Frequency and Associated Factors of Suicidal Ideation in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

We aimed to examine the prevalence of suicidal ideation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and the association between demographic and clinical variables and the occurrence of suicidal thoughts. This was a cross-sectional study. Sociodemographic and clinical data were recorded, and questionnaires were used to assess depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory), comorbidities (Charlson Index), cognitive performance (Mini Mental State Examination), and quality of life (EuroQoL-5 dimensions and CAT). Specific questions about suicide-related behavior were included. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified the significant factors associated with previous suicidal ideation and suicide attempts. The analysis included 1190 subjects. The prevalence of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts were 12.1% and 2.5%, respectively. Severely depressed patients had the highest prevalence of suicide-related behavior. The adjusted logistic model identified factors significantly associated with suicidal ideation: sex (odds ratio (OR) for women vs. men = 2.722 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.771-4.183)), depression score (OR = 1.163 (95% IC = 1.127-1.200)), and Charlson Index (OR 1.228 (95% IC 1.082-1.394)). Suicidal ideation is common in COPD patients, especially in women. While addressing suicidal ideation and suicide prevention, clinicians should first consider the management of depressive symptomatology and the improvement of coping strategies.

Depressive status explains a significant amount of the variance in COPD assessment test (CAT) scores.

Background: COPD assessment test (CAT) is a short, easy-to-complete health status tool that has been incorporated into the multidimensional assessment of COPD in order to guide therapy; therefore, it is important to understand the factors determining CAT scores. Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of a cross-sectional, observational study conducted in respiratory medicine departments and primary care centers in Spain with the aim of identifying the factors determining CAT scores, focusing particularly on the cognitive status measured by the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and levels of depression measured by the short Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). Results: A total of 684 COPD patients were analyzed; 84.1% were men, the mean age of patients was 68.7 years, and the mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second (%) was 55.1%. Mean CAT score was 21.8. CAT scores correlated with the MMSE score (Pearson's coefficient r=-0.371) and the BDI (r=0.620), both p<0.001. In the multivariate analysis, the usual COPD severity variables (age, dyspnea, lung function, and comorbidity) together with MMSE and BDI scores were significantly associated with CAT scores and explained 45% of the variability. However, a model including only MMSE and BDI scores explained up to 40% and BDI alone explained 38% of the CAT variance. Conclusion: CAT scores are associated with clinical variables of severity of COPD. However, cognitive status and, in particular, the level of depression explain a larger percentage of the variance in the CAT scores than the usual COPD clinical severity variables.

Multidisciplinary Consensus on the Nonadherence to Clinical Management of Inhaled Therapy in Spanish asthma patients.

PURPOSE: Rates of nonadherence to asthma treatment in Spain are between 24% and 76%, which results in poor disease control and increased health care costs. The main objective of this multidisciplinary consensus was to investigate the opinions of health professionals and patients regarding adherence to inhaled therapy in Spain. The results will help to identify the causes of nonadherence and to establish strategies to detect and correct the problem. METHODS: This research was conducted by using a modified Delphi method organized into 2 rounds and involving a panel of 64 physicians, 16 nurses, and 10 community pharmacists. In addition, 70 patients with asthma completed a simplified 1-round survey, based on the Delphi questionnaire. The items proposed to reach a consensus included topics such as impact and causes of nonadherence, as well as strategies to improve adherence to treatment. FINDINGS: Expert panelists reached a consensus on ~80% of the items proposed. They agreed that the lack of control in asthma has an important economic impact. The causes of nonadherence with more agreement were the patients' beliefs about treatment and the complexity of the inhalation devices. Panelists agreed that the most important strategies to improve adherence were modification of patients' beliefs, training of professionals in the management of adherence, and personalization of interventions. Most patients only agreed with items that referred to strategies to improve adherence. IMPLICATIONS: Although the problems, impact, causes, and interventions regarding nonadherence to asthma treatment are known, adequate monitoring of adherence to treatment is not performed. A multidisciplinary and personalized approach is necessary to control and improve adherence.

