Search

Background: Often patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) receive poor quality care with limited access to pulmonologists. We tested a novel intervention, INtegrating Care After Exacerbation of COPD (InCasE), that improved patient outcomes after hospitalization for COPD. InCasE used population-based identification of patients for proactive e-consultation by pulmonologists, and tailored recommendations with pre-populated orders timed to follow-up with primary care providers (PCPs). Although adoption by PCPs was high, we do not know how PCPs experienced the intervention. Objective: Our objective was to assess PCPs’ experience with proactive pulmonary e-consults after hospitalization for COPD. Methods: We conducted a convergent mixed methods study among study PCPs at 2 medical centers and 10 outpatient clinics. PCPs underwent semi-structured interviews and surveys. We performed descriptive analyses on quantitative data and inductive and deductive coding based on prespecified themes of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility for qualitative data. Key Results: We conducted 10 interviews and 37 PCPs completed surveys. PCPs perceived InCasE to be acceptable and feasible. Facilitators included the proactive consult approach to patient identification and order entry. PCPs also noted the intervention was respectful and collegial. PCPs had concerns regarding appropriateness related to an unclear role in communicating recommendations to patients. PCPs also noted a potential decrease in autonomy if overused. Conclusion: This evaluation indicates that a proactive e-consult intervention can be deployed to collaboratively manage the health of populations with COPD in a way that is acceptable, appropriate, and feasible for primary care. Lessons learned from this study suggest the intervention may be transferable to other settings and specialties.

Respiratory conditions account for a large proportion of health care spending in the United States (US). A full characterization of spending across multiple conditions and over time has not been performed.To estimate US health care spending for 11 respiratory conditions from 1996-2016, providing detailed trends and an evaluation of factors associated with spending growth.We extracted data from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation's Disease Expenditure Project Database, producing annual estimates in spending for 38 age and sex groups, 7 types of care, and 3 payer types. We performed a decomposition analysis to estimate the change in spending that is associated with changes in each of five factors (population growth, population aging, disease prevalence, service utilization, and service price and intensity).Total spending across all respiratory conditions in 2016 was $170.8 billion (95% CI $164.2-$179.2 billion), increasing by $71.7 billion (95% CI $63.2-$80.8 billion) from 1996. The respiratory conditions with the highest spending in 2016 were asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), contributing $35.5 billion (95% CI $32.4-$38.2 billion) and $34.3 billion (95% CI $31.5-$37.3 billion), respectively. Increasing service price and intensity were associated with 81.4% (95% CI 70.3-93.0%) growth from 1996 to 2016.US spending on respiratory conditions is high, particularly for chronic conditions like asthma and COPD. Our findings suggest that service price and intensity, particularly for pharmaceuticals, should be a key focus of attention for policy makers seeking to reduce health care spending growth. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

BACKGROUND: Implementation of effective smoking cessation interventions in lung cancer screening has been identified as a high-priority research gap, but knowledge of current practices to guide process improvement is limited due to the slow uptake of screening and dearth of data to assess cessation-related practices and outcomes under real-world conditions. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate cessation treatment receipt and 1-year post-screening cessation outcomes within the largest integrated healthcare system in the USA—the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Design Observational study using administrative data from electronic medical records (EMR). Patients Currently smoking Veterans who received a first lung cancer screening test using low-dose CT (LDCT) between January 2014 and June 2018. Main Outcomes Tobacco treatment received within the window of 30 days before and 30 days after LDCT; 1-year quit rates based on EMR Smoking Health Factors data 6–18 months after LDCT. Key Results Of the 47,609 current smokers screened (95.3% male), 8702 (18.3%) received pharmacotherapy and/or behavioral treatment for smoking cessation; 531 (1.1%) received both. Of those receiving pharmacotherapy, only one in four received one of the most effective medications: varenicline (12.1%) or combination nicotine replacement therapy (14.3%). Overall, 5400 Veterans quit smoking—a rate of 11.3% (missing=smoking) or 13.5% (complete case analysis). Treatment receipt and cessation were associated with numerous sociodemographic, clinical, and screening-related factors. CONCLUSIONS: One-year quit rates for Veterans receiving lung cancer screening in VHA are similar to those reported in LDCT clinical trials and cohort studies (i.e., 10–17%). Only 1% of Veterans received the recommended combination of pharmacotherapy and counseling, and the most effective pharmacotherapies were not the most commonly received ones. The value of screening within VHA could be improved by addressing these treatment gaps, as well as the observed disparities in treatment receipt or cessation by race, rurality, and psychiatric conditions. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-07011-0.

