User login
SAN DIEGO — You can’t treat patients if you can’t find them. But as investigators in a randomized controlled trial showed, a case-finding method based on spirometry results can identify individuals in the community with undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or asthma whose lives could be significantly improved with proper care.
“By diagnosing people early and treating them intensively, you can really improve their quality of life,” said lead investigator Shawn D. Aaron, MD, from the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute and University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Even those patients in the study who were randomly assigned to receive care from a general practice physician had improvements in lung function and quality of life, although on a smaller scale than patients assigned to a specialty team, Dr. Aaron said at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.
He reported results of the study in a late-breaking oral abstract session. The study findings were also published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Undiagnosed diseases
“The simple problem is that 70% of individuals with asthma or COPD are likely undiagnosed,” Dr. Aaron said.
He noted that the 2007-2012 US National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey found obstructive lung disease in 13% of randomly selected US adults, but 71% of these people had never been diagnosed with asthma or COPD.
“So our questions were in this study: One, can we find adults with undiagnosed asthma or COPD in the community? The second question was: If we find them, are they sick? And the third and most important question was: Can we treat them early and improve their health outcomes?” he said.
Asthma and COPD both present with similar respiratory symptoms, including dyspnea, cough, wheeze, and/or chest tightness, and the two conditions share expiratory airflow obstruction as a common physiologic impairment that can be detected with spirometry.
Study details
To identify participants, the investigators hired a commercial survey firm to contact households asking whether any member aged 18 years or older had respiratory symptoms such as shortness of breath, wheezing, increased mucus or sputum production, or prolonged cough in the past 6 months. Those who responded yes were then contacted by a trial coordinator, and the symptomatic household member was asked to complete the Asthma Screening Questionnaire over the phone. Participants aged 60 years or older and those younger than 60 years with a score of 6 or higher on the asthma screen also completed the COPD Diagnostic Questionnaire.
Those with a score of 6 or higher on the asthma screen or 20 or higher on the COPD screen were invited to undergo spirometry at a trial site.
The investigators ultimately identified 508 adults with undiagnosed asthma or COPD and randomly assigned them on an equal basis to an intervention group (253 patients) or control group (255 patients).
In the intervention group treatment was provided by a study pulmonologist and asthma-COPD educator who started guideline-based care. Patients were prescribed inhalers and were taught how to use them, and many were given action plans that included smoking cessation aids, exercise and weight counseling, and vaccinations against influenza and pneumonia.
Participants assigned to the control group would receive usual care provided by their primary care practitioner.
Improvements abound
During the 12 months of the study, 92% of patients in the intervention group and 60% in the control group were started on new medications for their condition.
Only 13.4% of those in the intervention group received either no respiratory treatments or a short-acting beta 2 agonist only during the entire trial period compared with 49.8% of controls, “so the usual care arm was undertreated relative to the intervention arm, and because of that under-treatment we saw a tremendous difference in the primary outcome,” Dr. Aaron said.
The primary outcome, the annualized rate of patient-initiated healthcare utilization for respiratory illness, was significantly lower in the intervention group, translating into an incidence rate ratio of 0.48 (P < .001).
Secondary outcomes were also better in the intervention group. For example, total scores on the St. George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) declined by 10.2 points from baseline in intervention group compared with a 6.8-point drop in the usual-care group. The mean difference was 3.5 points (P = .009). Lower scores on the 0-100 SGRQ scale indicate better health status.
Similarly, total scores on the COPD Assessment Test, a scale of 0-40 with lower scores indicating better health, declined by 3.8 points and 2.6 points, respectively, over 12 months, for a mean difference of 1.3 points (P = .03).
In addition, those in the intervention arm had a 119-mL improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second over the 12 months of the study compared with only a 22-mL improvement in the usual-care group.
Translatable results?
Dr. Aaron acknowledged that the investigators could have chosen to keep those who were assigned to the control group unaware of their diagnosis during the study but because all patients enrolled were symptomatic, it would have been unethical to do so. All participants were informed of their diagnosis at randomization, and the information was conveyed to each patient’s primary care practitioner as well.