Guía española de la enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica (GesEPOC) 2017. Tratamiento farmacológico en fase estable / Spanish Guidelines for Management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (GesEPOC) 2017. Pharmacological Treatment of Stable Phase

La enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica (EPOC) presenta una gran heterogeneidad clínica, por lo que su tratamiento se debe individualizar según el nivel de riesgo y el fenotipo. La Guía española de la EPOC (GesEPOC) estableció por primera vez en 2012 unas pautas de tratamiento farmacológico basadas en fenotipos clínicos. Estas pautas han sido adoptadas posteriormente por otras normativas nacionales, y han sido respaldadas por nuevas evidencias publicadas desde entonces. En esta actualización 2017 se ha sustituido la clasificación de gravedad inicial por una clasificación de riesgo mucho más sencilla (bajo o alto riesgo), basándose en la función pulmonar, el grado de disnea y la historia de agudizaciones, y se recomienda la determinación del fenotipo clínico únicamente en pacientes de alto riesgo. Se mantienen los mismos fenotipos clínicos: no agudizador, EPOC-asma (ACO), agudizador con enfisema y agudizador con bronquitis crónica. La base del tratamiento farmacológico de la EPOC es la broncodilatación, y también es el único tratamiento recomendado en pacientes de bajo riesgo. En los pacientes con alto riesgo se añadirán diversos fármacos a los broncodilatadores según el fenotipo clínico. GesEPOC supone una aproximación al tratamiento de la EPOC más individualizado según las características clínicas de los pacientes y su nivel de riesgo o de complejidad (AU)

The clinical presentation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) varies widely, so treatment must be tailored according to the level of risk and phenotype. In 2012, the Spanish COPD Guidelines (GesEPOC) first established pharmacological treatment regimens based on clinical phenotypes. These regimens were subsequently adopted by other national guidelines, and since then, have been backed up by new evidence. In this 2017 update, the original severity classification has been replaced by a much simpler risk classification (low or high risk), on the basis of lung function, dyspnea grade, and history of exacerbations, while determination of clinical phenotype is recommended only in high-risk patients. The same clinical phenotypes have been maintained: non-exacerbator, asthma-COPD overlap (ACO), exacerbator with emphysema, and exacerbator with bronchitis. Pharmacological treatment of COPD is based on bronchodilators, the only treatment recommended in low-risk patients. High-risk patients will receive different drugs in addition to bronchodilators, depending on their clinical phenotype. GesEPOC reflects a more individualized approach to COPD treatment, according to patient clinical characteristics and level of risk or complexity (AU)

Spanish Guidelines for Management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (GesEPOC) 2017. Pharmacological Treatment of Stable Phase. / Guía española de la enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica (GesEPOC) 2017. Tratamiento farmacológico en fase estable.

The clinical presentation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) varies widely, so treatment must be tailored according to the level of risk and phenotype. In 2012, the Spanish COPD Guidelines (GesEPOC) first established pharmacological treatment regimens based on clinical phenotypes. These regimens were subsequently adopted by other national guidelines, and since then, have been backed up by new evidence. In this 2017 update, the original severity classification has been replaced by a much simpler risk classification (low or high risk), on the basis of lung function, dyspnea grade, and history of exacerbations, while determination of clinical phenotype is recommended only in high-risk patients. The same clinical phenotypes have been maintained: non-exacerbator, asthma-COPD overlap (ACO), exacerbator with emphysema, and exacerbator with bronchitis. Pharmacological treatment of COPD is based on bronchodilators, the only treatment recommended in low-risk patients. High-risk patients will receive different drugs in addition to bronchodilators, depending on their clinical phenotype. GesEPOC reflects a more individualized approach to COPD treatment, according to patient clinical characteristics and level of risk or complexity.

