Withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids in COPD patients with mild or moderate airflow limitation: who is suitable for a trial of withdrawal?

T. Harries, G. Gilworth, M. Thomas, C. Corrigan, P. Murphy, N. Hart, Leslie A. Hamilton, P. White
{"title":"Withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids in COPD patients with mild or moderate airflow limitation: who is suitable for a trial of withdrawal?","authors":"T. Harries, G. Gilworth, M. Thomas, C. Corrigan, P. Murphy, N. Hart, Leslie A. Hamilton, P. White","doi":"10.1183/13993003.congress-2019.pa5005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Inappropriate use of high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (HD-ICS) increases pneumonia risk and other complications in patients with COPD. The main indication for prescription of HD-ICS is frequent exacerbations with symptomatic disease. There is a need to identify those patients who are inappropriately prescribed HD-ICS. Aim: Identify COPD patients with mild or moderate airflow limitation suitable for withdrawal of HD-ICS. Method: Electronic records search in UK primary care identified COPD patients (asthma excluded) recently prescribed HD-ICS with no recorded severe airflow limitation in the past year. Before assessment with a view to HD-ICS withdrawal each record was scrutinised. Patients were excluded if prescription of HD-ICS was justified. Eligible patients invited by their family doctor for COPD review. Results: 392 suitable records were identified by electronic search from a COPD patient population of 2967. Frequent inconsistencies in diagnosis and recording of exacerbations were seen in patient notes, often with inability to assign prescription (rescue packs) of antibiotics and prednisolone to exacerbation occurrence. 243 patients excluded from withdrawal as HD-ICS justified. Predominant exclusion factors were: moderate or severe exacerbations (35%), severe airflow obstruction (27%), airflow reversibility (6%), active lung cancer (4%), dementia (3%). 149 patients invited for COPD review. 61 attended, 27 declined in writing, 61 not contactable or refused on the telephone. Conclusion: The determinants of suitability for HD-ICS prescription in primary care records are inconsistently recorded, difficult to identify and challenging to apply.","PeriodicalId":432006,"journal":{"name":"General practice and primary care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"General practice and primary care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.congress-2019.pa5005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Inappropriate use of high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (HD-ICS) increases pneumonia risk and other complications in patients with COPD. The main indication for prescription of HD-ICS is frequent exacerbations with symptomatic disease. There is a need to identify those patients who are inappropriately prescribed HD-ICS. Aim: Identify COPD patients with mild or moderate airflow limitation suitable for withdrawal of HD-ICS. Method: Electronic records search in UK primary care identified COPD patients (asthma excluded) recently prescribed HD-ICS with no recorded severe airflow limitation in the past year. Before assessment with a view to HD-ICS withdrawal each record was scrutinised. Patients were excluded if prescription of HD-ICS was justified. Eligible patients invited by their family doctor for COPD review. Results: 392 suitable records were identified by electronic search from a COPD patient population of 2967. Frequent inconsistencies in diagnosis and recording of exacerbations were seen in patient notes, often with inability to assign prescription (rescue packs) of antibiotics and prednisolone to exacerbation occurrence. 243 patients excluded from withdrawal as HD-ICS justified. Predominant exclusion factors were: moderate or severe exacerbations (35%), severe airflow obstruction (27%), airflow reversibility (6%), active lung cancer (4%), dementia (3%). 149 patients invited for COPD review. 61 attended, 27 declined in writing, 61 not contactable or refused on the telephone. Conclusion: The determinants of suitability for HD-ICS prescription in primary care records are inconsistently recorded, difficult to identify and challenging to apply.
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
轻度或中度气流受限的COPD患者停药:谁适合停药试验?
背景:不适当使用大剂量吸入皮质类固醇(HD-ICS)可增加COPD患者肺炎风险和其他并发症。HD-ICS处方的主要适应症是伴有症状性疾病的频繁加重。有必要确定那些不适当地开了HD-ICS的患者。目的:确定适合退出HD-ICS的轻度或中度气流受限的COPD患者。方法:在英国初级保健中检索电子记录,确定最近使用HD-ICS的COPD患者(哮喘除外),在过去一年中没有记录严重的气流限制。在评估HD-ICS撤销之前,每个记录都经过仔细审查。如果处方HD-ICS是合理的,则排除患者。由家庭医生邀请的符合条件的患者进行COPD复查。结果:通过电子检索从2967例COPD患者人群中确定了392例合适的记录。在患者病历中,诊断和病情加重的记录经常不一致,通常无法分配抗生素和强的松龙的处方(救援包)以应对病情加重。243例患者因HD-ICS被排除在停药之外。主要排除因素为:中度或重度加重(35%)、严重气流阻塞(27%)、气流可逆性(6%)、活动性肺癌(4%)、痴呆(3%)。149例患者被邀请进行COPD审查。61人参加了会议,27人以书面形式拒绝,61人无法联系或拒绝电话。结论:初诊记录中HD-ICS处方适宜性的决定因素记录不一致,难以识别且具有挑战性。
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
Ionic Calcium in Blood as Early Marker of Severity in Patients with COVID-19 Collaborative care positively inverts the proportion of severe cases in the pulmonology clinic in the public health system: a Brazilian experience Overdiagnosis of COPD and asthma among elderly with chronic dyspnea The association between lung function in adults and the socioeconomic profile in a long-term follow-up Exploration of the feasibility to combine patients with COPD and chronic heart failure in self management groups with focus on exercise self-efficacy
×
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