In fact, many patients in the control group decided to seek treatment for either asthma or COPD after learning of their diagnosis, which may have contributed to improved outcomes in the control arm, he said.
“What this means is if you make the diagnosis early in the community, and at least have them see a primary care practitioner, they will improve their quality of life and their health status,” he concluded.
Ravi Kalhan, MD, MS, from the Northwestern University Feinberg School Of Medicine in Chicago, who co-moderated the session but was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the case-finding model used in the trial would be difficult to replicate elsewhere.
“This idea of seeking out undiagnosed people by doing spirometry, so-called ‘case finding’ as they described it, testing highly symptomatic people with spirometry, is really challenging in the US, because symptoms are not collected proactively very much,” he said.
Persons with acute respiratory symptoms in the US typically seek healthcare at urgent-care clinics or have unscheduled visits with their primary care physicians, “and by all accounts those people should have spirometry, but they just don’t in the US, as best as I can tell,” he added.
He agreed that getting patients to a specialist can result in better outcomes but said that implementing a systematic approach such as the one described in the study would be extremely difficult in the fragmented US healthcare system.
Dr. Kalhan’s co-moderator, Nuala J. Meyer, MD, MS, from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told Chest Physician that “it was interesting that even those who were not in the intervention group but had these details passed on to their primary care physicians still had improvements,” and that it would be beneficial if primary care practitioners were routinely informed about the results of urgent care visits.
She added, however, that in the US the flow of information between urgent care clinics, primary care offices, and specialty clinics is problematic, suggesting that symptomatic patients may not always receive the additional care that they need.
The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Aaron, Dr. Kalhan, and Dr. Meyer all reported having no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO — You can’t treat patients if you can’t find them. But as investigators in a randomized controlled trial showed, a case-finding method based on spirometry results can identify individuals in the community with undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or asthma whose lives could be significantly improved with proper care.
“By diagnosing people early and treating them intensively, you can really improve their quality of life,” said lead investigator Shawn D. Aaron, MD, from the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute and University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Even those patients in the study who were randomly assigned to receive care from a general practice physician had improvements in lung function and quality of life, although on a smaller scale than patients assigned to a specialty team, Dr. Aaron said at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.
He reported results of the study in a late-breaking oral abstract session. The study findings were also published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Undiagnosed diseases
“The simple problem is that 70% of individuals with asthma or COPD are likely undiagnosed,” Dr. Aaron said.
He noted that the 2007-2012 US National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey found obstructive lung disease in 13% of randomly selected US adults, but 71% of these people had never been diagnosed with asthma or COPD.
“So our questions were in this study: One, can we find adults with undiagnosed asthma or COPD in the community? The second question was: If we find them, are they sick? And the third and most important question was: Can we treat them early and improve their health outcomes?” he said.
Asthma and COPD both present with similar respiratory symptoms, including dyspnea, cough, wheeze, and/or chest tightness, and the two conditions share expiratory airflow obstruction as a common physiologic impairment that can be detected with spirometry.
Study details
To identify participants, the investigators hired a commercial survey firm to contact households asking whether any member aged 18 years or older had respiratory symptoms such as shortness of breath, wheezing, increased mucus or sputum production, or prolonged cough in the past 6 months. Those who responded yes were then contacted by a trial coordinator, and the symptomatic household member was asked to complete the Asthma Screening Questionnaire over the phone. Participants aged 60 years or older and those younger than 60 years with a score of 6 or higher on the asthma screen also completed the COPD Diagnostic Questionnaire.
Those with a score of 6 or higher on the asthma screen or 20 or higher on the COPD screen were invited to undergo spirometry at a trial site.
The investigators ultimately identified 508 adults with undiagnosed asthma or COPD and randomly assigned them on an equal basis to an intervention group (253 patients) or control group (255 patients).
In the intervention group treatment was provided by a study pulmonologist and asthma-COPD educator who started guideline-based care. Patients were prescribed inhalers and were taught how to use them, and many were given action plans that included smoking cessation aids, exercise and weight counseling, and vaccinations against influenza and pneumonia.