Guía de práctica clínica para el diagnóstico y tratamiento de pacientes con enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica (EPOC): guía española de la EPOC (GesEPOC) / Clinical Practice Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary disease (COPD) ­ the Spanish COPD Guideline (GesEPOC). 2017 Version

La enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica (EPOC) presenta una gran heterogeneidad clínica, por lo que su tratamiento se debe individualizar según el nivel de riesgo y el fenotipo. La Guía Española de la EPOC (GesEPOC) estableció por primera vez en 2012 unas pautas de tratamiento farmacológico basadas en fenotipos clínicos que han sido adoptadas posteriormente por otras normativas nacionales y han sido respaldadas por nuevas evidencias publicadas desde entonces. GesEPOC supone una aproximación al tratamiento de la EPOC más individualizada según las características clínicas de los pacientes y su nivel de riesgo o de complejidad.

Cognitive status among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

PURPOSE: We investigated the association between cognitive impairment and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), taking into account demographic and clinical variables evaluated during routine practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of a cross-sectional study that included subjects with stable COPD. Sociodemographic and clinical information was recorded using the Body mass index, airflow Obstruction, Dyspnea and Exacerbations index and the Charlson comorbidity index. Cognitive performance was studied by the mini-mental state examination, with a score less than 27 indicating clinical impairment. Depressive symptoms, physical activity, and quality of life (EuroQoL-5 dimensions and COPD Assessment Test) were also evaluated. RESULTS: The analysis included 940 subjects. The prevalence of cognitive impairment was 39.4%. Multivariate logistic regression models revealed that cognitive impairment was associated with educational level (odds ratio [OR] =0.096, 95% confidence interval [CI] =0.011-0.447) and poorer quality of life measured by the EuroQoL-5 dimensions social tariff (OR =0.967, 95% CI =0.950-0.983). When questionnaires were not included in the analysis, cognitive impairment was associated with educational level (OR =0.063, 95% CI =0.010-0.934), number of exacerbations (OR =11.070, 95% CI =1.450-84.534), Body mass index, airflow Obstruction, Dyspnea and Exacerbations index score (OR =1.261, 95% CI =1.049-1.515), and the Charlson comorbidity index (OR =1.412, 95% CI =1.118-1.783). CONCLUSION: Cognitive impairment is common in COPD and is associated with low educational level, higher disease severity, and increased comorbidity. This could have therapeutic implications for this population.

A repeated short educational intervention improves asthma control and quality of life.

We assessed the effectiveness of an asthma educational programme based on a repeated short intervention (AEP-RSI) to improve asthma control (symptom control and future risk) and quality of life. A total of 230 adults with mild-to-moderate persistent uncontrolled asthma participated in a 1-year cluster randomised controlled multicentre study. The AEP-RSI was given in four face-to-face sessions at 3-month intervals, and included administration of a written personalised action plan and training on inhaler technique. Centres were randomised to the AEP-RSI (intervention) group or usual clinical practice group. Specialised centres using a standard educational programme were the gold standard group. A significant improvement in the Asthma Control Test score was observed in all three groups (p<0.001), but improvements were higher in the intervention and gold standard groups than in the usual clinical practice group (p=0.042), which also showed fewer exacerbations (mean±sd; 1.20±2.02 and 0.56±1.5 versus 2.04±2.72, respectively) and greater increases in the Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire scores (0.95±1.04 and 0.89±0.84 versus 0.52±0.97, respectively). The AEP-RSI was effective in improving asthma symptom control, future risk and quality of life.

Factors associated with depression and severe depression in patients with COPD.

