Martinez Fernando J, Yawn Barbara P, Angulo Daniela, Lopez Camden, Murray Susan, Mannino David, Anderson Stacey, Dolor Rowena, Elder Nancy, Joo Min, Khan Irfan, Knox Lyndee M, Meldrum Catherine, Peters Elizabeth, Spino Cathie, Tapp Hazel, Thomashow Byron, Zittleman Linda, Brown Randall, Make Barry, Han MeiLan K
University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Internal Medicine, Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States.
Weill Cornell Medical College, Internal Medicine, New York, New York, United States.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2024 Dec 23;211(5):789-802. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202405-0921OC.
The impact of COPD screening on US primary care clinician behavior and patient outcomes is unclear. Assess the impact of receiving CAPTURE (COPD Assessment in Primary Care to Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk) screening scores on clinical and patient outcomes. Cluster randomized trial included 49 usual care (COPD education only) and 51 intervention (COPD and CAPTURE education plus screening scores) primary care practices. Twelve-month medical record and patient survey outcome data were collected in patients with elevated screening scores or study spirometric abnormalities. Among 387 CAPTURE+ patients, no significant difference was noted between usual care and intervention practices in the primary composite outcome of: 1) spirometry referral/completion, 2) new COPD diagnosis, 3) newly prescribed inhaled long-acting respiratory medication, 4) referral to a respiratory specialist, or 5) pulmonary rehabilitation referral/completion, 45.9% versus 41.9% (+4.0%, 95% CI -6.9, +15.0, p=0.47). Only spirometry referral/completion was higher in the intervention group (+10.4%, 95% CI +0.1, +20.7, p = 0.0465). No differences were noted for secondary outcomes, composite components, change in COPD Assessment Test scores, rates of respiratory illnesses, or hospitalizations. For the 1,028 screen-negative (CAPTURE-) patients, composite primary and all secondary outcomes were similar in the two arms. In secondary and post hoc analyses evaluating the potential impact of the pandemic, intervention group differences in clinician and patient outcomes were noted for CAPTURE+ and CAPTURE- patients in the pre-pandemic period that diminished during the pandemic. Within these US primary care practices, COPD and CAPTURE education plus receipt of CAPTURE screening scores did not change clinician COPD assessment or care or patient outcomes for CAPTURE+ patients. However, in the pre-pandemic period CAPTURE+ patients were more likely to undergo spirometry referral completion while for CAPTURE- patients clinicians were significantly less likely to assess for COPD suggesting that the intervention resulted in a more appropriate use of healthcare resources.
慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)筛查对美国初级保健临床医生行为及患者预后的影响尚不清楚。评估获取CAPTURE(初级保健中COPD评估以识别未诊断的呼吸系统疾病和急性加重风险)筛查分数对临床和患者预后的影响。整群随机试验纳入了49个常规护理组(仅进行COPD教育)和51个干预组(COPD及CAPTURE教育加筛查分数)的初级保健机构。对筛查分数升高或肺功能检查异常的患者收集了为期12个月的病历和患者调查结局数据。在387例CAPTURE+患者中,常规护理组和干预组在以下主要综合结局方面未观察到显著差异:1)肺功能检查转诊/完成情况;2)新诊断的COPD;3)新开具的吸入长效呼吸药物;4)转诊至呼吸专科医生;或5)肺康复转诊/完成情况,分别为45.9%和41.9%(+4.0%,95%置信区间-6.9,+15.0,p=0.47)。仅干预组的肺功能检查转诊/完成率更高(+10.4%,95%置信区间+0.1,+20.7,p = 0.0465)。次要结局、综合组成部分、COPD评估测试分数变化、呼吸系统疾病发生率或住院率方面未观察到差异。对于1028例筛查阴性(CAPTURE-)患者,两组的主要综合结局和所有次要结局相似。在评估大流行潜在影响的次要分析和事后分析中,注意到在大流行前时期干预组的CAPTURE+和CAPTURE-患者在临床医生和患者结局方面存在差异,而在大流行期间这种差异减小。在这些美国初级保健机构中,COPD及CAPTURE教育加获取CAPTURE筛查分数并未改变临床医生对CAPTURE+患者的COPD评估、治疗或患者结局。然而,在大流行前时期,CAPTURE+患者更有可能完成肺功能检查转诊,而对于CAPTURE-患者,临床医生评估COPD的可能性显著降低,这表明该干预措施导致了医疗资源的更合理利用。