The use of a direct bronchial challenge test in primary care to diagnose asthma.

Many asthmatics in primary care have mild symptoms and lack airflow obstruction. If variable expiratory airflow limitation cannot be determined by spirometry or peak expiratory flow, despite a history of respiratory symptoms, a positive bronchial challenge test (BCT) can confirm the diagnosis of asthma. However, BCT is traditionally performed in secondary care. In this observational real-life study, we retrospectively analyze 5-year data of a primary care diagnostic center carrying out BCT by histamine provocation. In total, 998 primary care patients aged ≥16 years underwent BCT, without any adverse events reported. To explore diagnostic accuracy, we examine 584 patients with a high pretest probability of asthma. Fifty-seven percent of these patients have a positive BCT result and can be accurately diagnosed with asthma. Our real-life data show BCT is safe and feasible in a suitably equipped primary care diagnostic center. Furthermore, it could potentially reduce diagnostic referrals to secondary care.

Quality of spirometry and related diagnosis in primary care with a focus on clinical use.

American and European societies' (ATS/ERS) criteria for spirometry are often not met in primary care. Yet, it is unknown if quality is sufficient for daily clinical use. We evaluated quality of spirometry in primary care based on clinical usefulness, meeting ATS/ERS criteria and agreement on diagnosis between general practitioners (GPs) and pulmonologists. GPs included ten consecutive spirometry tests and detailed history questionnaires of patients who underwent spirometry as part of usual care. GPs and two pulmonologists assessed the spirometry tests and questionnaires on clinical usefulness and formulated a diagnosis. In total, 149 participants covering 15 GPs were included. Low agreements were found on diagnosis between GPs and pulmonologists 1 (κ = 0.39) and 2 (κ = 0.44). GPs and pulmonologists rated >88% of the tests as clinically useful, although 13% met ATS/ERS criteria. This real-life study demonstrated that clinical usefulness of routine primary care spirometry tests was high, although agreement on diagnosis was low.

Assessing health status over time: impact of recall period and anchor question on the minimal clinically important difference of copd health status tools.

BACKGROUND: The Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) assesses what change on a measurement tool can be considered minimal clinically relevant. Although the recall period can influence questionnaire scores, it is unclear if it influences the MCID. This study is the first to examine longitudinally the impact of the recall period of an anchor question and its design on the MCID of COPD health status tools using the COPD Assessment Test (CAT), Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) and the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). METHODS: Moderate to very severe COPD patients without respiratory co-morbidities were recruited during 3-week Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PR). CAT, CCQ and SGRQ were completed at baseline, discharge, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. A 15-point Global Rating of Change scale (GRC) was completed at each follow-up. A five-point GRC was used as second anchor at 12 months. Mean change scores of a subset of patients indicating a minimal improvement on each of the anchor questions were considered the MCID. The MCID estimates over different time periods were compared with one another by evaluating the degree of overlap of Confidence Intervals (CI) adjusted for dependency. RESULTS: In total 451 patients were included (57.9 ± 6.6 years, 65% male, 50/39/11% GOLD II/III/IV), of which 309 completed follow-up. Baseline health status scores were 20.2 ± 7.3 (CAT), 2.9 ± 1.2 (CCQ) and 50.7 ± 17.3 (SGRQ). MCID estimates for improvement ranged - 3.1 to - 1.4 for CAT, - 0.6 to - 0.3 for CCQ, and - 10.3 to - 7.6 for SGRQ. Absolute higher - though not significant - MCIDs were observed for CAT and CCQ directly after PR. Significantly absolute lower MCID estimates were observed for CAT (difference - 1.4: CI -2.3 to - 0.5) and CCQ (difference - 0.2: CI -0.3 to -0.1) using a five-point GRC. CONCLUSIONS: The recall period of a 15-point anchor question seemed to have limited impact on the MCID for improvement of CAT, CCQ and SGRQ during PR; although a 3-week MCID estimate directly after PR might lead to absolute higher values. However, the design of the anchor question was likely to influence the MCID of CAT and CCQ. TRIAL REGISTRATION: RIMTCORE trial # DRKS00004609 and #12107 (Ethik-Kommission der Bayerischen Landesärztekammer).

Feasibility and applicability of the paper and electronic COPD assessment test (CAT) and the clinical COPD questionnaire (CCQ) in primary care: a clinimetric study.

Three questionnaires are recommended in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease by the global initiative for obstructive lung disease, of which two are the more comprehensive assessments: the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment test and the clinical chronic obstructive pulmonary disease questionnaire. Both are carefully designed high-quality questionnaires, but information on the feasibility for routine use is scarce. The aim of this study was to compare the time to complete the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment test and the clinical chronic obstructive pulmonary disease questionnaire and the acceptability of the questionnaires. Furthermore, the agreement between electronic and paper versions of the questionnaires was explored. The time to complete the electronic versions of the questionnaires was 99.6 [IQR 74; 157] vs. 97.5 [IQR 68; 136] seconds for clinical clinical chronic obstructive pulmonary disease questionnaire and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment test, respectively. The difference in time to complete the questionnaire was not significant. The two questionnaires did not differ in "easiness to complete" or "importance of issues raised in questionnaires". Electronic vs. paper versions revealed high agreement (ICC CCQ = 0.815 [0.712; 0.883] and ICC CAT = 0.751 [0.608; 0.847]) between the administration methods. Based on this study it can be concluded that both questionnaires are equally suitable for use in routine clinical practice, because they are both quick to complete and have a good acceptability by the patient. Agreement between electronic and paper versions of the questionnaires was high, so use of electronic versions is justified.COPD: QUESTIONNAIRES EQUALLY SUITABLE FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: Two questionnaires commonly used to manage chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD) are equally suitable for routine primary care. Researchers in The Netherlands, led by Janwillem Kocks from the University Medical Center Groningen, administered both the COPD assessment test (CAT) and the clinical COPD questionnaire (CCQ) to 95 patients with the lung disease. These two tests are the most comprehensive assessments recommended by the global initiative for obstructive lung disease for guiding treatment decisions. The researchers found that both tests took approximately 95-100 s on average. Both tests were also equally easy to complete and provided similar types of information. Most patients said they had no preference for either one, and they filled out both electronic and paper versions of the questionnaires in much the same way. The authors conclude that both tests seem fine for routine use.