BACKGROUND: Depression is very prevalent in COPD and may be associated with poor clinical outcomes. METHOD: This was a multicenter, cross-sectional study aimed at evaluating the prevalence of depression and moderate to severe depression in COPD. Depressive symptoms were evaluated with the Beck's Depression Inventory. The COPD assessment test (CAT) and the EuroQoL-5 dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaires were used to evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Severity of COPD was assessed with the BODEx index and physical activity was estimated by the mean self-declared time walked per day. RESULTS: A total of 836 patients were included and up to 74.6% had some degree of depression with 51.5% having moderate to severe depression. On multivariate analysis, moderate to severe depression was associated with suicidal ideation (OR, 6.12; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.36-28.24), worse quality of life: EQ-5D (OR, 0.89; 95%CI, 0.86-0.93) and worse CAT scores (OR, 1.32; 95%CI, 1.19-1.46). When questionnaires were not included in the analysis, significant depression was associated with the Charlson comorbidity index, minutes walked per day and BODEx score. CONCLUSIONS: Depression is frequent in COPD and is associated with suicidal ideation, impaired HRQoL, increase in comorbidities, a reduction in physical activity and increased severity of COPD measured by the BODEx index.

Guía española de la EPOC (GesEPOC). Actualización 2014 / Spanish Guideline for COPD (GesEPOC). Update 2014

No disponible

A new approach to grading and treating COPD based on clinical phenotypes: summary of the Spanish COPD guidelines (GesEPOC).

After the development of the COPD Strategy of the National Health Service in Spain, all scientific societies, patient organisations, and central and regional governments formed a partnership to enhance care and research in COPD. At the same time, the Spanish Society of Pneumology and Thoracic Surgery (SEPAR) took the initiative to convene the various scientific societies involved in the National COPD Strategy and invited them to participate in the development of the new Spanish guidelines for COPD (Guía Española de la EPOC; GesEPOC). Probably the more innovative approach of GesEPOC is to base treatment of stable COPD on clinical phenotypes, a term which has become increasingly used in recent years to refer to the different clinical forms of COPD with different prognostic implications. The proposed phenotypes are: (A) infrequent exacerbators with either chronic bronchitis or emphysema; (B) overlap COPD-asthma; (C) frequent exacerbators with emphysema predominant; and (D) frequent exacerbators with chronic bronchitis predominant. The assessment of severity has also been updated with the incorporation of multidimensional indices. The severity of the obstruction, as measured by forced expiratory volume in 1 second, is essential but not sufficient. Multidimensional indices such as the BODE index have shown excellent prognostic value. If the 6-minute walking test is not performed routinely, its substitution by the frequency of exacerbations (BODEx index) provides similar prognostic properties. This proposal aims to achieve a more personalised management of COPD according to the clinical characteristics and multidimensional assessment of severity.

Guía Española de la EPOC (GesEPOC). Tratamiento farmacológico de la EPOC estable / Spanish COPD Guidelines (GesEPOC): Pharmacological Treatment of Stable COPD

El reconocimiento de la heterogeneidad clínica de la EPOC sugiere un abordaje terapéutico específico dirigido por los llamados fenotipos clínicos de la enfermedad. La Guía Española de la EPOC (GesEPOC) es una iniciativa de la SEPAR que, conjuntamente con las sociedades científicas implicadas en la atención a pacientes con EPOC y el Foro Español de Pacientes, ha elaborado una nueva guía de práctica clínica. En el presente artículo se describe la clasificación de gravedad y el tratamiento farmacológico de la EPOC estable. GesEPOC identifica 4 fenotipos clínicos con tratamiento diferencial: no agudizador, mixto EPOC-asma, agudizador con enfisema y agudizador con bronquitis crónica. La base del tratamiento farmacológico de la EPOC es la broncodilatación, a la que se añaden diversos fármacos según el fenotipo clínico y la gravedad. La gravedad se establecerá por las escalas multidimensionales BODE/BODEx. Una aproximación a la gravedad también se puede conseguir a partir de la obstrucción al flujo aéreo, la disnea, el nivel de actividad física y la historia de agudizaciones. GesEPOC supone una nueva aproximación al tratamiento de la EPOC más individualizada según las características clínicas de los pacientes(AU)

