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":"CAPTURE慢性阻塞性肺病筛查工具在美国初级保健中的影响:一项集群随机试验","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
理由:COPD筛查对美国初级保健临床医生行为和患者结局的影响尚不清楚。目的:评估接受CAPTURE(初级保健中COPD评估以识别未确诊的呼吸系统疾病和恶化风险)筛查评分对临床和患者结局的影响。方法:聚类随机试验包括49例常规护理(仅COPD教育)和51例干预(COPD和CAPTURE教育加筛查评分)初级保健实践。收集筛查评分升高或研究肺活量异常患者的12个月医疗记录和患者调查结果数据。测量和主要结果:在387例CAPTURE+患者中,常规护理和干预措施在主要综合结局方面无显著差异:1)肺活量测定转诊/完成,2)新的COPD诊断,3)新开的吸入长效呼吸药物,4)转诊到呼吸专科医生,或5)肺康复转诊/完成,45.9%对41.9% (+4.0%,95% CI -6.9, +15.0, p=0.47)。干预组只有肺活量计转诊/完成率更高(+10.4%,95% CI +0.1, +20.7, p = 0.0465)。次要结局、复合成分、COPD评估测试分数的变化、呼吸系统疾病发生率或住院率均无差异。对于1028例筛查阴性(CAPTURE-)患者,两组的综合主要和所有次要结局相似。在评估大流行潜在影响的二次分析和事后分析中,在大流行前阶段的CAPTURE+和CAPTURE-患者中,临床医生和患者结果的干预组差异在大流行期间有所减少。结论:在这些美国初级保健实践中,COPD和CAPTURE教育加上接受CAPTURE筛查评分并没有改变临床医生对CAPTURE+患者的COPD评估、护理或患者结局。然而,在大流行前,CAPTURE+患者更有可能完成肺活量测定转诊,而对于CAPTURE-患者,临床医生明显不太可能评估COPD,这表明干预导致更适当地使用医疗资源。
Impact of the CAPTURE COPD Screening Tool in US Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Trial.
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.