Diagnosis and management of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a clinical practice guideline update from the American College of Physicians, American College of Chest Physicians, American Thoracic Society, and European Respiratory Society.

DESCRIPTION: This guideline is an official statement of the American College of Physicians (ACP), American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), American Thoracic Society (ATS), and European Respiratory Society (ERS). It represents an update of the 2007 ACP clinical practice guideline on diagnosis and management of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and is intended for clinicians who manage patients with COPD. This guideline addresses the value of history and physical examination for predicting airflow obstruction; the value of spirometry for screening or diagnosis of COPD; and COPD management strategies, specifically evaluation of various inhaled therapies (anticholinergics, long-acting ß-agonists, and corticosteroids), pulmonary rehabilitation programs, and supplemental oxygen therapy. METHODS: This guideline is based on a targeted literature update from March 2007 to December 2009 to evaluate the evidence and update the 2007 ACP clinical practice guideline on diagnosis and management of stable COPD. RECOMMENDATION 1: ACP, ACCP, ATS, and ERS recommend that spirometry should be obtained to diagnose airflow obstruction in patients with respiratory symptoms (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). Spirometry should not be used to screen for airflow obstruction in individuals without respiratory symptoms (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2: For stable COPD patients with respiratory symptoms and FEV(1) between 60% and 80% predicted, ACP, ACCP, ATS, and ERS suggest that treatment with inhaled bronchodilators may be used (Grade: weak recommendation, low-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 3: For stable COPD patients with respiratory symptoms and FEV(1) <60% predicted, ACP, ACCP, ATS, and ERS recommend treatment with inhaled bronchodilators (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 4: ACP, ACCP, ATS, and ERS recommend that clinicians prescribe monotherapy using either long-acting inhaled anticholinergics or long-acting inhaled ß-agonists for symptomatic patients with COPD and FEV(1) <60% predicted. (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). Clinicians should base the choice of specific monotherapy on patient preference, cost, and adverse effect profile. RECOMMENDATION 5: ACP, ACCP, ATS, and ERS suggest that clinicians may administer combination inhaled therapies (long-acting inhaled anticholinergics, long-acting inhaled ß-agonists, or inhaled corticosteroids) for symptomatic patients with stable COPD and FEV(1)<60% predicted (Grade: weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 6: ACP, ACCP, ATS, and ERS recommend that clinicians should prescribe pulmonary rehabilitation for symptomatic patients with an FEV(1) <50% predicted (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). Clinicians may consider pulmonary rehabilitation for symptomatic or exercise-limited patients with an FEV(1) >50% predicted. (Grade: weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 7: ACP, ACCP, ATS, and ERS recommend that clinicians should prescribe continuous oxygen therapy in patients with COPD who have severe resting hypoxemia (Pao(2) ≤55 mm Hg or Spo(2) ≤88%) (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

Shared decision making in prostate-specific antigen testing: the effect of a mailed patient flyer prior to an annual exam.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Professional societies recommend that the decision to screen for prostate cancer involves a shared discussion between patient and provider. Many men are tested without this discussion. Prostate cancer screening decision aids increase patient knowledge and participation in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing decisions under ideal circumstances but are often resource intensive and elaborate. There is a need for evaluation of interventions that are low cost, low literacy, and practical for widespread distribution. The authors evaluated the effect of a mailed low-literacy informational patient flyer about the PSA test on measures of shared decision making. METHODS: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial comparing the mailed flyer versus usual care was conducted among 303 men aged 50 to 74 years who were scheduled for annual health maintenance exams in 2 general internal medicine clinics (University of Colorado and University of Colorado Hospital). Charts were reviewed after the visits for documentation of PSA screening discussions and PSA testing rates. Follow-up patient surveys assessed include perceived participation in PSA screening decisions, knowledge of the PSA test, and flyer acceptability. RESULTS: Rates of chart-documented PSA discussions were low with no difference between the flyer and control groups (17.7% and 13.6%, respectively; P = .28). Rates of PSA testing were also similar in both groups (62.5% vs 58.5%; P = .48). Rates of patient-reported PSA discussions were higher than the documented rates but also without differences between the groups (71.8% vs 62.3%; P = .22). The intervention had no effect in the PSA knowledge scores (3.5/5 vs 3.3/5, P = .60). Patients found the flyer to be highly acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: A mailed low-literacy informational flyer was well received by patients but had no effect on rates of PSA discussions, PSA testing, or patient knowledge of prostate cancer screening.

Costs and cost-effectiveness of a low-intensity patient-directed intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening.

PURPOSE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is the most underused evidence-based cancer screening test in the United States. Few studies have reported the cost-effectiveness of CRC screening promotional efforts. In a recent randomized controlled trial, a patient-directed intervention for average-risk patients who had been referred for screening colonoscopy led to a 12% increase in CRC screening rates. The objective of this secondary analysis is to assess the cost-effectiveness of this intervention. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients in the intervention arm received a customized mailed brochure that included a reminder to schedule a screening colonoscopy and general information about CRC, the importance of CRC screening, and how to prepare for the procedure. The end point was completion of screening colonoscopy. The costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of this patient-directed intervention were derived. Sensitivity analyses were based on varying the costs of labor and supplies. RESULTS: Rates of CRC screening for the intervention (n = 386 patients) versus control (n = 395) arms were 71% and 59%, respectively (P = .001). The total cost of the intervention was $1,927 and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $43 per additional patient screened ($38 to $47 in a sensitivity analysis). CONCLUSION: An intervention based on mailing a customized brochure to patients who were referred for a screening colonoscopy improved CRC screening rates at a university-based general medicine clinic. This intervention was comparable in effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to a similar recently reported low-intensity patient-directed CRC screening intervention, and markedly more affordable and cost-effective than a previously reported physician-directed CRC screening promotion intervention.