Participants assigned to the control group would receive usual care provided by their primary care practitioner.
Improvements abound
During the 12 months of the study, 92% of patients in the intervention group and 60% in the control group were started on new medications for their condition.
Only 13.4% of those in the intervention group received either no respiratory treatments or a short-acting beta 2 agonist only during the entire trial period compared with 49.8% of controls, “so the usual care arm was undertreated relative to the intervention arm, and because of that under-treatment we saw a tremendous difference in the primary outcome,” Dr. Aaron said.
The primary outcome, the annualized rate of patient-initiated healthcare utilization for respiratory illness, was significantly lower in the intervention group, translating into an incidence rate ratio of 0.48 (P < .001).
Secondary outcomes were also better in the intervention group. For example, total scores on the St. George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) declined by 10.2 points from baseline in intervention group compared with a 6.8-point drop in the usual-care group. The mean difference was 3.5 points (P = .009). Lower scores on the 0-100 SGRQ scale indicate better health status.
Similarly, total scores on the COPD Assessment Test, a scale of 0-40 with lower scores indicating better health, declined by 3.8 points and 2.6 points, respectively, over 12 months, for a mean difference of 1.3 points (P = .03).
In addition, those in the intervention arm had a 119-mL improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second over the 12 months of the study compared with only a 22-mL improvement in the usual-care group.
Translatable results?
Dr. Aaron acknowledged that the investigators could have chosen to keep those who were assigned to the control group unaware of their diagnosis during the study but because all patients enrolled were symptomatic, it would have been unethical to do so. All participants were informed of their diagnosis at randomization, and the information was conveyed to each patient’s primary care practitioner as well.
In fact, many patients in the control group decided to seek treatment for either asthma or COPD after learning of their diagnosis, which may have contributed to improved outcomes in the control arm, he said.
“What this means is if you make the diagnosis early in the community, and at least have them see a primary care practitioner, they will improve their quality of life and their health status,” he concluded.
Ravi Kalhan, MD, MS, from the Northwestern University Feinberg School Of Medicine in Chicago, who co-moderated the session but was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the case-finding model used in the trial would be difficult to replicate elsewhere.
“This idea of seeking out undiagnosed people by doing spirometry, so-called ‘case finding’ as they described it, testing highly symptomatic people with spirometry, is really challenging in the US, because symptoms are not collected proactively very much,” he said.
Persons with acute respiratory symptoms in the US typically seek healthcare at urgent-care clinics or have unscheduled visits with their primary care physicians, “and by all accounts those people should have spirometry, but they just don’t in the US, as best as I can tell,” he added.
He agreed that getting patients to a specialist can result in better outcomes but said that implementing a systematic approach such as the one described in the study would be extremely difficult in the fragmented US healthcare system.
Dr. Kalhan’s co-moderator, Nuala J. Meyer, MD, MS, from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told Chest Physician that “it was interesting that even those who were not in the intervention group but had these details passed on to their primary care physicians still had improvements,” and that it would be beneficial if primary care practitioners were routinely informed about the results of urgent care visits.
She added, however, that in the US the flow of information between urgent care clinics, primary care offices, and specialty clinics is problematic, suggesting that symptomatic patients may not always receive the additional care that they need.
The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Aaron, Dr. Kalhan, and Dr. Meyer all reported having no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO — You can’t treat patients if you can’t find them. But as investigators in a randomized controlled trial showed, a case-finding method based on spirometry results can identify individuals in the community with undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or asthma whose lives could be significantly improved with proper care.
“By diagnosing people early and treating them intensively, you can really improve their quality of life,” said lead investigator Shawn D. Aaron, MD, from the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute and University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Even those patients in the study who were randomly assigned to receive care from a general practice physician had improvements in lung function and quality of life, although on a smaller scale than patients assigned to a specialty team, Dr. Aaron said at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.