Recognizing the clinical heterogeneity of COPD suggests a specific therapeutic approach directed by the so-called clinical phenotypes of the disease. The Spanish COPD Guidelines (GesEPOC) is an initiative of SEPAR, which, together with the scientific societies involved in COPD patient care, and the Spanish Patient Forum, has developed these new clinical practice guidelines. This present article describes the severity classification and the pharmacological treatment of stable COPD. GesEPOC identifies four clinical phenotypes with differential treatment: non-exacerbator, mixed COPD-asthma, exacerbator with emphysema and exacerbator with chronic bronchitis. Pharmacological treatment of COPD is based on bronchodilation in addition to other drugs depending on the clinical phenotype and severity. Severity is established by the BODE/BODEx multidimensional scales. Severity can also be approximated by assessing airflow obstruction, dyspnea, level of physical activity and history of exacerbations. GesEPOC is a new, more individualized approach to COPD treatment according to the clinical characteristics of the patients(AU)

Guía Española de la EPOC (GesEPOC). Tratamiento farmacológico de la EPOC estable / Spanish COPD Guidelines (GesEPOC): Pharmacological treatment of stable COPD

El reconocimiento de la heterogeneidad clínica de la EPOC sugiere un abordaje terapéutico específico dirigido por los llamados fenotipos clínicos de la enfermedad. La Guía Española de la EPOC (GesEPOC) es una iniciativa de la SEPAR que, conjuntamente con las sociedades científicas implicadas en la atención a pacientes con EPOC y el Foro Español de Pacientes, ha elaborado una nueva guía de práctica clínica. En el presente artículo se describe la clasificación de gravedad y el tratamiento farmacológico de la EPOC estable. La GesEPOC identifica 4 fenotipos clínicos con tratamiento diferencial: no agudizador, mixto EPOC-asma, agudizador con enfisema y agudizador con bronquitis crónica. La base del tratamiento farmacológico de la EPOC es la broncodilatación, a la que se añaden diversos fármacos según el fenotipo clínico y la gravedad. La gravedad se establecerá por las escalas multidimensionales BODE/BODEx. Una aproximación a la gravedad también se puede conseguir a partir de la obstrucción del flujo aéreo, la disnea, el nivel de actividad física y la historia de agudizaciones. La GesEPOC supone una nueva aproximación al tratamiento de la EPOC más individualizada según las características clínicas de los pacientes(AU)

Recognizing the clinical heterogeneity of COPD suggests a specific therapeutic approach directed by the so-called clinical phenotypes of the disease. The Spanish COPD Guidelines (GesEPOC) is an initiative of SEPAR, which, together with the scientific societies involved in COPD patient care, and the Spanish Patient Forum, has developed these new clinical practice guidelines. This present article describes the severity classification and the pharmacological treatment of stable COPD. GesEPOC identifies four clinical phenotypes with differential treatment: non-exacerbator, mixed COPD-asthma, exacerbator with emphysema and exacerbator with chronic bronchitis. Pharmacological treatment of COPD is based on bronchodilation in addition to other drugs depending on the clinical phenotype and severity. Severity is established by the BODE/BODEx multidimensional scales. Severity can also be approximated by assessing airflow obstruction, dyspnea, level of physical activity and history of exacerbations. GesEPOC is a new, more individualized approach to COPD treatment according to the clinical characteristics of the patients(AU)

[Spanish COPD Guidelines (GesEPOC): Pharmacological treatment of stable COPD]. / Guía Española de la EPOC (GesEPOC). Tratamiento farmacológico de la EPOC estable.

Recognizing the clinical heterogeneity of COPD suggests a specific therapeutic approach directed by the so-called clinical phenotypes of the disease. The Spanish COPD Guidelines (GesEPOC) is an initiative of SEPAR, which, together with the scientific societies involved in COPD patient care, and the Spanish Patient Forum, has developed these new clinical practice guidelines. This present article describes the severity classification and the pharmacological treatment of stable COPD. GesEPOC identifies four clinical phenotypes with differential treatment: non-exacerbator, mixed COPD-asthma, exacerbator with emphysema and exacerbator with chronic bronchitis. Pharmacological treatment of COPD is based on bronchodilation in addition to other drugs depending on the clinical phenotype and severity. Severity is established by the BODE/BODEx multidimensional scales. Severity can also be approximated by assessing airflow obstruction, dyspnea, level of physical activity and history of exacerbations. GesEPOC is a new, more individualized approach to COPD treatment according to the clinical characteristics of the patients.

