Search

Background and Objective: The implementation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) guidelines in the real-world setting remains low. Pulmonologists should participate in the new paradigms of chronicity of COPD, by providing their knowledge, expertise, innovation and research. The objective of this study was to survey pulmonologists on the adherence to COPD guidelines and to measure the change of attitude after holding meetings presenting the latest research on the subject. Methods: Fifty questions on COPD management were sent to 150 pulmonologists. Using the AUDIT methodology, the responses were discussed at several face-to-face meetings, held in different autonomous communities of Spain. The same questionnaire was subsequently sent to the participants and changes in their responses were analysed. Results: In total, 148 physicians (60.1% female) completed study. The main responses were: (1) 16.2% diagnose following clinical criteria; (2) 78.4% performed diagnostic tests other than spirometry; (3) 73.6% always determined alpha-1 antitrypsin levels (81.8% in the second questionnaire, p < 0.05); (4) 73% determined the patient's phenotype; (5) 42% always asked about passive exposure to cigarette smoke (55% after the meetings, p < 0.05); (6) 58.1% always asked about exposure to other pollutants or biomass; (7) 29.1% always assessed inhalational technique; (8) dual bronchodilators were the most common treatment (49.3%) used for patients with frequent exacerbator phenotype, glycopyrronium + indacaterol being the preferred option (44.1%); (9) 41.2% discontinued inhaled corticosteroids treatment (54.7% in the second questionnaire, p < 0.05); (10) for exacerbation admissions, 52% replaced maintenance bronchodilators with short-acting agents and introduced early background treatment (58.8% in the second round, p < 0.05). Few variations occurred in the participants' answers after the meetings. Conclusions: The adherence of pulmonologists to clinical practice recommendations for COPD management is suboptimal. As well as face-to-face meetings, more intensive interventions are required to raise awareness on the importance of improving compliance with clinical guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Antifibrotics are recommended for the treatment of individuals with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), but treatment use remains at ∼60%. Objective: To investigate the views of individuals with IPF and pulmonologists on the diagnosis and management of IPF to understand treatment patterns. Methods: Interviews and/or online surveys were completed by patients and pulmonologists from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK. Responses from physicians were analyzed by time between diagnosis and treatment initiation in the majority of patients with IPF (group A, > 4 months; group B, ≤4 months). Statistical comparisons between physicians were undertaken using z tests, with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant. Results: The physicians in group A saw fewer patients, were less comfortable discussing the IPF prognosis with patients, and had less belief in the benefits of antifibrotic treatments than the physicians in group B. These physicians' attitudes contrasted with those of the patients, who wanted more information about the IPF prognosis and pharmacological treatment options at diagnosis and were more concerned about preventing disease progression than avoiding medication side effects. Differences between countries were found regarding physicians' comfort in discussing the prognosis at diagnosis and access to care. Conclusions: Several barriers to antifibrotic treatment, principally reflecting the differing views and values of patients and physicians, were identified in this study, suggesting a need for better patient-physician communication about pharmacological therapy for IPF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We developed two virtual communities of practice (Endobloc and Pneumobloc) to increase the interaction between general practitioners and nurses in primary care and hospital endocrinologists and pulmonologists. They were designed and developed using an existing web 2.0-based virtual network belonging to the local National Health System, and we quantitatively assessed the usefulness through the participation and use during the first 24 months after the launch in 2010. A total of 26,372 visits (47% Endobloc’s visits) and 2351 contributions (Endobloc’s contribution 38.9%) to both virtual communities of practice were registered during the first 24 months. The most popular sections were the e-Blog and the e-Consultations section in both virtual communities of practice, but some differences in the pattern of use in other sections were observed. Activity on the virtual communities of practice occurred throughout the day including weekends and holiday periods. We showed that virtual communities of practice are feasible under real-life clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Identifying the variables that guide decision-making in relation to the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) can contribute to the appropriate use of these drugs. The objective of this study was to identify the clinical variables that physicians consider most relevant for prescribing or withdrawing ICS in COPD., Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in Spain from November 2020 to May 2021. Therapeutic decisions on the use of ICS in 11 hypothetical COPD patient profiles were collected using an online survey answered by specialists with experience in the management of patients with COPD. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to analyze the impact of patients' characteristics in the therapeutic decision for prescribing ICS or proceeding to its withdrawal., Results: A total of 74 pulmonologists agreed to collaborate in the survey and answered the questionnaire. The results showed great variability, with only 2 profiles achieving consensus for starting or withdrawing the treatment. The frequency and severity of exacerbations influenced the decision to prescribe ICS in a dose-response fashion (1 exacerbation odds ratio (OR) = 1.