[Asthma/COPD service in general practice. Study into feasibility and effectiveness]. / Een astma/COPD-dienst voor de huisartsenpraktijk.

OBJECTIVE: A study of the effectiveness and functioning of an asthma/COPD service (AC service). DESIGN: Observational study. METHOD: General practitioners (GPs) in the northern part of the Netherlands can refer patients with airway symptoms to the AC service, which was set up in 2007 by local pulmonologists, GPs and the primary care laboratory CERTE. Before the assessment, patients fill in three questionnaires at home: the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ), the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) and a medical history list. The laboratory assesses lung function and a physical examination is carried out. All data is sent via the Internet to a pulmonologist, who advises the GP on diagnosis and treatment via an information system. The pulmonologist can offer a follow-up service if required. For this publication we had access to data from 14,748 registered patients and 3721 follow-up consultations. RESULTS: The pulmonologist diagnosed 6201 (42%) patients with asthma, 2728 (19%) with COPD and 1039 (7%) with 'asthma/COPD overlap syndrome'. The pulmonologist advised that 940 patients (6%) should have a change in medication and reassessment after 3 months. In this group, the number of unstable COPD patients (CCQ ≥ 1) dropped from 134 (67%) to 99 (50%). The number of patients with unstable asthma (ACQ ≥ 1.5) dropped from 245 (3%) to 137 (24%). For 1642 (11%) patients the pulmonologist advised no change in medication and the GP referred the patient for reassessment after 12 months. These patients were generally stable, with a slight improvement in smoking status, exacerbations and inhalation technique. CONCLUSION: Approximately 60% of all patients with asthma or COPD in this region were assessed by the AC service at least once in the period 2007-2014. Advice on diagnosis and treatment given to the GP resulted in better patient-related outcomes in both asthma and COPD patients.

Epinephrine auto-injector prescriptions to food-allergic patients in primary care in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The knowledge of general practitioner(s) (GPs) regarding food allergy and anaphylaxis and practices in the prescription of epinephrine auto-injector(s) (EAIs) among GPs has previously only been studied using questionnaires and hypothetical cases. Therefore, there are currently no data as to whether or not GPs prescribe EAIs to high risk food-allergic patients presenting to primary care practices. The aim of this study was therefore to describe and evaluate practice in EAI prescription by GPs to food-allergic patients in The Netherlands. METHODS: Patients aged 12-23 years who consulted their GP for allergic symptoms were identified in a primary care database. Patients were classified as probably or unlikely to be food-allergic. A risk factor assessment was done to identify probably food-allergic patients at high risk for anaphylaxis to assess the need for an EAI. RESULTS: One hundred forty-eight out of 1015 patients consulted their GP for allergic symptoms due to food. Eighty patients were excluded from analysis because of incomplete records. Thirty-four patients were classified as probably food-allergic. Twenty-seven of them were considered high risk patients and candidates for an EAI. Importantly, only 10 of them had actually been prescribed an EAI by their GP. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that high risk food-allergic patients that visit their GPs are often not prescribed an EAI. Thus, previously identified low rates of EAI ownership may be partly due to GPs not prescribing this medication to patients for whom it would be appropriate to do so. These data suggest that there is a need for improvement of the quality of care for high risk food-allergic patients in primary care.

Health status measurement in COPD: the minimal clinically important difference of the clinical COPD questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) questionnaires are being increasingly used in COPD clinical studies. The challenge facing investigators is to determine what change is significant, ie what is the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). This study aimed to identify the MCID for the clinical COPD questionnaire (CCQ) in terms of patient referencing, criterion referencing, and by the standard error of measurement (SEM). METHODS: Patients were > or = 40 years of age, diagnosed with COPD, had a smoking history of >10 pack-years, and were participating in a randomized, controlled clinical trial comparing intravenous and oral prednisolone in patients admitted with an acute exacerbation of COPD. The CCQ was completed on Days 1-7 and 42. A Global Rating of Change (GRC) assessment was taken to establish the MCID by patient referencing. For criterion referencing, health events during a period of 1 year after Day 42 were included in this analysis. RESULTS: 210 patients were recruited, 168 completed the CCQ questionnaire on Day 42. The MCID of the CCQ total score, as indicated by patient referencing in terms of the GRC, was 0.44. The MCID of the CCQ in terms of criterion referencing for the major outcomes was 0.39, and calculation of the SEM resulted in a value of 0.21. CONCLUSION: This investigation, which is the first to determine the MCID of a PRO questionnaire via more than one approach, indicates that the MCID of the CCQ total score is 0.4.