Fernando J Martinez, Barbara P Yawn, Daniela Angulo, Camden Lopez, Susan Murray, David Mannino, Stacey Anderson, Rowena Dolor, Nancy Elder, Min Joo, Irfan Khan, Lyndee M Knox, Catherine Meldrum, Elizabeth Peters, Cathie Spino, Hazel Tapp, Byron Thomashow, Linda Zittleman, Randall Brown, Barry Make, MeiLan K Han
{"title":"Impact of the CAPTURE COPD Screening Tool in US Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Trial.","authors":"Fernando J Martinez, Barbara P Yawn, Daniela Angulo, Camden Lopez, Susan Murray, David Mannino, Stacey Anderson, Rowena Dolor, Nancy Elder, Min Joo, Irfan Khan, Lyndee M Knox, Catherine Meldrum, Elizabeth Peters, Cathie Spino, Hazel Tapp, Byron Thomashow, Linda Zittleman, Randall Brown, Barry Make, MeiLan K Han","doi":"10.1164/rccm.202405-0921OC","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><i>Rationale:</i> The impact of COPD screening on US primary care clinician behavior and patient outcomes is unclear. <i>Objectives:</i> 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. <i>Methods:</i> 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. <i>Measurements and Main Results:</i> 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. <i>Conclusions:</i> 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":7664,"journal":{"name":"American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":19.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.202405-0921OC","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Rationale: The impact of COPD screening on US primary care clinician behavior and patient outcomes is unclear. Objectives: 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. Methods: 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. Measurements and Main Results: 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. Conclusions: 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.
期刊介绍:
The American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine focuses on human biology and disease, as well as animal studies that contribute to the understanding of pathophysiology and treatment of diseases that affect the respiratory system and critically ill patients. Papers that are solely or predominantly based in cell and molecular biology are published in the companion journal, the American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology. The Journal also seeks to publish clinical trials and outstanding review articles on areas of interest in several forms. The State-of-the-Art review is a treatise usually covering a broad field that brings bench research to the bedside. Shorter reviews are published as Critical Care Perspectives or Pulmonary Perspectives. These are generally focused on a more limited area and advance a concerted opinion about care for a specific process. Concise Clinical Reviews provide an evidence-based synthesis of the literature pertaining to topics of fundamental importance to the practice of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. Images providing advances or unusual contributions to the field are published as Images in Pulmonary, Critical Care, Sleep Medicine and the Sciences.
A recent trend and future direction of the Journal has been to include debates of a topical nature on issues of importance in pulmonary and critical care medicine and to the membership of the American Thoracic Society. Other recent changes have included encompassing works from the field of critical care medicine and the extension of the editorial governing of journal policy to colleagues outside of the United States of America. The focus and direction of the Journal is to establish an international forum for state-of-the-art respiratory and critical care medicine.