Case-finding and improving patient outcomes for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary care: the BLISS research programme including cluster RCT

P. Adab, R. Jordan, D. Fitzmaurice, J. Ayres, K. Cheng, B. Cooper, A. Daley, A. Dickens, A. Enocson, Sheila M. Greenfield, Shamil Haroon, K. Jolly, S. Jowett, Tosin Lambe, James Martin, Martin R. Miller, K. Rai, R. Riley, S. Sadhra, A. Sitch, S. Siebert, R. Stockley, A. Turner
{"title":"Case-finding and improving patient outcomes for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary care: the BLISS research programme including cluster RCT","authors":"P. Adab, R. Jordan, D. Fitzmaurice, J. Ayres, K. Cheng, B. Cooper, A. Daley, A. Dickens, A. Enocson, Sheila M. Greenfield, Shamil Haroon, K. Jolly, S. Jowett, Tosin Lambe, James Martin, Martin R. Miller, K. Rai, R. Riley, S. Sadhra, A. Sitch, S. Siebert, R. Stockley, A. Turner","doi":"10.3310/pgfar09130","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a major contributor to morbidity, mortality and health service costs but is vastly underdiagnosed. Evidence on screening and how best to approach this is not clear. There are also uncertainties around the natural history (prognosis) of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and how it impacts on work performance.\n \n \n \n Work package 1: to evaluate alternative methods of screening for undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary care, with clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analyses and an economic model of a routine screening programme. Work package 2: to recruit a primary care chronic obstructive pulmonary disease cohort, develop a prognostic model [Birmingham Lung Improvement StudieS (BLISS)] to predict risk of respiratory hospital admissions, validate an existing model to predict mortality risk, address some uncertainties about natural history and explore the potential for a home exercise intervention. Work package 3: to identify which factors are associated with employment, absenteeism, presenteeism (working while unwell) and evaluate the feasibility of offering formal occupational health assessment to improve work performance.\n \n \n \n Work package 1: a cluster randomised controlled trial with household-level randomised comparison of two alternative case-finding approaches in the intervention arm. Work package 2: cohort study – focus groups. Work package 3: subcohort – feasibility study.\n \n \n \n Primary care settings in West Midlands, UK.\n \n \n \n Work package 1: 74,818 people who have smoked aged 40–79 years without a previous chronic obstructive pulmonary disease diagnosis from 54 general practices. Work package 2: 741 patients with previously diagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease from 71 practices and participants from the work package 1 randomised controlled trial. Twenty-six patients took part in focus groups. Work package 3: occupational subcohort with 248 patients in paid employment at baseline. Thirty-five patients took part in an occupational health intervention feasibility study.\n \n \n \n Work package 1: targeted case-finding – symptom screening questionnaire, administered opportunistically or additionally by post, followed by diagnostic post-bronchodilator spirometry. The comparator was routine care. Work package 2: twenty-three candidate variables selected from literature and expert reviews. Work package 3: sociodemographic, clinical and occupational characteristics; occupational health assessment and recommendations.\n \n \n \n Work package 1: yield (screen-detected chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and cost-effectiveness of case-finding; effectiveness of screening on respiratory hospitalisation and mortality after approximately 4 years. Work package 2: respiratory hospitalisation within 2 years, and barriers to and facilitators of physical activity. Work package 3: work performance – feasibility and acceptability of the occupational health intervention and study processes.\n \n \n \n Work package 1: targeted case-finding resulted in greater yield of previously undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease than routine care at 1 year [n = 1278 (4%) vs. n = 337 (1%), respectively; adjusted odds ratio 7.45, 95% confidence interval 4.80 to 11.55], and a model-based estimate of a regular screening programme suggested an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £16,596 per additional quality-adjusted life-year gained. However, long-term follow-up of the trial showed that at ≈4 years there was no clear evidence that case-finding, compared with routine practice, was effective in reducing respiratory admissions (adjusted hazard ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.73 to1.47) or mortality (hazard ratio 1.15, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 1.61). Work package 2: 2305 patients, comprising 1564 with previously diagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and 741 work package 1 participants (330 with and 411 without obstruction), were recruited. The BLISS prognostic model among cohort participants with confirmed airflow obstruction (n = 1894) included 6 of 23 candidate variables (i.e. age, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Assessment Test score, 12-month respiratory admissions, body mass index, diabetes and forced expiratory volume in 1 second percentage predicted). After internal validation and adjustment (uniform shrinkage factor 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 1.02), the model discriminated well in predicting 2-year respiratory hospital admissions (c-statistic 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 0.79). In focus groups, physical activity engagement was related to self-efficacy and symptom severity. Work package 3: in the occupational subcohort, increasing dyspnoea and exposure to inhaled irritants were associated with lower work productivity at baseline. Longitudinally, increasing exacerbations and worsening symptoms, but not a decline in airflow obstruction, were associated with absenteeism and presenteeism. The acceptability of the occupational health intervention was low, leading to low uptake and low implementation of recommendations and making a full trial unfeasible.