Is asthma over-diagnosed in Cyprus? A clinical study at the outpatient’s primary care level

Armeftis Charis, Lemessios Marinos, Anastas S. Christos, Gratziou Christina, Siafakas Nikolaos, Katsaounou Paraskevi, Bakakos Petros
{"title":"Is asthma over-diagnosed in Cyprus? A clinical study at the outpatient’s primary care level","authors":"Armeftis Charis, Lemessios Marinos, Anastas S. Christos, Gratziou Christina, Siafakas Nikolaos, Katsaounou Paraskevi, Bakakos Petros","doi":"10.17352/oja.000017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Although asthma is a common disease accurate diagnosis is missing and it has been reported that often it is over or under-diagnosed. Aim: To investigate if a physician’s diagnosis of asthma in Cyprus is correct by using a structured algorithm at the outpatient primary care level. Subjects and Methods: Sixty adults with a self-reported physician diagnosis of asthma, mean age of 47,8 years (29 males and 31 females) were included in the study. Medical history and physical examination, pre-post bronchodilation spirometry and methacholine bronchial challenge test was used to confirm or rule out the diagnosis as well as a three months follow-up. In addition, the cost of treatment was estimated. Results: Sixteen subjects (27%) had a positive pre-post bronchodilation spirometric test and were considered asthmatics. In 9 out of the 44 remaining subjects a positive Methacholine provocation test confirmed the diagnosis of asthma. The rest of the subjects (n = 35) went into a 3 months observational period during which only 2 showed asthmatic symptoms and were considered asthmatics by a second methacholine test that confirmed the diagnosis. Therefore, a correct asthma diagnosis was established in only 27(45%) of subjects. The annual average cost of medication for asthma confirmed the group was 313 euro/patient (171-454, 95% CI) and the average 2-year unnecessary (asthma ruled-out group) cost of treatment was approximately 297 euro/patient. (179-415, 95% CI). Conclusions: Physician-diagnosed asthma overestimates the actual prevalence of disease in adults in Cyprus since it was shown that more than half of the participants did not have Asthma. These individuals consume unneeded medications at a significant cost. Thus, the correct diagnosis of Asthma should be made by using more specific tests starting at the primary care level.","PeriodicalId":151186,"journal":{"name":"Open Journal of Asthma","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Journal of Asthma","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17352/oja.000017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Although asthma is a common disease accurate diagnosis is missing and it has been reported that often it is over or under-diagnosed. Aim: To investigate if a physician’s diagnosis of asthma in Cyprus is correct by using a structured algorithm at the outpatient primary care level. Subjects and Methods: Sixty adults with a self-reported physician diagnosis of asthma, mean age of 47,8 years (29 males and 31 females) were included in the study. Medical history and physical examination, pre-post bronchodilation spirometry and methacholine bronchial challenge test was used to confirm or rule out the diagnosis as well as a three months follow-up. In addition, the cost of treatment was estimated. Results: Sixteen subjects (27%) had a positive pre-post bronchodilation spirometric test and were considered asthmatics. In 9 out of the 44 remaining subjects a positive Methacholine provocation test confirmed the diagnosis of asthma. The rest of the subjects (n = 35) went into a 3 months observational period during which only 2 showed asthmatic symptoms and were considered asthmatics by a second methacholine test that confirmed the diagnosis. Therefore, a correct asthma diagnosis was established in only 27(45%) of subjects. The annual average cost of medication for asthma confirmed the group was 313 euro/patient (171-454, 95% CI) and the average 2-year unnecessary (asthma ruled-out group) cost of treatment was approximately 297 euro/patient. (179-415, 95% CI). Conclusions: Physician-diagnosed asthma overestimates the actual prevalence of disease in adults in Cyprus since it was shown that more than half of the participants did not have Asthma. These individuals consume unneeded medications at a significant cost. Thus, the correct diagnosis of Asthma should be made by using more specific tests starting at the primary care level.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
塞浦路斯的哮喘是否被过度诊断?门诊初级保健水平的临床研究
背景:虽然哮喘是一种常见的疾病,但缺乏准确的诊断,据报道,它经常被过度诊断或诊断不足。目的:调查如果医生的诊断哮喘在塞浦路斯是正确的使用结构化算法在门诊初级保健水平。研究对象和方法:60名自我报告患有哮喘的成年人,平均年龄为47,8岁(男性29名,女性31名)。病史、体格检查、支气管扩张前后肺活量测定和甲胆碱支气管激发试验确定或排除诊断,并随访3个月。此外,还估计了治疗费用。结果:16名受试者(27%)有支气管扩张前后肺活量测定阳性,被认为是哮喘患者。其余44名受试者中有9名甲胆碱激发试验阳性,证实了哮喘的诊断。其余受试者(n = 35)进入3个月的观察期,在此期间只有2人表现出哮喘症状,并通过第二次甲胆碱测试确认诊断为哮喘。因此,正确的哮喘诊断仅在27例(45%)受试者中建立。哮喘药物治疗的年平均费用证实该组为313欧元/患者(171-454,95% CI),平均2年不必要的(哮喘排除组)治疗费用约为297欧元/患者。(179-415, 95% ci)。结论:医生诊断的哮喘高估了塞浦路斯成人疾病的实际患病率,因为研究表明,超过一半的参与者没有哮喘。这些人消耗了大量不必要的药物。因此,对哮喘的正确诊断应该从初级保健水平开始使用更具体的测试。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Immunosenescence and ACE2 protein expression: Association with SARS-CoV-2 in older adults Is asthma over-diagnosed in Cyprus? A clinical study at the outpatient’s primary care level Role of ST2 as a biomarker of respiratory dysfunction after interstitial pneumonia Inclusion of steps to enhance mucus clearance may provide benefit for symptomatic COVID patients by reducing total viral load, time to recovery, risk of complications and transmission risk
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1