Antonio Anzueto, Mark Cohen, Andres L Echazarreta, Gehan Elassal, Irma Godoy, Rafael Paramo, Abdullah Sayiner, Carlos A Torres-Duque, Sudeep Acharya, Bhumika Aggarwal, Hakan Erkus, Gur Levy
{"title":"关于 GOLD 2023 建议在慢性阻塞性肺疾病管理中的临床应用的德尔菲共识：建议与临床实践的一致性如何？","authors":"Antonio Anzueto, Mark Cohen, Andres L Echazarreta, Gehan Elassal, Irma Godoy, Rafael Paramo, Abdullah Sayiner, Carlos A Torres-Duque, Sudeep Acharya, Bhumika Aggarwal, Hakan Erkus, Gur Levy","doi":"10.1007/s41030-023-00248-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The objective of this Delphi study was to understand and assess the level of consensus among respiratory experts on the clinical application of GOLD 2023 recommendations in management of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study comprised two online surveys and a participant meeting with 34 respiratory experts from 16 countries. Responses of 73 questions were recorded using a Likert scale ranging from 0 (disagreement) to 9 (agreement). The consensus threshold was 75%.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Survey 1 and survey 2 had 34 and 32 participants, respectively; and 25 attended the participant meeting. Consensus was reached on survey 1: 28/42; survey 2: 18/30 close-ended questions. A consensus was reached on the clinical relevance of most updates in definitions and diagnosis of COPD. Mixed results for the treatment recommendations by GOLD were noted: 74% agreed with the recommendation to initiate treatment with dual bronchodilators for group E patients; 63% agreed for including inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/long-acting β<sub>2</sub> agonist(LABA)/ Long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonists (LAMA) as a treatment option for GOLD B patients. Also, consensus lacked on removing ICS + LABA as an initial therapeutic option, in countries with challenges in access to other treatment option;. 88% agreed that they use GOLD recommendations in their daily clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This Delphi study demonstrated a high level of consensus regarding key concepts of GOLD 2023 report, with most participants favoring recent updates in definitions, diagnosis, management, and prevention of COPD. More evidence on the etiotype based management and treatment options for group B and E are required which could further strengthen clinical application of the GOLD report.</p>","PeriodicalId":20919,"journal":{"name":"Pulmonary Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10881920/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Delphi Consensus on Clinical Applications of GOLD 2023 Recommendations in COPD Management: How Aligned are Recommendations with Clinical Practice?\",\"authors\":\"Antonio Anzueto, Mark Cohen, Andres L Echazarreta, Gehan Elassal, Irma Godoy, Rafael Paramo, Abdullah Sayiner, Carlos A Torres-Duque, Sudeep Acharya, Bhumika Aggarwal, Hakan Erkus, Gur Levy\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s41030-023-00248-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The objective of this Delphi study was to understand and assess the level of consensus among respiratory experts on the clinical application of GOLD 2023 recommendations in management of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study comprised two online surveys and a participant meeting with 34 respiratory experts from 16 countries. Responses of 73 questions were recorded using a Likert scale ranging from 0 (disagreement) to 9 (agreement). The consensus threshold was 75%.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Survey 1 and survey 2 had 34 and 32 participants, respectively; and 25 attended the participant meeting. Consensus was reached on survey 1: 28/42; survey 2: 18/30 close-ended questions. A consensus was reached on the clinical relevance of most updates in definitions and diagnosis of COPD. Mixed results for the treatment recommendations by GOLD were noted: 74% agreed with the recommendation to initiate treatment with dual bronchodilators for group E patients; 63% agreed for including inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/long-acting β<sub>2</sub> agonist(LABA)/ Long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonists (LAMA) as a treatment option for GOLD B patients. Also, consensus lacked on removing ICS + LABA as an initial therapeutic option, in countries with challenges in access to other treatment option;. 88% agreed that they use GOLD recommendations in their daily clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This Delphi study demonstrated a high level of consensus regarding key concepts of GOLD 2023 report, with most participants favoring recent updates in definitions, diagnosis, management, and prevention of COPD. More evidence on the etiotype based management and treatment options for group B and E are required which could further strengthen clinical application of the GOLD report.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20919,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pulmonary Therapy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10881920/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pulmonary Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41030-023-00248-6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/12/19 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pulmonary Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41030-023-00248-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