The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) was developed and implemented by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to curb the rate of 30-day hospital readmissions for certain common, high-impact conditions. In October 2014, COPD became a target condition for which hospitals were penalized for excess readmissions. The appropriateness, utility, and potential unintended consequences of the metric have been a topic of debate since it was first enacted. Nevertheless, there is evidence that hospital policies broadly implemented in response to the HRRP may have been responsible for reducing the rate of readmissions following COPD hospitalizations even before it was added as a target condition. Since the addition of the COPD condition to the HRRP, several predictive models have been developed to predict COPD survival and readmissions, with the intention of identifying modifiable risk factors. A number of interventions have also been studied, with mixed results. Bundled care interventions using the electronic health record and patient education interventions for inhaler education have been shown to reduce readmissions, whereas pulmonary rehabilitation, follow-up visits, and self-management programs have not been consistently shown to do the same. Through this program, COPD has become recognized as a public health priority. However, 5 years after COPD became a target condition for HRRP, there continues to be no single intervention that reliably prevents readmissions in this patient population. Further research is needed to understand the long-term effects of the policy, the role of competing risks in measuring quality, the optimal postdischarge care for patients with COPD, and the integrated use of predictive modeling and advanced technologies to prevent COPD readmissions.

Rationale: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and anxiety or depression experience more symptoms and exacerbations than patients without these comorbidities. Failure to provide beneficial COPD therapies to appropriate patients (underuse) and provision of potentially harmful therapies to patients without an appropriate indication (overuse) could contribute to respiratory symptoms and exacerbations. Anxiety and depression are known to affect the provision of health services for other comorbid conditions; therefore, underuse or overuse of therapies may explain the increased risk of severe symptoms among these patients. Objectives: To determine whether diagnosed anxiety and depression, as well as significant anxiety and depression symptoms, are associated with underuse and overuse of appropriate COPD therapies. Methods: We analyzed data from a multicenter prospective cohort study of 2,376 participants (smokers and control subjects) enrolled between 2010 and 2015. We identified two subgroups of participants, one at risk for inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) overuse and one at risk for long-acting bronchodilator (LABD) underuse based on the 2011 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease statement. Our primary outcomes were self-reported overuse and underuse. Our primary exposures of interest were self-reported anxiety and depression and significant anxiety and depression symptoms. We adopted a propensity-score method with inverse probability of treatment weighting adjusting for differences in prevalence of confounders and performed inverse probability of treatment weighting logistic regression to evaluate all associations between the exposures and outcomes. Results: Among the 1,783 study participants with COPD confirmed by spirometry, 667 (37.4%) did not have an indication for ICS use, whereas 985 (55.2%) had an indication for LABD use. Twenty-five percent (n = 167) of patients reported ICS use, and 72% (n = 709) denied LABD use in each subgroup, respectively. Neither self-reported anxiety and depression nor significant anxiety and depression symptoms were associated with overuse or underuse. At least 50% of patients in both subgroups with significant symptoms of anxiety or depression did not report a preexisting mental health diagnosis. Conclusions: Underuse of LABDs and overuse of ICSs are common but are not associated with comorbid anxiety or depression diagnosis or symptoms. Approximately one-third of individuals with COPD experience anxiety or depression, and most are undiagnosed. There are significant opportunities to improve disease-specific and patient-centered treatment for individuals with COPD.

Rationale: Hypoxemia associated with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often resolves with time. Current guidelines recommend that patients recently discharged with supplemental home oxygen after hospitalization should not have renewal of the prescription without assessment for hypoxemia. Understanding patterns of home oxygen reassessment is an opportunity to improve quality and value in home oxygen prescribing and may provide future targets for deimplementation. Objectives: We sought to measure the frequency of home oxygen reassessment within 90 days of hospitalization for COPD and determine the potential population eligible for deimplementation. Methods: We performed a cohort study of patients ≥40 years hospitalized for COPD at five Veterans Affairs facilities who were prescribed home oxygen at discharge. Our primary outcome was the frequency of reassessment within 90 days by oxygen saturation (Sp(O(2))) measurement. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients potentially eligible for discontinuation (Sp(O(2)) > 88%) and patients in whom oxygen was discontinued. Our primary exposures were treatment with long-acting bronchodilators, prior history of COPD exacerbation, smoking status, and pulmonary hypertension. We used a mixed-effects Poisson model to measure the association between patient-level variables and our outcome, clustered by site. We also performed a positive deviant analysis using chart review to uncover system processes associated with high-quality oxygen prescribing. Results: A total of 287 of 659 (43.6%; range 24.8–78.5% by site) patients had complete reassessment within 90 days. None of our patient-level exposures were associated with oxygen reassessment. Nearly half of those with complete reassessment were eligible for discontinuation on the basis of Medicare guidelines (43.2%; n = 124/287). When using the newest evidence available by the Long-Term Oxygen Treatment Trial, most of the cohort did not have resting hypoxemia (84.3%; 393/466) and would be eligible for discontinuation. The highest-performing Veterans Affairs facility had four care processes to support oxygen reassessment and discontinuation, versus zero to one at all other sites. Conclusions: Fewer than half of patients prescribed home oxygen after a COPD exacerbation are reassessed within 90 days. New system processes supporting timely reassessment and discontinuation of unnecessary home oxygen therapy could improve the quality and value of care.

