers and enablers of physical activity engagement for patients with COPD in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Given that physical activity (PA) has a positive impact on COPD symptoms and prognosis, this study examined the factors that both encourage and limit participation in PA for individuals with COPD in a primary care setting from the perspective of social cognitive theory. METHODS: A purposive sample of 26 individuals with a range of COPD severity (age range: 50-89 years; males =15) were recruited from primary care to participate in one of four focus groups. Thematic analysis was undertaken to identify key concepts related to their self-efficacy beliefs. RESULTS: Several barriers and enablers closely related to self-efficacy beliefs and symptom severity were identified. The main barriers were health related (fatigue, mobility problems, breathing issues caused by the weather), psychological (embarrassment, fear, frustration/disappointment), attitudinal (feeling in control of their condition, PA perception, older age perception), and motivational. The main enabling factors were related to motivation (autonomous or controlled), attitudes, self-regulation, and performance accomplishments. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: When designing interventions for individuals with COPD, it is important to understand the patient-specific social cognitive influences on PA participation. This information can then inform individually tailored management planning.