\n \n \n \n Work package 1: even with the most intensive approach, only 38% of patients responded to the case-finding invitation. Management of case-found patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary care was generally poor, limiting interpretation of the long-term effectiveness of case-finding on clinical outcomes. Work package 2: the components of the BLISS model may not always be routinely available and calculation of the score requires a computerised system. Work package 3: relatively few cohort participants were in paid employment at baseline, limiting the interpretation of predictors of lower work productivity.\n \n \n \n This programme has addressed some of the major uncertainties around screening for undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and has resulted in the development of a novel, accurate model for predicting respiratory hospitalisation in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and the inception of a primary care chronic obstructive pulmonary disease cohort for longer-term follow-up. We have also identified factors that may affect work productivity in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as potential targets for future intervention.\n \n \n \n We plan to obtain data for longer-term follow-up of trial participants at 10 years. The BLISS model needs to be externally validated. Our primary care chronic obstructive pulmonary disease cohort is a unique resource for addressing further questions to better understand the prognosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.\n \n \n \n Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14930255.\n \n \n \n This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\n","PeriodicalId":32307,"journal":{"name":"Programme Grants for Applied Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Programme Grants for Applied Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/pgfar09130","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a major contributor to morbidity, mortality and health service costs but is vastly underdiagnosed. Evidence on screening and how best to approach this is not clear. There are also uncertainties around the natural history (prognosis) of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and how it impacts on work performance. Work package 1: to evaluate alternative methods of screening for undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary care, with clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analyses and an economic model of a routine screening programme. Work package 2: to recruit a primary care chronic obstructive pulmonary disease cohort, develop a prognostic model [Birmingham Lung Improvement StudieS (BLISS)] to predict risk of respiratory hospital admissions, validate an existing model to predict mortality risk, address some uncertainties about natural history and explore the potential for a home exercise intervention. Work package 3: to identify which factors are associated with employment, absenteeism, presenteeism (working while unwell) and evaluate the feasibility of offering formal occupational health assessment to improve work performance. Work package 1: a cluster randomised controlled trial with household-level randomised comparison of two alternative case-finding approaches in the intervention arm. Work package 2: cohort study – focus groups. Work package 3: subcohort – feasibility study. Primary care settings in West Midlands, UK. Work package 1: 74,818 people who have smoked aged 40–79 years without a previous chronic obstructive pulmonary disease diagnosis from 54 general practices. Work package 2: 741 patients with previously diagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease from 71 practices and participants from the work package 1 randomised controlled trial. Twenty-six patients took part in focus groups. Work package 3: occupational subcohort with 248 patients in paid employment at baseline. Thirty-five patients took part in an occupational health intervention feasibility study. Work package 1: targeted case-finding – symptom screening questionnaire, administered opportunistically or additionally by post, followed by diagnostic post-bronchodilator spirometry. The comparator was routine care. Work package 2: twenty-three candidate variables selected from literature and expert reviews. Work package 3: sociodemographic, clinical and occupational characteristics; occupational health assessment and recommendations. Work package 1: yield (screen-detected chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and cost-effectiveness of case-finding; effectiveness of screening on respiratory hospitalisation and mortality after approximately 4 years. Work package 2: respiratory hospitalisation within 2 years, and barriers to and facilitators of physical activity. Work package 3: work performance – feasibility and acceptability of the occupational health intervention and study processes. Work package 1: targeted case-finding resulted in greater yield of previously undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease than routine care at 1 year [n = 1278 (4%) vs. n = 337 (1%), respectively; adjusted odds ratio 7.45, 95% confidence interval 4.80 to 11.55], and a model-based estimate of a regular screening programme suggested an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £16,596 