Spanish COPD Guidelines (GesEPOC): pharmacological treatment of stable COPD. Spanish Society of Pulmonology and Thoracic Surgery.

Recognizing the clinical heterogeneity of COPD suggests a specific therapeutic approach directed by the so-called clinical phenotypes of the disease. The Spanish COPD Guidelines (GesEPOC) is an initiative of SEPAR, which, together with the scientific societies involved in COPD patient care, and the Spanish Patient Forum, has developed these new clinical practice guidelines. This present article describes the severity classification and the pharmacological treatment of stable COPD. GesEPOC identifies four clinical phenotypes with differential treatment: non-exacerbator, mixed COPD-asthma, exacerbator with emphysema and exacerbator with chronic bronchitis. Pharmacological treatment of COPD is based on bronchodilation in addition to other drugs depending on the clinical phenotype and severity. Severity is established by the BODE/BODEx multidimensional scales. Severity can also be approximated by assessing airflow obstruction, dyspnea, level of physical activity and history of exacerbations. GesEPOC is a new, more individualized approach to COPD treatment according to the clinical characteristics of the patients.

[Knowledge of and attitudes and adherence to the Spanish Guidelines for Asthma Management (GEMA) among Spanish health care professionals: the GEMA test Project]. / Opinión, conocimientos y grado de seguimiento referidos por los profesionales sanitarios españoles de la Guía Española para el Manejo del Asma (GEMA). Proyecto GEMA-TEST.

OBJECTIVE: Health care professionals' adherence to asthma guidelines is believed to be low. The aim of the present study was to determine the knowledge, attitudes, and adherence of Spanish health care professionals with respect to the Spanish Guidelines for Asthma Management (GEMA). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A multiple choice test with 15 questions was constructed. Items assessed knowledge of and opinions and adherence to asthma guidelines in general and the GEMA in particular. Test completion was voluntary, individual, and anonymous. RESULTS: A total of 1,066 physicians and nurses took the test. The sample consisted of 241 (22.6%) respiratory medicine specialists and 244 (22.9%) nurses from the Spanish Society of Pulmonology and Thoracic Surgery (SEPAR), 221 (20.7%) pediatric pulmonologists from the Spanish Society of Pediatric Pulmonology (SENP), 220 (20.6%) general practitioners from the Spanish Society of Family and Community Medicine (semFYC), 181 (17%) general practitioners from the Spanish Society of Rural and General Medicine (SEMERGEN), and 38 (3.6%) others. Asthma guidelines were considered useful or very useful by 805 (76%), and 771 (72%) stated they were familiar with the GEMA. However, 388 (36%) admitted that they followed guidelines seldom or never. The level of adherence to the GEMA was poor for 243 (30.3%) respondents. The multivariate analysis revealed that low adherence was associated with the following characteristics: coming from the geographic center or south of Spain; being a primary care physician, unfamiliar with guidelines, or unconvinced of their utility; and not being a user of spirometry. CONCLUSIONS: Even though the majority of Spanish health care professionals surveyed seem to know of the GEMA, their adherence to those guidelines is very low. Educational programs that seek to improve knowledge of asthma guidelines should consider the profile of professionals with low adherence to the GEMA so as to include educational strategies that target them specifically.