He reported results of the study in a late-breaking oral abstract session. The study findings were also published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Undiagnosed diseases
“The simple problem is that 70% of individuals with asthma or COPD are likely undiagnosed,” Dr. Aaron said.
He noted that the 2007-2012 US National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey found obstructive lung disease in 13% of randomly selected US adults, but 71% of these people had never been diagnosed with asthma or COPD.
“So our questions were in this study: One, can we find adults with undiagnosed asthma or COPD in the community? The second question was: If we find them, are they sick? And the third and most important question was: Can we treat them early and improve their health outcomes?” he said.
Asthma and COPD both present with similar respiratory symptoms, including dyspnea, cough, wheeze, and/or chest tightness, and the two conditions share expiratory airflow obstruction as a common physiologic impairment that can be detected with spirometry.
Study details
To identify participants, the investigators hired a commercial survey firm to contact households asking whether any member aged 18 years or older had respiratory symptoms such as shortness of breath, wheezing, increased mucus or sputum production, or prolonged cough in the past 6 months. Those who responded yes were then contacted by a trial coordinator, and the symptomatic household member was asked to complete the Asthma Screening Questionnaire over the phone. Participants aged 60 years or older and those younger than 60 years with a score of 6 or higher on the asthma screen also completed the COPD Diagnostic Questionnaire.
Those with a score of 6 or higher on the asthma screen or 20 or higher on the COPD screen were invited to undergo spirometry at a trial site.
The investigators ultimately identified 508 adults with undiagnosed asthma or COPD and randomly assigned them on an equal basis to an intervention group (253 patients) or control group (255 patients).
In the intervention group treatment was provided by a study pulmonologist and asthma-COPD educator who started guideline-based care. Patients were prescribed inhalers and were taught how to use them, and many were given action plans that included smoking cessation aids, exercise and weight counseling, and vaccinations against influenza and pneumonia.
Participants assigned to the control group would receive usual care provided by their primary care practitioner.
Improvements abound
During the 12 months of the study, 92% of patients in the intervention group and 60% in the control group were started on new medications for their condition.
Only 13.4% of those in the intervention group received either no respiratory treatments or a short-acting beta 2 agonist only during the entire trial period compared with 49.8% of controls, “so the usual care arm was undertreated relative to the intervention arm, and because of that under-treatment we saw a tremendous difference in the primary outcome,” Dr. Aaron said.
The primary outcome, the annualized rate of patient-initiated healthcare utilization for respiratory illness, was significantly lower in the intervention group, translating into an incidence rate ratio of 0.48 (P < .001).
Secondary outcomes were also better in the intervention group. For example, total scores on the St. George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) declined by 10.2 points from baseline in intervention group compared with a 6.8-point drop in the usual-care group. The mean difference was 3.5 points (P = .009). Lower scores on the 0-100 SGRQ scale indicate better health status.
Similarly, total scores on the COPD Assessment Test, a scale of 0-40 with lower scores indicating better health, declined by 3.8 points and 2.6 points, respectively, over 12 months, for a mean difference of 1.3 points (P = .03).
In addition, those in the intervention arm had a 119-mL improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second over the 12 months of the study compared with only a 22-mL improvement in the usual-care group.
Translatable results?
Dr. Aaron acknowledged that the investigators could have chosen to keep those who were assigned to the control group unaware of their diagnosis during the study but because all patients enrolled were symptomatic, it would have been unethical to do so. All participants were informed of their diagnosis at randomization, and the information was conveyed to each patient’s primary care practitioner as well.
In fact, many patients in the control group decided to seek treatment for either asthma or COPD after learning of their diagnosis, which may have contributed to improved outcomes in the control arm, he said.
“What this means is if you make the diagnosis early in the community, and at least have them see a primary care practitioner, they will improve their quality of life and their health status,” he concluded.
Ravi Kalhan, MD, MS, from the Northwestern University Feinberg School Of Medicine in Chicago, who co-moderated the session but was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the case-finding model used in the trial would be difficult to replicate elsewhere.