per additional quality-adjusted life-year gained. However, long-term follow-up of the trial showed that at ≈4 years there was no clear evidence that case-finding, compared with routine practice, was effective in reducing respiratory admissions (adjusted hazard ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.73 to1.47) or mortality (hazard ratio 1.15, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 1.61). Work package 2: 2305 patients, comprising 1564 with previously diagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and 741 work package 1 participants (330 with and 411 without obstruction), were recruited. The BLISS prognostic model among cohort participants with confirmed airflow obstruction (n = 1894) included 6 of 23 candidate variables (i.e. age, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Assessment Test score, 12-month respiratory admissions, body mass index, diabetes and forced expiratory volume in 1 second percentage predicted). After internal validation and adjustment (uniform shrinkage factor 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 1.02), the model discriminated well in predicting 2-year respiratory hospital admissions (c-statistic 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 0.79). In focus groups, physical activity engagement was related to self-efficacy and symptom severity. Work package 3: in the occupational subcohort, increasing dyspnoea and exposure to inhaled irritants were associated with lower work productivity at baseline. Longitudinally, increasing exacerbations and worsening symptoms, but not a decline in airflow obstruction, were associated with absenteeism and presenteeism. The acceptability of the occupational health intervention was low, leading to low uptake and low implementation of recommendations and making a full trial unfeasible. Work package 1: even with the most intensive approach, only 38% of patients responded to the case-finding invitation. Management of case-found patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary care was generally poor, limiting interpretation of the long-term effectiveness of case-finding on clinical outcomes. Work package 2: the components of the BLISS model may not always be routinely available and calculation of the score requires a computerised system. Work package 3: relatively few cohort participants were in paid employment at baseline, limiting the interpretation of predictors of lower work productivity. This programme has addressed some of the major uncertainties around screening for undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and has resulted in the development of a novel, accurate model for predicting respiratory hospitalisation in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and the inception of a primary care chronic obstructive pulmonary disease cohort for longer-term follow-up. We have also identified factors that may affect work productivity in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as potential targets for future intervention. We plan to obtain data for longer-term follow-up of trial participants at 10 years. The BLISS model needs to be externally validated. Our primary care chronic obstructive pulmonary disease cohort is a unique resource for addressing further questions to better understand the prognosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14930255. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
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
初级保健中慢性阻塞性肺疾病的病例发现和改善患者结局:BLISS研究项目包括集群随机对照试验
慢性阻塞性肺病是造成发病率、死亡率和保健服务费用的一个主要因素,但诊断严重不足。关于筛查的证据以及如何最好地进行筛查尚不清楚。慢性阻塞性肺疾病的自然病史(预后)及其对工作表现的影响也存在不确定性。工作包1:评估初级保健中筛查未确诊慢性阻塞性肺病的替代方法,包括临床效果和成本效益分析以及常规筛查方案的经济模型。工作包2:招募初级保健慢性阻塞性肺疾病队列,开发预后模型[伯明翰肺改善研究(BLISS)]来预测呼吸系统住院风险,验证现有模型来预测死亡风险,解决自然病史的一些不确定性,并探索家庭锻炼干预的潜力。工作包3:确定哪些因素与就业、缺勤、出勤(身体不适时工作)有关,并评估提供正式职业健康评估以改善工作绩效的可行性。工作包1:在干预组中对两种可选病例发现方法进行家庭水平随机比较的整群随机对照试验。工作包2:队列研究-焦点小组。工作包3:亚队列-可行性研究。英国西米德兰兹郡的初级保健设施。工作包1:54个全科诊所中有74 818名年龄在40-79岁之间、既往无慢性阻塞性肺病诊断的吸烟者。工作包2:来自71个诊所的741名既往诊断为慢性阻塞性肺疾病的患者和工作包1随机对照试验的参与者。26名患者参加了焦点小组。工作包3:职业亚队列,248名患者在基线时从事有偿工作。35名患者参加了职业健康干预可行性研究。工作包1:有针对性的病例发现-症状筛查问卷,机会性地或额外地通过邮寄方式进行,随后进行诊断性支气管扩张剂后肺活量测定。比较者为常规护理。工作包2:从文献和专家评论中选择的23个候选变量。工作包3:社会人口、临床和职业特征;职业健康评估和建议。工作包1:发病率(筛查发现的慢性阻塞性肺病)和病例发现的成本效益;大约4年后呼吸系统住院和死亡率筛查的有效性。工作包2:两年内呼吸道住院治疗,以及身体活动的障碍和促进因素。工作包3:工作业绩——职业健康干预和研究过程的可行性和可接受性。工作包1:目标病例发现导致1年以前未确诊的慢性阻塞性肺疾病的发生率高于常规护理[n = 1278 (4%) vs. n = 337 (1%)];调整优势比为7.45,95%置信区间为4.80至11.55],基于模型的定期筛查计划估计表明,每增加一个质量调整生命年,成本效益比增加16596英镑。然而,该试验的长期随访显示,在约4年时,没有明确的证据表明,与常规做法相比,病例发现在减少呼吸入院(校正风险比1.04,95%可信区间0.73至1.47)或死亡率(风险比1.15,95%可信区间0.82至1.61)方面有效。工作包2:招募了2305名患者,包括1564名先前诊断为慢性阻塞性肺病的患者和741名工作包1参与者(330名有梗阻,411名无梗阻)。确认气流阻塞的队列参与者(n = 1894)的BLISS预后模型包括23个候选变量中的6个(即年龄、慢性阻塞性肺疾病评估测试评分、12个月呼吸入院率、体重指数、糖尿病和1秒用力呼气量预测百分比)。经过内部验证和调整(均匀收缩因子0.87,95%置信区间0.72 ~ 1.02),该模型在预测2年呼吸道住院率方面具有良好的判别性(c统计量0.75,95%置信区间0.72 ~ 0.79)。在焦点小组中,体力活动参与与自我效能感和症状严重程度相关。工作包3:在职业亚队列中,呼吸困难增加和吸入刺激物暴露与基线时较低的工作效率相关。纵向上,加重和症状恶化,但气流阻塞没有减少,与旷工和出勤有关。
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
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
53 weeks
期刊最新文献
Collaborative care intervention for individuals with severe mental illness: the PARTNERS2 programme including complex intervention development and cluster RCT Developing primary care services for stroke survivors: the Improving Primary Care After Stroke (IPCAS) research programme Improving the understanding and management of back pain in older adults: the BOOST research programme including RCT and OPAL cohort A casemix classification for those receiving specialist palliative care during their last year of life across England: the C-CHANGE research programme Peer support for discharge from inpatient to community mental health care: the ENRICH research programme
×
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