Objectives The relationship between marijuana use and markers of chronic lung disease in people living with HIV (PLWH) is poorly understood. Methods We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the Examinations of HIV-Associated Lung Emphysema (EXHALE) study, including 162 HIV-positive patients and 138 participants without HIV. We modelled marijuana exposure as: (i) current daily or weekly marijuana smoking vs. monthly or less often; or (ii) cumulative marijuana smoking (joint-years). Linear and logistic regression estimated associations between marijuana exposure and markers of lung disease, adjusted for tobacco smoking and other factors. Results In PLWH, current daily or weekly marijuana use was associated with a larger forced vital capacity (FVC), larger total lung capacity and increased odds of radiographic emphysema compared with marijuana non-smokers in adjusted models; these associations were not statistically significant in participants without HIV. Marijuana joint-years were associated with higher forced expiratory volume in 1 s and FVC in PLWH but not with emphysema. Conclusions In PLWH, marijuana smoking was associated with higher lung volumes and potentially with radiographic emphysema. No consistently negative associations were observed between marijuana and measures of chronic lung health.

Background Although inhaled therapy reduces exacerbations among patients with COPD, the effectiveness of providing inhaled treatment per risk stratification models remains unclear. Research Question Are inhaled regimens that align with the 2017 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) strategy associated with clinically important outcomes? Study Design and Methods We conducted secondary analyses of Long-term Oxygen Treatment Trial (LOTT) data. The trial enrolled patients with COPD with moderate resting or exertional hypoxemia between 2009 and 2015. Our exposure was the patient-reported inhaled regimen at enrollment, categorized as either aligning with, undertreating, or potentially overtreating per the 2017 GOLD strategy. Our primary composite outcome was time to death or first hospitalization for COPD. Additional outcomes included individual components of the composite outcome and time to first exacerbation. We generated multivariable Cox proportional hazard models across strata of GOLD-predicted exacerbation risk (high vs low) to estimate between-group hazard ratios for time to event outcomes. We adjusted models a priori for potential confounders, clustered by site. Results The trial enrolled 738 patients (73.4% men; mean age, 68.8 years). Of the patients, 571 (77.4%) were low risk for future exacerbations. Of the patients, 233 (31.6%) reported regimens aligning with GOLD recommendations; most regimens (54.1%) potentially overtreated. During a 2.3-year median follow-up, 332 patients (44.9%) experienced the composite outcome. We found no difference in time to composite outcome or death among patients reporting regimens aligning with recommendations compared with undertreated patients. Among patients at low risk, potential overtreatment was associated with higher exacerbation risk (hazard ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.09-1.87), whereas inhaled corticosteroid treatment was associated with 64% higher risk of pneumonia (incidence rate ratio, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.01-2.66). Interpretation Among patients with COPD with moderate hypoxemia, we found no difference in clinical outcomes between inhaled regimens aligning with the 2017 GOLD strategy compared with those that were undertreated. These findings suggest the need to reevaluate the effectiveness of risk stratification model-based inhaled treatment strategies.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Incorporating registered nurses (RN-level) into obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) management decisions has the potential to augment the workforce and improve patient access, but the appropriateness of such task-shifting in typical practice is unclear. METHODS: Our medical center piloted a nurse triage program for sleep medicine referrals. Using a sleep specialist-designed decision-making tool, nurses triaged patients referred for initial sleep studies to either home sleep apnea test (HSAT) or in-laboratory polysomnography (PSG). During the first 5 months of the program, specialists reviewed all nurse triages. We compared agreement between specialists and nurses. RESULTS: Of 280 consultations triaged by nurses, nurses deferred management decisions to sleep specialists in 6.1% (n = 17) of cases. Of the remaining 263 cases, there was 88% agreement between nurses and specialists (kappa 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.74–0.87). In the 8.8% (n = 23) of cases where supervising specialists changed sleep study type, specialists changed from HSAT to PSG in 16 cases and from PSG to HSAT in 7. The most common indication for change in sleep study type was disagreement regarding OSA pretest probability (n = 14 of 23). Specialists changed test instructions in 3.0% (n = 8) of cases, with changes either related to the use of transcutaneous carbon dioxide monitoring (n = 4) or adaptive servo-ventilation (n = 4). CONCLUSIONS: More than 80% of sleep study triages by registered nurses in a supervised setting required no sleep specialist intervention. Future research should focus on how to integrate nurses into the sleep medicine workforce in a manner that maximizes efficiency while preserving or improving patient outcomes. CITATION: Donovan LM, Fernandes LA, Williams KM, et al. Agreement of sleep specialists with registered nurses’ sleep study orders in supervised clinical practice. J Clin Sleep Med. 2020;16(2):279–283.