简介：本德尔菲研究旨在了解和评估呼吸科专家对 GOLD 2023 建议在慢性阻塞性肺疾病（COPD）患者管理中的临床应用的共识程度：研究包括两项在线调查和一次与会者会议，共有来自 16 个国家的 34 位呼吸科专家参加。对 73 个问题的回答采用李克特量表进行记录，量表范围从 0（不同意）到 9（同意）。共识阈值为 75%：调查 1 和调查 2 分别有 34 人和 32 人参加；25 人出席了与会者会议。调查 1：28/42；调查 2：18/30 个封闭式问题达成了共识。对于慢性阻塞性肺病定义和诊断方面的大多数更新内容的临床相关性达成了共识。对于 GOLD 提出的治疗建议，结果不一：74%的人同意 E 组患者开始使用双支气管扩张剂治疗的建议；63%的人同意将吸入式皮质类固醇（ICS）/长效 β2受体激动剂（LABA）/长效毒蕈碱受体拮抗剂（LAMA）作为 GOLD B 组患者的治疗选择。此外，在难以获得其他治疗方案的国家，对于取消将 ICS + LABA 作为初始治疗方案缺乏共识。88%的人同意在日常临床实践中使用 GOLD 建议：这项德尔菲研究表明，人们对 GOLD 2023 报告的关键概念达成了高度共识，大多数参与者赞成最近在慢性阻塞性肺疾病的定义、诊断、管理和预防方面的更新。需要更多关于基于病因类型的管理和 B 组和 E 组治疗方案的证据，这将进一步加强 GOLD 报告的临床应用。
Delphi Consensus on Clinical Applications of GOLD 2023 Recommendations in COPD Management: How Aligned are Recommendations with Clinical Practice?
Introduction: The objective of this Delphi study was to understand and assess the level of consensus among respiratory experts on the clinical application of GOLD 2023 recommendations in management of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
Methods: The study comprised two online surveys and a participant meeting with 34 respiratory experts from 16 countries. Responses of 73 questions were recorded using a Likert scale ranging from 0 (disagreement) to 9 (agreement). The consensus threshold was 75%.
Results: Survey 1 and survey 2 had 34 and 32 participants, respectively; and 25 attended the participant meeting. Consensus was reached on survey 1: 28/42; survey 2: 18/30 close-ended questions. A consensus was reached on the clinical relevance of most updates in definitions and diagnosis of COPD. Mixed results for the treatment recommendations by GOLD were noted: 74% agreed with the recommendation to initiate treatment with dual bronchodilators for group E patients; 63% agreed for including inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/long-acting β2 agonist(LABA)/ Long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonists (LAMA) as a treatment option for GOLD B patients. Also, consensus lacked on removing ICS + LABA as an initial therapeutic option, in countries with challenges in access to other treatment option;. 88% agreed that they use GOLD recommendations in their daily clinical practice.
Conclusions: This Delphi study demonstrated a high level of consensus regarding key concepts of GOLD 2023 report, with most participants favoring recent updates in definitions, diagnosis, management, and prevention of COPD. More evidence on the etiotype based management and treatment options for group B and E are required which could further strengthen clinical application of the GOLD report.
期刊介绍：
Aims and Scope
Pulmonary Therapy is an international, open access, peer-reviewed (single-blind), and rapid publication journal. The scope of the journal is broad and will consider all scientifically sound research from pre-clinical, clinical (all phases), observational, real-world, and health outcomes research around the use of pulmonary therapies, devices, and surgical techniques.
Areas of focus include, but are not limited to: asthma; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis; pulmonary hypertension; cystic fibrosis; lung cancer; respiratory tract disorders; allergic rhinitis and other respiratory allergies; influenza, pneumococcal infection, respiratory syncytial virus and other respiratory infections; and inhalers and other device therapies.
The journal is of interest to a broad audience of pharmaceutical and healthcare professionals and publishes original research, reviews, case reports/series, trial protocols and short communications such as commentaries and editorials. Pulmonary Therapy will consider all scientifically sound research be it positive, confirmatory or negative data. Submissions are welcomed whether they relate to an international and/or a country-specific audience, something that is crucially important when researchers are trying to target more specific patient populations. This inclusive approach allows the journal to assist in the dissemination of quality research, which may be considered of insufficient interest by other journals.
