Evaluation of Suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow in Patients with Stable COPD.

OBJECTIVE: Although the importance of assessing inspiratory flow in the selection of treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is understood, evaluation of this factor is not yet widespread or standardized. The objective of the present work was to evaluate the peak inspiratory flow (PIF) of patients with COPD and to explore the variables associated with a suboptimal PIF. METHODS: An observational, cross-sectional study was carried out at specialized nursing consultations over a period of 6 months. We collected clinical data as well as data on symptoms, treatment adherence, and patient satisfaction with their inhalers via questionnaires. PIF was determined using the In-Check Dial G16® device (Clement Clarke International, Ltd., Harlow, UK). In each case, the PIF was considered suboptimal when it was off-target for any of the prescribed inhalers. The association with suboptimal PIF was evaluated using multivariate logistic regression and the results were expressed as the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: A total of 122 COPD patients were included in this study, of whom 34 (27.9%) had suboptimal PIF. A total of 229 inhalers were tested, of which 186 (81.2%) were dry powder devices. The multivariate analysis found an association between suboptimal PIF and age (OR = 1.072; 95% CI (1.019, 1.128); p = 0.007) and forced vital capacity (OR = 0.961; 95% CI (0.933, 0.989); p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: About a third of patients in complex specialized COPD care have suboptimal PIFs, which is related to age and forced vital capacity.

Evaluation of the visit frequency and the use of questionnaires and indices for COPD: a national survey from the On-Sint study.

INTRODUCTION: Despite widespread recommendations to use standardized questionnaires and multidimensional indices for the assessment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), few data are available on the application of these tools in clinical practice. This study evaluates the attitude of physicians participating in the On-Sint cohort toward the use of health status questionnaires and multidimensional indices, as well as toward the frequency of visits and spirometry in primary care and specialized care. METHODS: During the constitution of the On-Sint cohort, the participating physicians were surveyed about their clinical practice. They were questioned on the frequency of spirometry and visits and on the use of various questionnaires and indices. The health status questionnaires assessed were St. George's respiratory questionnaire, chronic respiratory questionnaire, airways questionnaire 20 and COPD assessment test (CAT). Physicians were also asked about the use of the medical research council (MRC) dyspnea scale and multidimensional indices such as body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnea, exercise capacity (BODE). RESULTS: Of the 356 physicians who participated in the study, 258 (72.5 %) completed the investigator's questionnaire (185 primary care, 73 specialized care). Nonscheduled visits were inversely proportional to the severity of COPD. Overall, 34.1% reported using health status questionnaires, mainly CAT (20.9%). We found differences between primary and specialized care in the use of multidimensional indices (84.9% vs 47.6%; P < 0.001). Of all the participants, 33.3% reported using the MRC scale and 28.7% the BODE index. CONCLUSIONS: Multidimensional indices and questionnaires are not commonly used with some differences between primary care and specialized care physicians. There is a considerable variability in the frequency of follow-up visits and spirometry.