In-person visits with a trained therapist have been standard care for patients initiating continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). These visits provide an opportunity for hands-on training and an in-person assessment of mask fit. However, to improve access, many health systems are shifting to remote CPAP initiation with equipment mailed to patients. While there are potential benefits of a mailed approach, relative patient outcomes are unclear. Specifically, many have concerns that a lack of in-person training may contribute to reduced CPAP adherence. To inform this knowledge gap, we aimed to compare treatment usage after in-person or mailed CPAP initiation.Our medical center shifted from in-person to mailed CPAP dispensation in March 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. We assembled a cohort of patients with newly diagnosed obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) who initiated CPAP in the months before (n = 433) and after (n = 186) this shift. We compared 90-day adherence between groups.Mean nightly PAP usage was modest in both groups (in-person 145.2, mailed 140.6 min/night). We did not detect between-group differences in either unadjusted or adjusted analyses (adjusted difference - 0.2 min/night, 95% - 27.0 to + 26.5).Mail-based systems of CPAP initiation may be able to improve access without reducing CPAP usage. Future work should consider the impact of mailed CPAP on patient-reported outcomes and the impact of different remote setup strategies.

Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use among patients with COPD increases the risk of pneumonia and other complications. Current recommendations limit ICS use to patients with frequent or severe COPD exacerbations. However, use of ICS among patients with COPD is common and may be occurring both among those with mild disease (overuse) and those misdiagnosed with COPD (misuse). To identify patients without identifiable indication for ICS and assess patient and provider characteristics associated with potentially inappropriate to targeted in de-implementation efforts We performed a cross-sectional study of patients with COPD in the Veterans Affairs (VA) system with recent spirometry. After setting an index date, we identified individuals with a clinical diagnosis of COPD who had spirometry completed in the prior 5 years. We excluded individuals with an appropriate indication for ICS based on the 2017 GOLD statement, including asthma and a recent history of frequent or severe exacerbations. ICS use without identifiable indication We identified 26,536 patients with COPD without an identifiable indication for ICS. Nearly ¼ of patients (n = 6330) filled ≥2 prescriptions for ICS in the year prior to the index date. We found that older age (adjusted prevalence ratio [APR] 1.06 per decade, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04–1.08), white race (APR 1.11, 95% CI 1.05–1.19), and more primary care visits (APR 1.05 per visit, 95% CI 1.03–1.07) were associated with increased likelihood of potentially inappropriate use. Primary care clinic complexity and provider training were not associated with ICS use. Among patients misdiagnosed with COPD, we found that 14% used ICS. Potentially inappropriate ICS use is common among patients with and without airflow obstruction who are diagnosed with COPD. We identified patient comorbidities and patterns of healthcare utilization that increase the likelihood of ICS use that could be targeted for system-level de-implementation interventions.

Rationale: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are not first-line therapy for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at low risk of exacerbations, but they are commonly prescribed despite evidence of harm. We consider ICS prescription in this population to be of “low value.” The association of low-value ICS with subsequent healthcare utilization and costs is unknown. Understanding this relationship could inform efforts to reduce the delivery of low-value care. Objectives: To determine whether low-value ICS prescribing is associated with higher outpatient healthcare utilization and costs among patients with COPD who are at low risk of exacerbation. Methods: We performed a cohort study between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2018, identifying a cohort of veterans with COPD who performed pulmonary function tests (PFTs) at 21 Veterans Affairs medical centers nationwide. Patients were defined as having low exacerbation risk if they experienced less than two outpatient exacerbations and no hospital admissions for COPD in the year before PFTs. Our primary exposure was the receipt of an ICS prescription in the 3 months before the date of PFTs. Our primary outcomes were outpatient utilization and outpatient costs in the 1 year after PFTs. For inference, we generated negative binomial models for utilization and generalized linear models for costs, adjusting for confounders. Results: We identified a total of 31,551 patients with COPD who were at low risk of exacerbation. Of these patients, 9,742 were prescribed low-value ICS (mean [standard deviation (SD)] age, 69 [9] yr), and 21,809 were not prescribed low-value ICS (mean [SD] age, 68 [9] yr). Compared with unexposed patients, those exposed to low-value ICS had 0.53 more encounters per patient per year (95% confidence interval CI, 0.23–0.83) and incurred $154.72 higher costs/patient/year (95% CI, $45.58–$263.86). Conclusions: Low-value ICS prescription was associated with higher subsequent outpatient healthcare utilization and costs. Potential mechanisms for the observed association are that 1) low-value ICS may be a marker of poor respiratory symptom control, 2) there is confounding by indication, or 3) low-value ICS results in increased drug costs or utilization. Health systems should identify low-value ICS prescriptions as a target to improve value-based care.

