Development of an allergy management support system in primary care

BACKGROUND: Management of allergic patients in the population is becoming more difficult because of increases in both complexity and prevalence. Although general practitioners (GPs) are expected to play an important role in the care of allergic patients, they often feel ill-equipped for this task. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop an allergy management support system (AMSS) for primary care. METHODS: Through literature review, interviewing and testing in secondary and primary care patients, an allergy history questionnaire was constructed by allergists, dermatologists, GPs and researchers based on primary care and specialists’ allergy guidelines and their clinical knowledge. Patterns of AMSS questionnaire responses and specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE)-test outcomes were used to identify diagnostic categories and develop corresponding management recommendations. Validity of the AMSS was investigated by comparing specialist (gold standard) and AMSS diagnostic categories. RESULTS: The two-page patient-completed AMSS questionnaire consists of 12 (mainly) multiple choice questions on symptoms, triggers, severity and medication. Based on the AMSS questionnaires and sIgE-test outcome of 118 patients, approximately 150 diagnostic categories of allergic rhinitis, asthma, atopic dermatitis, anaphylaxis, food allergy, hymenoptera allergy and other allergies were identified, and the corresponding management recommendations were formulated. The agreement between the allergy specialists’ assessments and the AMSS was 69.2% (CI 67.2–71.2). CONCLUSION: Using a systematic approach, it was possible to develop an AMSS that allows for the formulation of diagnostic and management recommendations for GPs managing allergic patients. The AMSS thus holds promise for the improvement of the quality of primary care for this increasing group of patients

Budesonide/formoterol as effective as prednisolone plus formoterol in acute exacerbations of COPD A double-blind, randomised, non-inferiority, parallel-group, multicentre study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Oral corticosteroids and inhaled bronchodilators with or without antibiotics represent standard treatment of COPD exacerbations of moderate severity. Frequent courses of oral steroids may be a safety issue. We wanted to evaluate in an out-patient setting whether a 2-week course of inhaled budesonide/formoterol would be equally effective for treatment of acute COPD exacerbations as standard therapy in patients judged by the investigator not to require hospitalisation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This was a double-blind, randomised, non-inferiority, parallel-group, multicentre study comparing two treatment strategies; two weeks' treatment with inhaled budesonide/formoterol (320/9 μg, qid) was compared with prednisolone (30 mg once daily) plus inhaled formoterol (9 μg bid) in patients with acute exacerbations of COPD attending a primary health care centre. Inclusion criteria were progressive dyspnoea for less than one week, FEV₁30–60% of predicted normal after acute treatment with a single dose of oral corticosteroid plus nebulised salbutamol/ipratropium bromide and no requirement for subsequent immediate hospitalisation, i.e the clinical status after the acute treatment allowed for sending the patient home.</p> <p>A total of 109 patients (mean age 67 years, 33 pack-years, mean FEV₁45% of predicted) were randomized to two weeks' double-blind treatment with budesonide/formoterol or prednisolone plus formoterol and subsequent open-label budesonide/formoterol (320/9 μg bid) for another 12 weeks. Change in FEV₁was the primary efficacy variable. Non-inferiority was predefined.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Non-inferiority of budesonide/formoterol was proven because the lower limit of FEV₁-change (97.5% CI) was above 90% of the efficacy of the alternative treatment. Symptoms, quality of life, treatment failures, need for reliever medication (and exacerbations during follow-up) did not differ between the groups. No safety concerns were identified.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>High dose budesonide/formoterol was as effective as prednisolone plus formoterol for the ambulatory treatment of acute exacerbations in non-hospitalized COPD patients. An early increase in budesonide/formoterol dose may therefore be tried before oral corticosteroids are used.</p> <p>Clinical trial registration</p> <p>NCT00259779</p

Prediction of Long-Term Benefits of Inhaled Steroids by Phenotypic Markers in Moderate-to-Severe COPD:A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND:The decline in lung function can be reduced by long-term inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) treatment in subsets of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We aimed to identify which clinical, physiological and non-invasive inflammatory characteristics predict the benefits of ICS on lung function decline in COPD. METHODS:Analysis was performed in 50 steroid-naive compliant patients with moderate to severe COPD (postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), 30-80% of predicted, compatible with GOLD stages II-III), age 45-75 years, >10 packyears smoking and without asthma. Patients were treated with fluticasone propionate (500 μg bid) or placebo for 2.5 years. Postbronchodilator FEV1, dyspnea and health status were measured every 3 months; lung volumes, airway hyperresponsiveness (PC20), and induced sputum at 0, 6 and 30 months. A linear mixed effect model was used for analysis of this hypothesis generating study. RESULTS:Significant predictors of attenuated FEV1-decline by fluticasone treatment compared to placebo were: fewer packyears smoking, preserved diffusion capacity, limited hyperinflation and lower inflammatory cell counts in induced sputum (p<0.04). CONCLUSIONS:Long-term benefits of ICS on lung function decline in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD are most pronounced in patients with fewer packyears, and less severe emphysema and inflammation. These data generate novel hypotheses on phenotype-driven therapy in COPD. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00158847

Time off work due to scaphoid fractures and other carpal injuries in the Netherlands in the period 1990 to 1993

This study assessed the epidemiology, treatment, disability and time off work due to carpal injuries in the Netherlands in the period from 1990 to 1993. Most injuries were scaphoid fractures and carpal instabilities were rare, The time off work was considerable (mean, 155 days; median, 105 days; range, 12-1708 days), Patients with non-scaphoid fractures had the shortest time off work, followed by those with scaphoid fractures; patients with carpal instabilities had the longest time off work, Despite the significant time off work, the prognosis for return to work was excellent.</p

Assessing the Needs and Perspectives of Patients With Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease on Patient Web Portals: Focus Group Study

BACKGROUND: As accessibility to the internet has increased in society, many health care organizations have developed patient Web portals (PWPs), which can provide a range of self-management options to improve patient access. However, the available evidence suggests that they are used inefficiently and do not benefit patients with low health literacy. Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are common chronic diseases that require ongoing self-management. Moreover, patients with COPD are typically older and have lower health literacy. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to obtain and present an overview of patients' perspectives of PWPs to facilitate the development of a portal that better meets the needs of patients with asthma and COPD. METHODS: We performed a focus group study using semistructured interviews in 3 patient groups from the north of the Netherlands who were recruited through the Dutch Lung Foundation. Each group met 3 times for 2 hours each at a 1-week interval. Data were analyzed with coding software, and patient descriptors were analyzed with nonparametric tests. The consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research were followed when conducting the study. RESULTS: We included 29 patients (16/29, 55% male; mean age 65 [SD 10] years) with COPD (n=14), asthma-COPD overlap (n=4), asthma (n=10), or other respiratory disease (n=1). There was a large variation in the internet experience; some patients hardly used the internet (4/29, 14%), whereas others used internet >3 times a week (23/29, 79%). In general, patients were positive about having access to a PWP, considering access to personal medical records as the most important option, though only after discussion with their physician. A medication overview was considered a useful option. We found that communication between health care professionals could be improved if patients could use the PWP to share information with their health care professionals. However, as participants were worried about the language and usability of portals, it was recommended that language should be adapted to the patient level. Another concern was that disease monitoring through Web-based questionnaire use would only be useful if the results were discussed with health care professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Participants were positive about PWPs and considered them a logical step. Today, most patients tend to be better educated and have internet access, while also being more assertive and better informed about their disease. A PWP could support these patients. Our participants also provided practical suggestions for implementation in current and future PWP developments. The next step will be to develop a portal based on these recommendations and assess whether it meets the needs of patients and health care providers