Opinión, conocimientos y grado de seguimiento referidos por los profesionales sanitarios españoles de la Guía Española para el Manejo del Asma (GEMA). Proyecto GEMA-TEST / Knowledge of and attitudes and adherence to the Spanish guidelines for asthma management (GEMA) among spanish health care professionals: the GEMA TEST Project

Objetivo: Se sospecha que el seguimiento de las recomendaciones terapéuticas del asma entre los profesionales sanitarios es bajo. El presente estudio se ha realizado con el objeto de determinar la opinión, el conocimiento y cumplimiento de las recomendaciones de la Guía Española para el Manejo del Asma (GEMA) entre los profesionales sanitarios españoles. Material y métodos: Se elaboró un cuestionario de 15 preguntas de respuesta múltiple que recogían la opinión y conocimiento general sobre las guías de asma, el grado de seguimiento de éstas y, específicamente, de las recomendaciones diagnósticas y terapéuticas de la GEMA. El cuestionario se cumplimentó de forma voluntaria, individual y anónima. Resultados: Rellenaron el cuestionario 1.066 profesionales: 241 (22,6%) neumólogos y 244 (22,9%) profesionales de enfermería de la Sociedad Española de Neumología y Cirugía Torácica (SEPAR); 221 (20,7%) pediatras-neumólogos de la Sociedad Española de Neumología Pediátrica (SENP); 220 (20,6%) médicos de atención primaria de la Sociedad Española de Medicina de Familia y Comunitaria (semFYC); 181 (17%) médicos de atención primaria de la Sociedad Española de Medicina Rural y Generalista (SEMERGEN), y 38 (3,6%) de otras sociedades. De ellos, 805 (76%) opinaron que las guías para el manejo del asma eran útiles o muy útiles y 771 (72%) conocían la GEMA, pero 388 (36%) reconocían que seguían poco o nunca sus recomendaciones. Entre los médicos participantes, 243 (30,3%) fueron clasificados como malos cumplidores de la GEMA. El análisis multivariante reveló que los profesionales provenientes de las áreas centro y sur españolas, los de atención primaria, los poco convencidos de la utilidad de las guías o los que no las conocen, y los que no empleaban la espirometría se asociaron con un menor cumplimiento de la guía. Conclusiones: Si bien la mayoría de los profesionales sanitarios españoles encuestados conoce y estima positiva la GEMA, el grado de cumplimiento de ésta es bajo. Los futuros programas docentes encaminados a difundir las guías de asma deberían considerar el perfil del médico no cumplidor de la GEMA e incorporar estrategias educativas dirigidas específicamente a dichos profesionales

Objective: Health care professionals' adherence to asthma guidelines is believed to be low. The aim of the present study was to determine the knowledge, attitudes, and adherence of Spanish health care professionals with respect to the Spanish Guidelines for Asthma Management (GEMA). Material and methods: A multiple choice test with 15 questions was constructed. Items assessed knowledge of and opinions and adherence to asthma guidelines in general and the GEMA in particular. Test completion was voluntary, individual, and anonymous. Results: A total of 1066 physicians and nurses took the test. The sample consisted of 241 (22.6%) respiratory medicine specialists and 244 (22.9%) nurses from the Spanish Society of Pulmonology and Thoracic Surgery (SEPAR), 221 (20.7%) pediatric pulmonologists from the Spanish Society of Pediatric Pulmonology (SENP), 220 (20.6%) general practitioners from the Spanish Society of Family and Community Medicine (semFYC), 181 (17%) general practitioners from the Spanish Society of Rural and General Medicine (SEMERGEN), and 38 (3.6%) others. Asthma guidelines were considered useful or very useful by 805 (76%), and 771 (72%) stated they were familiar with the GEMA. However, 388 (36%) admitted that they followed guidelines seldom or never. The level of adherence to the GEMA was poor for 243 (30.3%) respondents. The multivariate analysis revealed that low adherence was associated with the following characteristics: coming from the geographic center or south of Spain; being a primary care physician, unfamiliar with guidelines, or unconvinced of their utility; and not being a user of spirometry. Conclusions: Even though the majority of Spanish health care professionals surveyed seem to know of the GEMA, their adherence to those guidelines is very low. Educational programs that seek to improve knowledge of asthma guidelines should consider the profile of professionals with low adherence to the GEMA so as to include educational strategies that target them specifically