BackgroundAlthough inhaled therapy reduces exacerbations among patients with COPD, the effectiveness of providing inhaled treatment per risk stratification models remains unclear.Research questionAre inhaled regimens that align with the 2017 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) strategy associated with clinically important outcomes?Study design and methodsWe conducted secondary analyses of Long-term Oxygen Treatment Trial (LOTT) data. The trial enrolled patients with COPD with moderate resting or exertional hypoxemia between 2009 and 2015. Our exposure was the patient-reported inhaled regimen at enrollment, categorized as either aligning with, undertreating, or potentially overtreating per the 2017 GOLD strategy. Our primary composite outcome was time to death or first hospitalization for COPD. Additional outcomes included individual components of the composite outcome and time to first exacerbation. We generated multivariable Cox proportional hazard models across strata of GOLD-predicted exacerbation risk (high vslow) to estimate between-group hazard ratios for time to event outcomes. We adjusted models a priori for potential confounders, clustered by site.ResultsThe trial enrolled 738 patients (73.4%men; mean age, 68.8 years). Of the patients, 571 (77.4%) were low risk for future exacerbations. Of the patients, 233 (31.6%) reported regimens aligning with GOLD recommendations; most regimens (54.1%) potentially overtreated. During a 2.3-year median follow-up, 332 patients (44.9%) experienced the composite outcome. We found no difference in time to composite outcome or death among patients reporting regimens aligning with recommendations compared with undertreated patients. Among patients at low risk, potential overtreatment was associated with higher exacerbation risk (hazard ratio, 1.42; 95%CI, 1.09-1.87), whereas inhaled corticosteroid treatment was associated with 64%higher risk of pneumonia (incidence rate ratio, 1.64; 95%CI, 1.01-2.66).InterpretationAmong patients with COPD with moderate hypoxemia, we found no difference in clinical outcomes between inhaled regimens aligning with the 2017 GOLD strategy compared with those that were undertreated. These findings suggest the need to reevaluate the effectiveness of risk stratification model-based inhaled treatment strategies.

BackgroundThe volume of specialty care referrals often outstrips specialists’ capacity. The Department of Veterans Affairs launched a system of referral coordination to augment our workforce, empowering registered nurses to use decision support tools to triage specialty referrals. While task shifting may improve access, there is limited evidence regarding the relative quality of nurses’ triage decisions to ensure such management is safe.ObjectiveWithin the specialty of sleep medicine, we compared receipt of contraindicated testing for obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) between patients triaged to sleep testing by nurses in the referral coordination system (RCS) relative to our traditional specialist-led system (TSS).MethodsPatients referred for OSA evaluation can be triaged to either home sleep apnoea testing (HSAT) or polysomnography, and existing guidelines specify patients for whom HSAT is contraindicated. In RCS, nurses used a decision support tool to make triage decisions for sleep testing but were instructed to seek specialist oversight in complex cases. In TSS, specialists made triage decisions themselves. We performed a single-centre retrospective cohort study of patients without OSA who were referred to sleep testing between September 2018 and August 2019. Patients were assigned to triage by RCS or TSS in quasirandom fashion based on triager availability at time of referral. We compared receipt of contraindicated sleep tests between groups using a generalised linear model adjusted for day of the week and time of day of referral.ResultsRCS triaged 793 referrals for OSA evaluation relative to 1787 by TSS. Patients with RCS triages were at lower risk of receiving potentially contraindicated sleep tests relative risk 0.52 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.93).ConclusionOur results suggest that incorporating registered nurses into triage decision-making may improve the quality of diagnostic care for OSA.