“This idea of seeking out undiagnosed people by doing spirometry, so-called ‘case finding’ as they described it, testing highly symptomatic people with spirometry, is really challenging in the US, because symptoms are not collected proactively very much,” he said.
Persons with acute respiratory symptoms in the US typically seek healthcare at urgent-care clinics or have unscheduled visits with their primary care physicians, “and by all accounts those people should have spirometry, but they just don’t in the US, as best as I can tell,” he added.
He agreed that getting patients to a specialist can result in better outcomes but said that implementing a systematic approach such as the one described in the study would be extremely difficult in the fragmented US healthcare system.
Dr. Kalhan’s co-moderator, Nuala J. Meyer, MD, MS, from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told Chest Physician that “it was interesting that even those who were not in the intervention group but had these details passed on to their primary care physicians still had improvements,” and that it would be beneficial if primary care practitioners were routinely informed about the results of urgent care visits.
She added, however, that in the US the flow of information between urgent care clinics, primary care offices, and specialty clinics is problematic, suggesting that symptomatic patients may not always receive the additional care that they need.
The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Aaron, Dr. Kalhan, and Dr. Meyer all reported having no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
<!--$RCSfile: InCopy_agile.xsl,v $ $Revision: 1.35 $-->
<!--$RCSfile: drupal.xsl,v $ $Revision: 1.7 $-->
<root generator="drupal.xsl" gversion="1.7"> <header> <fileName>168233</fileName> <TBEID>0C050558.SIG</TBEID> <TBUniqueIdentifier>MD_0C050558</TBUniqueIdentifier> <newsOrJournal>News</newsOrJournal> <publisherName>Frontline Medical Communications</publisherName> <storyname/> <articleType>2</articleType> <TBLocation>QC Done-All Pubs</TBLocation> <QCDate>20240530T121036</QCDate> <firstPublished>20240530T121657</firstPublished> <LastPublished>20240530T121657</LastPublished> <pubStatus qcode="stat:"/> <embargoDate/> <killDate/> <CMSDate>20240530T121657</CMSDate> <articleSource/> <facebookInfo/> <meetingNumber>3036-24</meetingNumber> <byline>Neil Osterweil</byline> <bylineText>NEIL OSTERWEIL</bylineText> <bylineFull>NEIL OSTERWEIL</bylineFull> <bylineTitleText/> <USOrGlobal/> <wireDocType/> <newsDocType>News</newsDocType> <journalDocType/> <linkLabel/> <pageRange/> <citation/> <quizID/> <indexIssueDate/> <itemClass qcode="ninat:text"/> <provider qcode="provider:imng"> <name>IMNG Medical Media</name> <rightsInfo> <copyrightHolder> <name>Frontline Medical News</name> </copyrightHolder> <copyrightNotice>Copyright (c) 2015 Frontline Medical News, a Frontline Medical Communications Inc. company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, copied, or otherwise reproduced or distributed without the prior written permission of Frontline Medical Communications Inc.</copyrightNotice> </rightsInfo> </provider> <abstract/> <metaDescription>Once they have been identified and randomly assigned to be treated by a pulmonologist and asthma-COPD educator according to clinical guidelines, these previousl</metaDescription> <articlePDF/> <teaserImage/> <teaser>Community-focused study using spirometry data can help find undiagnosed COPD and asthma. </teaser> <title>Catch-and-Treat Strategy Identifies Undiagnosed Asthma and COPD</title> <deck/> <disclaimer/> <AuthorList/> <articleURL/> <doi/> <pubMedID/> <publishXMLStatus/> <publishXMLVersion>1</publishXMLVersion> <useEISSN>0</useEISSN> <urgency/> <pubPubdateYear/> <pubPubdateMonth/> <pubPubdateDay/> <pubVolume/> <pubNumber/> <wireChannels/> <primaryCMSID/> <CMSIDs/> <keywords/> <seeAlsos/> <publications_g> <publicationData> <publicationCode>chph</publicationCode> <pubIssueName/> <pubArticleType/> <pubTopics/> <pubCategories/> <pubSections/> </publicationData> </publications_g> <publications> <term canonical="true">6</term> </publications> <sections> <term canonical="true">39313</term> <term>53</term> </sections> <topics> <term canonical="true">41038</term> <term>188</term> </topics> <links/> </header> <itemSet> <newsItem> <itemMeta> <itemRole>Main</itemRole> <itemClass>text</itemClass> <title>Catch-and-Treat Strategy Identifies Undiagnosed Asthma and COPD</title> <deck/> </itemMeta> <itemContent> <p><br/><br/><span class="dateline">SAN DIEGO</span> — You can’t treat patients if you can’t find them. But as investigators in a randomized controlled trial showed, a case-finding method based on <span class="Hyperlink">spirometry</span> results can identify individuals in the community with undiagnosed <span class="Hyperlink">chronic obstructive pulmonary disease</span> (<span class="Hyperlink">COPD</span>) or <span class="Hyperlink">asthma</span> whose lives could be significantly improved with proper care.