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 3.43, two exacerbations OR = 11.6, 95% CI: 4.47 to 30.2 and three OR = 123, 95% CI: 25 to 601). Similarly, increasing blood eosinophils and history of asthma were associated with ICS use. On the other hand, pneumonia reduced the probability of initiating treatment with ICS (OR = 0.54 [0.29 to 0.98]). Lung function and dyspnea degree did not influence the clinician's therapeutic decision. The results for withdrawal of ICS were similar but in the opposite direction., Conclusion: In accordance with guidelines, exacerbations, blood eosinophils and history of asthma or pneumonia are the factors considered by pulmonologist for the indication or withdrawal of ICS. However, the agreement in prescription or withdrawal of ICS when confronted with hypothetical cases is very low, suggesting a great variability in clinical practice., Competing Interests: The authors meet criteria for authorship as recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). The authors did not receive payment related to the development of the manuscript. MM has received speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, Menarini, Rovi, Bial, Sandoz, Zambon, Kamada, CSL Behring, Grifols and Novartis, consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Atriva Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Bial, Gebro Pharma, CSL Behring, Laboratorios Esteve, Ferrer, Mereo Biopharma, Verona Pharma, Spin Therapeutics, ONO Pharma, pH Pharma, Palobiofarma SL, Takeda, Novartis, Sanofi and Grifols and research grants from Grifols. FG has received economic compensation for consulting, lectures at various congresses and scientific training sessions, manuscript writing and support for attending meetings from Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Novartis, Astrazeneca, Chiesi, Pfizer, Esteve and Rovi. CRR reports no disclosure related to this paper. XP has received speaker fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Rovi and Chiesi. EMM has received economic compensation for consulting, lectures, presentations, manuscript writing, educational events, support for attending meetings, participation in data safety monitoring or advisory board from Boehringer Ingelheim, Glaxo Smith Kline, Novartis, Aflofarm, Bial, Chiesi, Meranini and GSK. CG has received economic compensation for consulting, support for attending meetings from Chiesi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Glaxo Smith Kline, Novartis, Meranini, Ferrer and Teva. CA has received speaker fees and/or consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Chiesi, Faes farma, Esteve and GlaxoSmithKline. CF has received economic compensation by GOC Health Consulting for statistical analysis. SA has received economic compensation for support for attending meetings, other sessions and consulting from Novartis, Astra Zeneca, Menarini, GSK, Boeringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Mundipharma, FAES, Pfizer and Teva. BA reports personal fees from GSK, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, personal fees and non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees and non-financial support from Chiesi, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Laboratorios BIAL, Menarini, personal fees from Gebro, Astra- Zeneca, and Gilead, outside the submitted work. In addition, has a patent P201730724 pending. EN has received economic compensation for consulting, lectures, presentations, manuscript writing and educational events from Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi and Glaxo Smith Kline. MB reports personal fees from Grifols, Menarini, CSL Behring, GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis, outside the submitted work. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2022 Miravitlles et al.)

Background: The disposable bronchoscope is an excellent alternative to face the problem of SARS-CoV-2 and other cross infections, but the bronchoscopist's perception of its quality has not been evaluated., Methods: To evaluate the quality of the Ambu-aScope4 disposable bronchoscope, we carried out a cross-sectional study in 21 Spanish pulmonology services. We use a standardized questionnaire completed by the bronchoscopists at the end of each bronchoscopy. The variables were described with absolute and relative frequencies, measures of central tendency and dispersion depending on their nature. The existence of learning curves was evaluated by CUSUM analysis., Results: The most frequent indications in 300 included bronchoscopies was bronchial aspiration in 69.3% and the median duration of these was 9.1 min. The route of entry was nasal in 47.2% and oral in 34.1%. The average score for ease of use, image, and aspiration quality was 80/100. All the planned techniques were performed in 94.9% and the bronchoscopist was satisfied in 96.6% of the bronchoscopies. They highlighted the portability and immediacy of the aScope4TM to start the procedure in 99.3%, the possibility of taking and storing images in 99.3%. The CUSUM analysis showed average scores > 70/100 from the first procedure and from the 9th procedure more than 80% of the scores exceeded the 80/100 score., Conclusions: The aScope4™ scored well for ease of use, imaging, and aspiration. We found a learning curve with excellent scores from the 9th procedure. Bronchoscopists highlighted its portability, immediacy of use and the possibility of taking and storing images.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is progressive and in its advanced stage is associated with major disability. Previous studies suggest that patients with this disease receive little palliative care, even in very advanced stages. Given this, our objectives were to describe the clinical practice of Spanish pulmonologists in the care of patients with end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, to identify potential barriers to implementing palliative care in these patients and to correlate these responses with doctor's years of experience. A link to an online survey was sent to pulmonologists on (a) symptom management, (b) structure of their department and collaboration with other services, (c) specialized medical training in palliative care, (d) communication with patients and their families, and (e) limiting barriers identified in the management of these patients. A total of 387 responses were received. The majority used opioids to treat dyspnea (52.9%) or pain (54.2%) and many treated anxiety/depression (41%). Around half of the respondents had no established routines in their departments to offer palliative care to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. There was little communication with end-of-life patients and their families on disease course, mainly associated with a lack of medical training (83% of cases) and changes in patient wishes regarding care through the disease course (81%). In our setting, communication with end-of-life patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is poor. The key challenges identified are insufficient medical training and changing desires of patients. No substantial differences in attitude were found as a function of experience.