(Correcting) misdiagnoses of asthma: A cost effectiveness analysis

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Background: The prevalence of physician-diagnosed-asthma has risen over the past three decades and misdiagnosis of asthma is potentially common. Objective: to determine whether a secondary-screening-program to establish a correct diagnosis of asthma in those who report a physician diagnosis of asthma is cost effective.Method: Randomly selected physician-diagnosed-asthmatic subjects from 8 Canadian cities were studied with an extensive diagnostic algorithm to rule-in, or rule-out, a correct diagnosis of asthma. Subjects in whom the diagnosis of asthma was excluded were followed up for 6-months and data on asthma medications and heath care utilization was obtained. Economic analysis was performed to estimate the incremental lifetime costs associated with secondary screening of previously diagnosed asthmatic subjects. Analysis was from the perspective of the Canadian healthcare system and is reported in Canadian dollars.Results: Of 540 randomly selected patients with physician diagnosed asthma 150 (28%; 95%CI 19-37%) did not have asthma when objectively studied. 71% of these misdiagnosed patients were on some asthma medications. Incorporating the incremental cost of secondary-screening for the diagnosis of asthma, we found that the average cost savings per 100 individuals screened was $35,141 (95$4,588-$69,278).Conclusion: Cost savings primarily resulted from lifetime costs of medication use averted in those who had been misdiagnosed.This work was funded by the Canadian Institute of Health Research, Canada and the University Of Ottawa Division Of Respiratory Medicine

Treatment of Aspergillus fumigatus in Patients with Cystic Fibrosis: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Pilot Study

Many patients with cystic fibrosis develop persistent airway infection/colonization with Aspergillus fumigatus, however the impact of A. fumigatus on clinical outcomes remains unclear. The objective of this study was to determine whether treatment directed against Aspergillus fumigatus improves pulmonary function and clinical outcomes in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF).We performed a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled pilot clinical trial involving 35 patients with CF whose sputum cultures were chronically positive for A. fumigatus. Participants were centrally randomized to receive either oral itraconazole 5 mg/kg/d (N = 18) or placebo (N = 17) for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who experienced a respiratory exacerbation requiring intravenous antibiotics over the 24 week treatment period. Secondary outcomes included changes in FEV(1) and quality of life.Over the 24 week treatment period, 4 of 18 (22%) patients randomized to itraconazole experienced a respiratory exacerbation requiring intravenous antibiotics, compared to 5 of 16 (31%) placebo treated patients, P = 0.70. FEV(1) declined by 4.62% over 24 weeks in the patients randomized to itraconazole, compared to a 0.32% improvement in the placebo group (between group difference = -4.94%, 95% CI: -15.33 to 5.45, P = 0.34). Quality of life did not differ between the 2 treatment groups throughout the study. Therapeutic itraconazole blood levels were not achieved in 43% of patients randomized to itraconazole.We did not identify clinical benefit from itraconazole treatment for CF patients whose sputum was chronically colonized with A. fumigatus. Limitations of this pilot study were its small sample size, and failure to achieve therapeutic levels of itraconazole in many patients.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00528190

Development and evaluation of a decision aid for cystic fibrosis patients considering referral for lung transplantation

Objectives. (1) Identify the decisional needs of cystic fibrosis patients considering referral for bilateral lung transplantation and develop a decision aid to meet these needs. (2) Evaluate decision aid in a prospective trial. Conceptual framework. Ottawa Decision Support Framework Setting. Canadian and Australian Cystic Fibrosis clinics Methods. Phase 1. Comprehensive literature review, Canadian transplant statistics review and a survey identified the decisional needs and a decision aid was developed. Phase 2. The decision aid was evaluated in a randomized trial involving 149 patients. Results. Phase 1. A wide variation in transplant referral patterns was uncovered; patients not residing in transplant centers were significantly less likely to undergo lung transplants (P< 0.0001). Phase 2. Patients randomized to the decision aid had greater knowledge (P <0.0001) and more realistic expectations (P <0.0001) compared to those randomized to usual care. Decisional conflict score was significantly lower in the decision aid group 3 weeks post randomization (11.6 vs 20.4, P = 0.0007) and the decisions were durable 12 months after randomization (P = 0.06). Conclusion. Transplant referrals vary widely. Patients receiving usual care have unmet decisional needs. The decision aid enhanced informed decision making when combined with usual education and counseling. Future research is warranted to evaluate its implementation in clinical care

The prevalence of airflow obstruction in rural primary care

SummarySpirometry has been reported to be under-utilized, and airflow obstruction may be under-diagnosed, in primary care practice.Study objectivesThe objective of this study was to determine the prevalence and severity of airflow obstruction in rural primary care settings and the degree to which it can be predicted by clinical characteristics. Spirometry was performed in patients 35 years and older who had smoked, presenting for any reason to one of eight rural primary care practices. Obstruction was defined as an FEV1/FVC<0.70. A total of 1046 subjects were recruited of whom 1034 had acceptable and reproducible spirometry. Airflow obstruction was detected in 17.4% (180 patients). Of those with obstruction, 77.2% (se 3.1%) had at least one respiratory symptom versus 62.4% (se 1.6%) without obstruction (P=0.0002). Only 44.9% (se 3.7%) of those with airflow obstruction had been previously diagnosed with obstructive lung disease. Of those with an FEV1<50% of predicted, 85% (se 5.6%) were breathless on exertion; however, only 63% (se 7.6%) were being treated with respiratory medications. We conclude that airflow obstruction is common in rural primary care practice and cannot be accurately predicted by symptoms. It is undiagnosed half of the time, and often not treated even when symptomatic