<br/><br/><span class="tag metaDescription">Once they have been identified and randomly assigned to be treated by a pulmonologist and asthma-COPD educator according to clinical guidelines, these previously undiagnosed patients have significant improvements in health care utilization, lung function, symptoms, and quality of life compared with patients randomly assigned to treatment by a general practitioner.</span><br/><br/>“By diagnosing people early and treating them intensively, you can really improve their quality of life,” said lead investigator Shawn D. Aaron, MD, from the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute and University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.<br/><br/>Even those patients in the study who were randomly assigned to receive care from a general practice physician had improvements in lung function and quality of life, although on a smaller scale than patients assigned to a specialty team, Dr. Aaron said at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.<br/><br/>He reported results of the study in a late-breaking oral abstract session. The study findings were also <span class="Hyperlink"><a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2401389">published online</a></span> in <em>The New England Journal of Medicine</em>.<br/><br/></p> <h2>Undiagnosed diseases</h2> <p>“The simple problem is that 70% of individuals with asthma or COPD are likely undiagnosed,” Dr. Aaron said.<br/><br/>He noted that the 2007-2012 US National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey found obstructive lung disease in 13% of randomly selected US adults, but 71% of these people had never been diagnosed with asthma or COPD.<br/><br/>“So our questions were in this study: One, can we find adults with undiagnosed asthma or COPD in the community? The second question was: If we find them, are they sick? And the third and most important question was: Can we treat them early and improve their health outcomes?” he said.<br/><br/>Asthma and COPD both present with similar respiratory symptoms, including dyspnea, cough, wheeze, and/or chest tightness, and the two conditions share expiratory airflow obstruction as a common physiologic impairment that can be detected with spirometry.<br/><br/></p> <h2>Study details</h2> <p>To identify participants, the investigators hired a commercial survey firm to contact households asking whether any member aged 18 years or older had respiratory symptoms such as shortness of breath, wheezing, increased mucus or sputum production, or prolonged cough in the past 6 months. Those who responded yes were then contacted by a trial coordinator, and the symptomatic household member was asked to complete the Asthma Screening Questionnaire over the phone. Participants aged 60 years or older and those younger than 60 years with a score of 6 or higher on the asthma screen also completed the COPD Diagnostic Questionnaire.<br/><br/>Those with a score of 6 or higher on the asthma screen or 20 or higher on the COPD screen were invited to undergo spirometry at a trial site.<br/><br/>The investigators ultimately identified 508 adults with undiagnosed asthma or COPD and randomly assigned them on an equal basis to an intervention group (253 patients) or control group (255 patients).<br/><br/>In the intervention group treatment was provided by a study pulmonologist and asthma-COPD educator who started guideline-based care. Patients were prescribed inhalers and were taught how to use them, and many were given action plans that included smoking cessation aids, exercise and weight counseling, and vaccinations against <span class="Hyperlink"><a href="https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/219557-overview">influenza</a></span> and pneumonia.<br/><br/>Participants assigned to the control group would receive usual care provided by their primary care practitioner.<br/><br/></p> <h2>Improvements abound</h2> <p>During the 12 months of the study, 92% of patients in the intervention group and 60% in the control group were started on new medications for their condition. <br/><br/>Only 13.4% of those in the intervention group received either no respiratory treatments or a short-acting beta 2 agonist only during the entire trial period compared with 49.8% of controls, “so the usual care arm was undertreated relative to the intervention arm, and because of that under-treatment we saw a tremendous difference in the primary outcome,” Dr. Aaron said.