The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) was developed and implemented by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to curb the rate of 30-day hospital readmissions for certain common, high-impact conditions. In October 2014, COPD became a target condition for which hospitals were penalized for excess readmissions. The appropriateness, utility, and potential unintended consequences of the metric have been a topic of debate since it was first enacted. Nevertheless, there is evidence that hospital policies broadly implemented in response to the HRRP may have been responsible for reducing the rate of readmissions following COPD hospitalizations even before it was added as a target condition. Since the addition of the COPD condition to the HRRP, several predictive models have been developed to predict COPD survival and readmissions, with the intention of identifying modifiable risk factors. A number of interventions have also been studied, with mixed results. Bundled care interventions using the electronic health record and patient education interventions for inhaler education have been shown to reduce readmissions, whereas pulmonary rehabilitation, follow-up visits, and self-management programs have not been consistently shown to do the same. Through this program, COPD has become recognized as a public health priority. However, 5 years after COPD became a target condition for HRRP, there continues to be no single intervention that reliably prevents readmissions in this patient population. Further research is needed to understand the long-term effects of the policy, the role of competing risks in measuring quality, the optimal postdischarge care for patients with COPD, and the integrated use of predictive modeling and advanced technologies to prevent COPD readmissions.

Evaluate consequences of intermediate to high risk of undiagnosed obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) among individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).Using data from the Long Term Oxygen Treatment Trial (LOTT), we assessed OSA risk at study entry among patients with COPD. We compared outcomes among those at intermediate to high risk (modified STOP-BANG score ≥ 3) relative to low risk (score3) for OSA. We compared risk of mortality or first hospitalization with proportional hazard models, and incidence of COPD exacerbations using negative binomial regression. We adjusted analyses for demographics, body mass index, and comorbidities. Last, we compared St. George Respiratory Questionnaire and Quality of Well-Being Scale results between OSA risk groups.Of the 222 participants studied, 164 (74%) were at intermediate to high risk for OSA based on the modified STOP-BANG score. Relative to the 58 low-risk individuals, the adjusted hazard ratio of mortality or first hospitalization was 1.61 (95% confidence interval 1.01-2.58) for those at intermediate to high risk of OSA. Risk for OSA was also associated with increased frequency of COPD exacerbations (adjusted incidence rate ratio: 1.78, 95% confidence interval 1.10-2.89). Respiratory symptoms by St. George Respiratory Questionnaire were 5.5 points greater (Among individuals with COPD, greater risk for undiagnosed OSA is associated with poor outcomes. Increased recognition and management of OSA in this group could improve outcomes.

Benzodiazepines are associated with mortality and poor outcomes among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but use of benzodiazepines for dyspnea among patients with end-stage disease may confound this relationship.Assess the mortality risks of long-term benzodiazepine exposure among patients with COPD and comorbid post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), patients with chronic nonrespiratory indications for benzodiazepines.We identified all patients with COPD and PTSD within the Veteran's Health Administration between 2010 and 2012. We calculated propensity scores for benzodiazepine use and compared overall and cause-specific mortality of patients with long-term (≥90 d) benzodiazepine use relative to matched patients without use. Secondary analyses assessed propensity-adjusted survival by characteristics of benzodiazepine exposure.Among 44,555 eligible patients with COPD and PTSD, 23.6% received benzodiazepines long term. In the matched sample of 19,552 patients, we observed no mortality difference (hazard ratio [HR] for long-term use, 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95-1.18) but greater risk of death by suicide among those with long-term use (HR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.14-4.79). Among matched and unmatched patients, short-term benzodiazepine use, but not long-term use, was associated with increased mortality (short-term: HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.05-1.28; long-term: HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.94-1.13).Risks for respiratory compromise related to long-term benzodiazepine use in COPD may be less than previously estimated, but short-term use of benzodiazepines could still pose a mortality risk. Suicide associated with benzodiazepine use in this population warrants further investigation.

Quality of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) care is thought to be an important intermediate process to improve the well-being of patients admitted to hospital for exacerbation. We sought to examine the quality of inpatient COPD care and the associations with readmission and mortality. We performed a cohort study of 2,364 veterans aged over 40 and hospitalized for COPD between 2005 and 2011 at five Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals. We examined whether patients received six guideline recommended care items including short-acting bronchodilators, corticosteroids, antibiotics, positive-pressure ventilation (in cases of acute hypercarbic respiratory failure), chest imaging, and arterial blood gas measurement. Our primary outcome was all-cause hospital readmission or death within 30 days. Overall quality of care was not significantly associated with readmission or death (acute care aOR 0.98; 95% CI 0.87-1.11; ICU aOR 0.89; 95% CI 0.71-1.13). Delivery of corticosteroids and antibiotics was associated with reduced odds of readmission and death (aOR 0.77; 95% CI 0.61-0.92). Few patients received all of the recommended care items (18% of acute care, 38% of ICU patients). Quality of care did not vary by race or sex but did vary significantly across sites and did not improve over time. Our composite measure of COPD care quality was not associated with readmission or death. Further efforts are needed to improve care delivery to patients hospitalized with COPD.

