Withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids from patients with COPD with mild or moderate airflow limitation in primary care: a feasibility randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are frequently prescribed outside guidelines to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with mild/moderate airflow limitation and low exacerbation risk. This primary care trial explored the feasibility of identifying patients with mild/moderate COPD taking ICS, and the acceptability of ICS withdrawal. METHODS: Open feasibility trial. Outcome measures included prevalence of suitable participants, feasibility of their identification, their willingness-to-accept open randomisation to ICS withdrawal or continuation over 6 months follow-up. RESULTS: 392 (13%) of 2967 patients with COPD from 20 practices (209 618 population) identified as eligible for ICS withdrawal by electronic search algorithm. After individual patient record review, 243 (62%) were excluded because of: severe airflow limitation (65, 17%); one or more severe or two or more moderate COPD exacerbations in the previous year (86, 22%); asthma (15, 4%); and severe comorbidities (77, 20%). After exclusion, 149 patients with COPD were invited to participate and 61 agreed to randomisation. At clinical assessment, 10 patients exhibited undocumented airflow reversibility (forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) reversibility >12% and >200 mL); 2 had suffered two or more undocumented, moderate exacerbations in the previous year; 7 had severe airflow limitation; and 2 had normal spirometry. Finally, 40 were randomised. One patient died and one was lost to follow-up. 18 (45%) of the 38 (10 withdrawal and 8 usual care) exhibited previously undocumented FEV1 variability suggestive of asthma, supported in the withdrawal group by significant associations with elevated fractional exhaled nitric oxide (p=0.04), elevated symptom score (p=0.04), poorer quality of life (p=0.04) and atopic status (p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Identifying primary care patients with mild/moderate COPD suitable for ICS withdrawal is feasible but requires real-time verification because of unreliable recording of exacerbations and lung function. Suitable patients accepted randomisation to ICS withdrawal or continuation for the purposes of future studies. Follow-up compliance was high. Nearly 50% of participants with a diagnosis of mild/moderate COPD demonstrated previously undocumented FEV1 variability during follow-up, mandating monitoring for at least 6 months following withdrawal to exclude undiagnosed asthma.

Inhaled Corticosteroids Prescribed for COPD Patients with Mild or Moderate Airflow Limitation: Who Warrants a Trial of Withdrawal?

COPD patients prescribed inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) outside guidelines should be targeted for ICS withdrawal. Within a primary care population of 209,618 we used a combination of digital search algorithm, individual record review, and clinical review to identify COPD patients suitable for a trial of ICS withdrawal. At most, 39% of COPD patients with mild or moderate airflow limitation prescribed ICS were suitable for withdrawal according to Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines. Recurrent exacerbations and reversible airway obstruction were the main reasons for patients' unsuitability for withdrawal. Identifying COPD patients in whom ICS withdrawal should be considered presents a challenge to primary care clinicians.

Hospital readmissions for COPD: a retrospective longitudinal study.

Prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease hospital readmissions is an international priority aimed to slow disease progression and limit costs. Evidence of the risk of readmission and of interventions that might prevent it is lacking. We aimed to determine readmission risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, factors influencing that risk, and variation in readmission risk between hospitals across 7.5 million people in London. This retrospective longitudinal observational study included all chronic obstructive pulmonary disease admissions to any hospital in the United Kingdom among patients registered at London general practices who had emergency National Health Service chronic obstructive pulmonary disease hospital admissions between April 2006 and March 2010. Influence of patient characteristics, geographical deprivation score, length of stay, day of week of admission or of discharge, and admitting hospital, were assessed using multiple logistic regression. 38,894 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease admissions of 20,932 patients aged ≥ 45 years registered with London general practices were recorded. 6295 patients (32.2%) had at least one chronic obstructive pulmonary disease readmission within 1 year. 1993 patients (10.2%) were readmitted within 30 days and 3471 patients (17.8%) were readmitted within 90 days. Age and patient geographical deprivation score were very weak predictors of readmission. Rates of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease readmissions within 30 days and within 90 days did not vary among the majority of hospitals. The finding of lower chronic obstructive pulmonary disease readmission rates than was previously estimated and the limited variation in these rates between hospitals suggests that the opportunity to reduce chronic obstructive pulmonary disease readmission risk is small. CHRONIC LUNG DISEASE: LOWER RISK OF READMISSION FOR LONDON-BASED PATIENTS: A managed reduction of hospital readmissions for London-based chronic lung disease patients may not be needed. Preventing hospital readmissions for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a key priority to improve patient care and limit costs. However, few data are available to determine and ultimately reduce the risk of readmission. Timothy Harries at King's College, London, and co-workers conducted a longitudinal study incorporating all COPD admissions into UK hospitals for 20,932 patients registered at London general practitioners between 2006 and 2010. They found that 32% of patients were readmitted within a year, 17.8% within 90 days and 10% within 30 days. Neither age nor geographical deprivation were useful predictors of readmission. These represent lower than estimated levels of readmission, suggesting there may be fewer opportunities to reduce the risk of readmission further.