<br/><br/>The primary outcome, the annualized rate of patient-initiated healthcare utilization for respiratory illness, was significantly lower in the intervention group, translating into an incidence rate ratio of 0.48 (P < .001).<br/><br/>Secondary outcomes were also better in the intervention group. For example, total scores on the St. George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) declined by 10.2 points from baseline in intervention group compared with a 6.8-point drop in the usual-care group. The mean difference was 3.5 points (<em>P</em> = .009). Lower scores on the 0-100 SGRQ scale indicate better health status.<br/><br/>Similarly, total scores on the COPD Assessment Test, a scale of 0-40 with lower scores indicating better health, declined by 3.8 points and 2.6 points, respectively, over 12 months, for a mean difference of 1.3 points (<em>P</em> = .03).<br/><br/>In addition, those in the intervention arm had a 119-mL improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second over the 12 months of the study compared with only a 22-mL improvement in the usual-care group.<br/><br/></p> <h2>Translatable results?</h2> <p>Dr. Aaron acknowledged that the investigators could have chosen to keep those who were assigned to the control group unaware of their diagnosis during the study but because all patients enrolled were symptomatic, it would have been unethical to do so. All participants were informed of their diagnosis at randomization, and the information was conveyed to each patient’s primary care practitioner as well.<br/><br/>In fact, many patients in the control group decided to seek treatment for either asthma or COPD after learning of their diagnosis, which may have contributed to improved outcomes in the control arm, he said.<br/><br/>“What this means is if you make the diagnosis early in the community, and at least have them see a primary care practitioner, they will improve their quality of life and their health status,” he concluded.<br/><br/>Ravi Kalhan, MD, MS, from the Northwestern University Feinberg School Of Medicine in Chicago, who co-moderated the session but was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the case-finding model used in the trial would be difficult to replicate elsewhere.<br/><br/>“This idea of seeking out undiagnosed people by doing spirometry, so-called ‘case finding’ as they described it, testing highly symptomatic people with spirometry, is really challenging in the US, because symptoms are not collected proactively very much,” he said.<br/><br/>Persons with acute respiratory symptoms in the US typically seek healthcare at urgent-care clinics or have unscheduled visits with their primary care physicians, “and by all accounts those people should have spirometry, but they just don’t in the US, as best as I can tell,” he added.<br/><br/>He agreed that getting patients to a specialist can result in better outcomes but said that implementing a systematic approach such as the one described in the study would be extremely difficult in the fragmented US healthcare system.<br/><br/>Dr. Kalhan’s co-moderator, Nuala J. Meyer, MD, MS, from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told <em>Chest Physician</em> that “it was interesting that even those who were not in the intervention group but had these details passed on to their primary care physicians still had improvements,” and that it would be beneficial if primary care practitioners were routinely informed about the results of urgent care visits.<br/><br/>She added, however, that in the US the flow of information between urgent care clinics, primary care offices, and specialty clinics is problematic, suggesting that symptomatic patients may not always receive the additional care that they need.<br/><br/>The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Aaron, Dr. Kalhan, and Dr. Meyer all reported having no relevant disclosures.<span class="end"/> </p> <p> <em>A version of this article appeared on <span class="Hyperlink"><a href="https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/catch-and-treat-strategy-improves-health-previously-2024a10009n1">Medscape.com</a></span>.</em> </p> </itemContent> </newsItem> <newsItem> <itemMeta> <itemRole>teaser</itemRole> <itemClass>text</itemClass> <title/> <deck/> </itemMeta> <itemContent> </itemContent> </newsItem> </itemSet></root>