Rationale: Hospital readmissions are an important cause of morbidity and mortality among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Although comorbidities are associated with outcomes in COPD, it is unknown how they affect treatment choices. Objectives: We sought to examine whether comorbidity was associated with readmission, mortality, and delivery of in-hospital treatment for COPD exacerbations. Methods: We performed a cohort study of veterans hospitalized with a COPD exacerbation to six Veterans Affairs hospitals between 2005 and 2011. We collected comorbidities in the year before hospitalization. We defined our primary outcome as readmission and/or mortality within 30 days of discharge, and treatment quality as receipt of systemic corticosteroids and respiratory antibiotics during the index hospitalization. Results: A total of 2,391 patients were included. Each one-point increase in Charlson index was associated with greater odds of readmission or death (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18–1.30) and reduced odds of receiving treatment with steroids and antibiotics (aOR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.85–0.95), in adjusted analyses. Patients with comorbid congestive heart failure (aOR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52–0.79), coronary artery disease (aOR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.60–0.89), and chronic kidney disease (aOR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.55–0.99) were less likely to receive corticosteroids and antibiotic treatment than patients without those comorbidities. We did not identify any comorbidity that was associated with increased odds of receiving appropriate therapies. Conclusions: Comorbidity was associated with 30-day readmission and mortality, and with delivery of fewer treatments known to be beneficial among patients with COPD exacerbation.

Patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) represents a paradigm shift in research methods aimed to create the body of evidence that supports clinical practice and informs health care decisions. PCOR integrates patients and other key stakeholders including family members, policy makers, clinicians, and patient advocates and advocacy groups as research partners throughout all stages of the research process. The importance of PCOR has received increased recognition, yet there is little evidence available to help guide researchers interested in the design and conduct of PCOR. In May 2014, we convened a workshop to identify key issues related to designing, conducting, and disseminating findings from PCOR studies. Workshop participants included a diverse group of patients, patient advocates, clinicians (physicians, nurses, psychologists, and advanced practice providers), researchers, administrators, and funders within and beyond the pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine communities. Participants identified important issues and considerations to address when undertaking PCOR. In this report, we summarize the results of this workshop to inform members of the pulmonary, sleep, and critical care community interested in participating in PCOR. Key findings include the following: 1) requirements for research to be considered PCOR; 2) the potential significant impact of PCOR on patients, clinicians, and researchers; 3) guiding principles and practical strategies to form successful patient-centered research partnerships, conduct PCOR, and disseminate study results to a broad audience of stakeholders; 4) benefits and challenges of PCOR for researchers; and 5) resources available within the American Thoracic Society to help with the conduct of PCOR.

Introduction: Many barriers exist to integrating smoking cessation into delivery of lung cancer screening including limited provider time and patient misconceptions.Aims: To demonstrate that proactive outreach from a telephone counsellor outside of the patient's usual care team is feasible and acceptable to patients.Methods: Smokers undergoing lung cancer screening were approached for a telephone counselling study. Patients agreeing to participate in the intervention (n = 27) received two telephone counselling sessions. A 30-day follow-up evaluation was conducted, which also included screening participants receiving usual care (n = 56).Results/Findings: Most (89%) intervention participants reported being satisfied with the proactive calls, and 81% reported the sessions were helpful. Use of behavioural cessation support programs in the intervention group was four times higher (44%) compared to the usual care group (11%); Relative Risk (RR) = 4.1; 95% CI: 1.7 to 9.9), and seven-day abstinence in the intervention group was double (19%) compared to the usual care group (7%); RR = 2.6; 95% CI: 0.8 to 8.9).Conclusions: This practical telephone-based approach, which included risk messages clarifying continued risks of smoking in the context of screening results, suggests such messaging can boost utilisation of evidence-based tobacco treatment, self-efficacy, and potentially increase the likelihood of successful quitting.

Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use among patients with COPD increases the risk of pneumonia and other complications. Current recommendations limit ICS use to patients with frequent or severe COPD exacerbations. However, use of ICS among patients with COPD is common and may be occurring both among those with mild disease (overuse) and those misdiagnosed with COPD (misuse).To identify patients without identifiable indication for ICS and assess patient and provider characteristics associated with potentially inappropriate to targeted in de-implementation efforts DESIGN: We performed a cross-sectional study of patients with COPD in the Veterans Affairs (VA) system with recent spirometry.After setting an index date, we identified individuals with a clinical diagnosis of COPD who had spirometry completed in the prior 5 years. We excluded individuals with an appropriate indication for ICS based on the 2017 GOLD statement, including asthma and a recent history of frequent or severe exacerbations.ICS use without identifiable indication KEY RESULTS: We identified 26,536 patients with COPD without an identifiable indication for ICS. Nearly ¼ of patients (n = 6330) filled ≥2 prescriptions for ICS in the year prior to the index date. We found that older age (adjusted prevalence ratio [APR] 1.06 per decade, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.08), white race (APR 1.11, 95% CI 1.05-1.19), and more primary care visits (APR 1.05 per visit, 95% CI 1.03-1.07) were associated with increased likelihood of potentially inappropriate use. Primary care clinic complexity and provider training were not associated with ICS use. Among patients misdiagnosed with COPD, we found that 14% used ICS.Potentially inappropriate ICS use is common among patients with and without airflow obstruction who are diagnosed with COPD. We identified patient comorbidities and patterns of healthcare utilization that increase the likelihood of ICS use that could be targeted for system-level de-implementation interventions.

