Search

[Objective] Our aim was to evaluate the relationship between the clinical factors of asthma and the use of reliever medication., [Methods] We performed an observational cross-sectional study in Spain. The study population comprised patients aged ≥12 years diagnosed with persistent asthma according to the criteria of the Global Initiative for Asthma and receiving maintenance treatment for at least 12 months. Use of reliever medication was classified as low use of reliever medication (LURM) (≤2 times/wk) and high use of reliever medication (HURM) (≥3 times/wk). A variety of clinical variables and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were recorded (eg, scores on the Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 [ACQ-5] and Test of Adherence to Inhalers [TAI])., [Results] A total of 406 patients were recruited. Mean (SD) age was 44.3 (17.9) years, and 64% were women. Reliever medication was used ≤2 times/wk in 76.1%. Bivariate analysis showed that HURM was related to smoking habit, unscheduled emergency department visits, hospital admissions, higher doses of inhaled corticosteroid, and night awakenings in the previous 4 weeks (P<.001). The multivariate analysis showed a higher risk of using reliever medication in smokers and former smokers, when the number of night awakenings increased, in cases of self-perception of partially controlled or uncontrolled asthma, or when asthma is uncontrolled according to the ACQ-5., [Conclusions] Our study identifies the potential of poor use of reliever medication in the last week as an alarm signal for disease-related parameters such as exacerbations, poor asthma control, and disease severity.

[Background] Inaccurate diagnosis in COPD is a current problem with relevant consequences in terms of inefficient health care, which has not been thoroughly studied in primary care medicine. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the degree of inaccurate diagnosis in Primary Care in Spain and study the determinants associated with it., [Methods] The Community Assessment of COPD Health Care (COACH) study is a national, observational, randomized, non-interventional, national clinical audit aimed at evaluating clinical practice for patients with COPD in primary care medicine in Spain. For the present analysis, a correct diagnosis was evaluated based on previous exposure and airway obstruction with and without the presence of symptoms. The association of patient-level and center-level variables with inaccurate diagnosis was studied using multivariate multilevel binomial logistic regression models., [Results] During the study 4,307 cases from 63 centers were audited. The rate of inaccurate diagnosis was 82.4% (inter-regional range from 76.8% to 90.2%). Patient-related interventions associated with inaccurate diagnosis were related to active smoking, lung function evaluation, and specific therapeutic interventions. Center-level variables related to the availability of certain complementary tests and different aspects of the resources available were also associated with an inaccurate diagnosis., [Conclusions] The prevalence data for the inaccurate diagnosis of COPD in primary care medicine in Spain establishes a point of reference in the clinical management of COPD. The descriptors of the variables associated with this inaccurate diagnosis can be used to identify cases and centers in which inaccurate diagnosis is occurring considerably, thus allowing for improvement.

[Background] A thorough evaluation of the adequacy of clinical practice in a designated health care setting and temporal context is key for clinical care improvement. This study aimed to perform a clinical audit of primary care to evaluate clinical care delivered to patients with COPD in routine clinical practice., [Methods] The Community Assessment of COPD Health Care (COACH) study was an observational, multicenter, nationwide, non-interventional, retrospective, clinical audit of randomly selected primary care centers in Spain. Two different databases were built: the resources and organization database and the clinical database. From January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016 consecutive clinical cases of COPD in each participating primary care center (PCC) were audited. For descriptive purposes, we collected data regarding the age at diagnosis of COPD and the age at audit, gender, the setting of the PCC (rural/urban), and comorbidities for each patient. Two guidelines widely and uniformly used in Spain were carefully reviewed to establish a benchmark of adequacy for the audited cases. Clinical performance was analyzed at the patient, center, and regional levels. The degree of adequacy was categorized as excellent (> 80%), good (60–80%), adequate (40–59%), inadequate (20–39%), and highly inadequate (< 20%)., [Results] During the study 4307 cases from 63 primary care centers in 6 regions of the country were audited. Most evaluated parameters were judged to fall in the inadequate performance category. A correct diagnosis based on previous exposure plus spirometric obstruction was made in an average of 17.6% of cases, ranging from 9.8 to 23.3% depending on the region. During the audited visit, only 67 (1.6%) patients had current post-bronchodilator obstructive spirometry; 184 (4.3%) patients had current post-bronchodilator obstructive spirometry during either the audited or initial diagnostic visit. Evaluation of dyspnea was performed in 11.1% of cases. Regarding treatment, 33.6% received no maintenance inhaled therapies (ranging from 31.3% in GOLD A to 7.0% in GOLD D). The two most frequently registered items were exacerbations in the previous year (81.4%) and influenza vaccination (87.7%)., [Conclusions] The results of this audit revealed a large variability in clinical performance across centers, which was not fully attributable to the severity of the disease.