Barker Ruth, Laverty Anthony A, Hopkinson Nicholas S
NIHR Respiratory Disease, Biomedical Research Unit at the Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust and Imperial College London, London, UK.
Public Health Policy Evaluation Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
BMJ Open Respir Res. 2017 Jul 29;4(1):e000226. doi: 10.1136/bmjresp-2017-000226. eCollection 2017.
Oscillatory positive pressure devices (OPEP) can be used as adjuncts to improve sputum clearance in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), though the evidence base is incomplete. The attitudes of physiotherapists towards these devices in the care of patients with COPD is unknown. In addition, actual use compared with the prescription of medications has not been studied.
We analysed English prescribing data, obtained from OpenPrescribing.net, for a 3-year period from 2013. In addition, we conducted an online survey of members of the Association of Chartered Physiotherapists in Respiratory Care regarding awareness of devices, thresholds for treatment and device preference.
Out of a potential 3.2 million COPD patient-years of treatment between 2013 and 2015, 422 744 patient-years of treatment with carbocisteine, at a cost of £73 million, were prescribed, as well as 1.1 million years treatment with tiotropium. In the same period, only 4989 OPEP devices were prescribed. There were 116 responses to the survey (12% response rate), 72% in hospital practice, 28% based in the community. There were variations in respondents' threshold for treatment with sputum adjuncts in COPD, and when asked to select either the Acapella, Flutter or positive expiratory pressure mask, preferences were 69%, 24% or 6%, respectively.
There is a 100-fold difference between use of carbocisteine and OPEP devices in COPD, with far fewer devices prescribed than are included in the phenotypes clinicians believe them to be effective in. Variation in physiotherapist attitudes to treatment thresholds highlights the need for research into the effectiveness of OPEP devices in specific patient phenotypes.
振荡正压装置(OPEP)可作为辅助手段用于改善慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者的痰液清除,尽管相关证据尚不完整。物理治疗师在COPD患者护理中对这些装置的态度尚不清楚。此外,与药物处方相比,其实际使用情况尚未得到研究。
我们分析了从OpenPrescribing.net获取的2013年起3年期间的英文处方数据。此外,我们对呼吸护理特许物理治疗师协会的成员进行了一项在线调查,内容涉及对装置的认知、治疗阈值和装置偏好。
在2013年至2015年期间,COPD患者潜在的320万个治疗人年中,开出了422744个使用羧甲司坦的治疗人年,费用为7300万英镑,以及110万个使用噻托溴铵的治疗人年。同期,仅开出了4989个OPEP装置。该调查共收到116份回复(回复率为12%),其中72%来自医院,28%来自社区。COPD患者痰液清除辅助治疗的受访者治疗阈值存在差异,当被要求选择阿法贝拉、弗勒特或呼气正压面罩时,偏好分别为69%、24%或6%。
COPD患者中羧甲司坦和OPEP装置的使用存在100倍的差异,开出的装置数量远少于临床医生认为其有效的表型数量。物理治疗师对治疗阈值的态度差异凸显了对OPEP装置在特定患者表型中的有效性进行研究的必要性。