Length of stay of COPD hospital admissions between 2006 and 2010: a retrospective longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalizations for COPD are associated with poor patient prognosis. Length of stay (LOS) of COPD admissions in a large urban area and patient and hospital factors associated with it are described. METHODS: Retrospective longitudinal study. All COPD patients registered with London general practitioners and admitted as an emergency with COPD (2006-2010), not having been admitted with COPD in the preceding 12 months were included. Association of patient and hospital characteristics with mean LOS of COPD admissions was assessed. Association between hospital and LOS was determined by negative binomial regression. RESULTS: The total number of admissions was 38,504, from 22,462 patients. The mean LOS for first admissions fell by 0.8 days (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.7-1.5) from 8.2 to 7.0 days between 2006 and 2010. Seventy-nine percent of first admissions were ≤10 days, with a mean LOS of 3.7 days (2009-2010). The mean LOS of successive COPD admissions of the same patients was the same or less throughout the study period. The interval between successive admissions fell from a mean of 357 days between the first and second admission to a mean of 19 days after eight admissions. Age accounted for 2.3% of the variance in LOS. Socioeconomic deprivation did not predict LOS. Fewer discharges happened at the weekend (1,893/day) than on weekdays (5,218/day). The mean LOS varied between hospitals, from 4.9 days (95% CI: 3.8-5.9) to 9.5 days (95% CI: 8.6-10.3) when adjusting for clustering, age, sex, and socioeconomic deprivation. CONCLUSION: The fall in LOS of the first COPD admission between 2006 and 2010 reflects international trends. The stability of LOS in successive admissions suggests that increasing severity of disease does not affect recovery time from an exacerbation. Variations between hospitals of nearly 5 days in LOS for COPD admissions suggests that significant improvements in patient outcomes and in savings in health care utilization could be made in hospitals with longer LOS.

Randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled trial of selenium supplementation in adult asthma.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiological evidence from observational studies has suggested that blood levels and dietary intake of selenium of adults with asthma are lower than those of controls. The only previous trial of selenium supplementation in adults with asthma found no objective evidence of benefit but involved only 24 participants. METHODS: A randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled trial of selenium supplementation was performed in adults with asthma in London, UK, the majority of whom (75%) reported inhaled steroid use at baseline. 197 participants were randomised to receive either a high-selenium yeast preparation (100 microg daily, n=99) or placebo (yeast only, n=98) for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was asthma-related quality of life (QoL) score. Secondary outcomes included lung function, asthma symptom scores, peak flow and bronchodilator usage. Linear regression was used to analyse the change in outcome between the two treatment arms by "intention to treat". RESULTS: There was a 48% increase in plasma selenium between baseline and end of trial in the active treatment group but no change in the placebo group. While the QoL score improved more in the active treatment group than in the placebo group, the difference in change in score between the two groups was not significant (-0.05 (95% CI -0.19 to 0.09); p=0.47). Selenium supplementation was not associated with any significant improvement in secondary outcomes compared with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Selenium supplementation had no clinical benefit in adults with asthma, the majority of whom were taking inhaled steroids.

Introducing peer observation of teaching to GP teachers: a questionnaire study.

In medical education programmes which rely on clinical teachers spread across diverse sites, the application of peer observation of teaching offers the potential of both supporting teachers and maintaining quality. This paper reports on a questionnaire survey carried out with general practitioner (GP) teachers of medical undergraduate students from King's College London School of Medicine at Guy's, King's College and St Thomas' Hospitals. The aim of the study was to determine GP teachers' views on a proposed programme of peer observation of their teaching. The majority of GP teachers identified benefits of the proposed scheme with 69% saying it would help improve the education of future doctors. However, despite seeing the benefits, less than half wished to take part in the programme. Two thirds cited time and paperwork as major disincentives to taking part and 62% said that they felt it would make them feel under scrutiny. No associations were found between measures of workload and willingness to take part. This suggests that a fundamental fear of scrutiny and criticism may be the main hurdle to be overcome in implementing the scheme. Imposing peer observation on GP teachers in the form proposed could create suspicion and distance between the university department and practice-based GP teachers and may even result in a loss of teachers. The introduction of peer observation is more likely to be successful if GPs' apprehensions are addressed. Using peer observation to strengthen the process of quality assurance may undermine its role in the support and development of clinical teachers.