Rapid Publication
The journal’s publication timelines aim for a rapid peer review of 2 weeks. If an article is accepted it will be published 3–4 weeks from acceptance. The rapid timelines are achieved through the combination of a dedicated in-house editorial team, who manage article workflow, and an extensive Editorial and Advisory Board who assist with peer review. This allows the journal to support the rapid dissemination of research, whilst still providing robust peer review. Combined with the journal’s open access model this allows for the rapid, efficient communication of the latest research and reviews, fostering the advancement of pulmonary therapies.
Open Access
All articles published by Pulmonary Therapy are open access.
Personal Service
The journal’s dedicated in-house editorial team offer a personal “concierge service” meaning authors will always have an editorial contact able to update them on the status of their manuscript. The editorial team check all manuscripts to ensure that articles conform to the most recent COPE, GPP and ICMJE publishing guidelines. This supports the publication of ethically sound and transparent research.
Digital Features and Plain Language Summaries
Pulmonary Therapy offers a range of additional features designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. Each article is accompanied by key summary points, giving a time-efficient overview of the content to a wide readership. Articles may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand the scientific content and overall implications of the article. The journal also provides the option to include various types of digital features including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations. All additional features are peer reviewed to the same high standard as the article itself. If you consider that your paper would benefit from the inclusion of a digital feature, please let us know. Our editorial team are able to create high-quality slide decks and infographics in-house, and video abstracts through our partner Research Square, and would be happy to assist in any way we can. For further information about digital features, please contact the journal editor (see ‘Contact the Journal’ for email address), and see the ‘Guidelines for digital features and plain language summaries’ document under ‘Submission guidelines’.
For examples of digital features please visit our showcase page https://springerhealthcare.com/expertise/publishing-digital-features/
Publication Fees
Upon acceptance of an article, authors will be required to pay the mandatory Rapid Service Fee of €4500/ $5100/ £3650. The journal will consider fee discounts and waivers for developing countries and this is decided on a case by case basis.
Peer Review Process
Upon submission, manuscripts are assessed by the editorial team to ensure they fit within the aims and scope of the journal and are also checked for plagiarism. All suitable submissions are then subject to a comprehensive single-blind peer review. Reviewers are selected based on their relevant expertise and publication history in the subject area. The journal has an extensive pool of editorial and advisory board members who have been selected to assist with peer review based on the afore-mentioned criteria.
At least two extensive reviews are required to make the editorial decision, with the exception of some article types such as Commentaries, Editorials, and Letters which are generally reviewed by one member of the Editorial Board. Where reviewer recommendations are conflicted, the editorial board will be contacted for further advice and a presiding decision. Manuscripts are then either accepted, rejected or authors are required to make major or minor revisions (both reviewer comments and editorial comments may need to be addressed). Once a revised manuscript is re-submitted, it is assessed along with the responses to reviewer comments and if it has been adequately revised it will be accepted for publication. Accepted manuscripts are then copyedited and typeset by the production team before online publication. Appeals against decisions following peer review are considered on a case-by-case basis and should be sent to the journal editor.
Preprints
We encourage posting of preprints of primary research manuscripts on preprint servers, authors’ or institutional websites, and open communications between researchers whether on community preprint servers or preprint commenting platforms. Posting of preprints is not considered prior publication and will not jeopardize consideration in our journals. Authors should disclose details of preprint posting during the submission process or at any other point during consideration in one of our journals. Once the manuscript is published, it is the author’s responsibility to ensure that the preprint record is updated with a publication reference, including the DOI and a URL link to the published version of the article on the journal website.
Please follow the link for further information on preprint sharing:
https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/journal-author/journal-author-helpdesk/submission/1302#c16721550
Copyright
Pulmonary Therapy''s content is published open access under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License, which allows users to read, copy, distribute, and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited. The author assigns the exclusive right to any commercial use of the article to Springer. For more information about the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License, click here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0.
Contact
For more information about the journal, including pre-submission enquiries, please contact christopher.vautrinot@springer.com.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