Many smokers admitted for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are not given smoking cessation medications at discharge. The reasons behind this are unclear, and may reflect an interplay of patient characteristics, health disparities, and the receipt of inpatient tobacco control processes. We aimed to assess potential disparities in treatment for tobacco use following discharge for COPD, examined in the context of inpatient tobacco control processes. Smokers aged ≥ 40 years, admitted for treatment of a COPD exacerbation within the VA Veterans Integrated Service Network 20, identified using ICD-9 discharge codes and admission diagnoses from 2005–2012. The outcome was any tobacco cessation medication dispensed within 48 hours of discharge. We assessed potential predictors administratively up to 1 year prior to admission. We created the final logistic regression model using manual model building, clustered by site. Variables with p

Introduction Professional societies recommend providers assess sleep symptoms in COPD, but it is unclear if this occurs. We aimed to evaluate OSA symptom assessment and documentation among patients with COPD, and the patient and provider characteristics associated with this assessment. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study of adults aged ≥40 years with clinically diagnosed COPD and no prior diagnosis of OSA. We selected patients receiving care at two academic general internal medicine clinics between 6/1/2011 - 6/1/2013. We abstracted charts to assess how often OSA symptoms such as snoring, somnolence, witnessed apneas, or gasping/choking arousals were documented as present or absent. We performed multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression to assess associations of patient and primary care provider (PCP) factors with assessment of OSA symptoms. Patient factors included demographics, body mass index, comorbidities, healthcare utilization, and severity of COPD, and PCP factors including demographics, degree, and years of experience. Results Of 523 patients with COPD, only 26 (5.0%) had documentation of OSA symptom assessment within a one-year period. In mixed effects models, only referral to general pulmonary clinic was associated with the assessment of OSA symptoms (OR: 4.56, 95% CI 1.28-15.52). Among the 26 individuals who had OSA symptoms assessed, 9 (34.6%) reported snoring, 15 (57.7%) reported daytime somnolence, 2 (7.7%) reported gasping/choking arousals, and 5 (19.2%) reported witnessed apneas. Among those assessed for OSA symptoms, providers referred 11 (42.3%) for formal sleep consultation. Conclusion Providers rarely document OSA symptoms for patients with COPD in primary care clinic, but assessment is greater among those with pulmonary specialty consultation. Given time constraints in primary care, external facilitation of sleep symptom assessment may improve symptom recognition and receipt of appropriate services. Support NIH 5K23HL111116-05, VA Center of Innovation for Veteran-Centered and Value-Driven Care.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is among the most common medical diagnoses among Veterans. More than 50% of Veterans diagnosed with mild-to-moderate COPD are prescribed inhaled corticosteroids despite recommendations for use restricted to patients with frequent exacerbations. We explored primary care providers’ experiences prescribing inhaled corticosteroids among patients with mild-to-moderate COPD as part of a quality improvement initiative. We used a sequential mixed-methods evaluation approach to understand factors influencing primary care providers’ inhaled corticosteroid prescribing for patients with mild-to-moderate COPD. Participants were recruited to participate in qualitative interviews and structured surveys. We used a purposive sample of primary care providers from 13 primary care clinics affiliated with two urban Veteran Health Administration healthcare systems. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using content analysis. Qualitative findings informed a subsequent survey. Surveys were administered through REDCap and analyzed descriptively. Key qualitative and quantitative findings were compared. Participants reported they were unaware of current evidence and recommendations for prescribing inhaled corticosteroids; for example, 46% of providers reported they were unaware of risks of pneumonia. Providers reported they are generally unable to keep up with the current literature due to the broad scope of primary care practice. We also found primary care providers may be reluctant to change inherited prescriptions, even if they thought inhaled corticosteroid therapy might not be appropriate. Inhaled corticosteroid prescribing in this patient population is partly due to primary care providers’ lack of knowledge about the potential harms and availability of alternative therapies. Our findings suggest that efforts to expand access by increasing the number of prescribing providers a patient potentially sees could make it more difficult to de-implement harmful prescriptions. Our findings also corroborate prior findings that awareness of current evidence-based guidelines is likely an important part of medical overuse.