COPD management according to old and new GOLD guidelines: an observational study with Italian general practitioners.

BACKGROUND: Guideline recommendations for COPD management are only partially applied within primary care clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To compare the COPD management by Italian general practitioners (GPs) according to either the old GOLD (oGOLD) or the new GOLD (nGOLD) guidelines. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Observational study in different Italian areas. A total of 176 GPs enrolled their patients with a COPD diagnosis. Questionnaires were used to collect data on: COPD symptoms, disease severity, exacerbations, prescribed pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments. COPD severity was estimated according to oGOLD and nGOLD guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 526 subjects had complete information to assess COPD severity level according to guidelines (symptoms level, spirometry, history of exacerbations). The investigated subjects were more frequently males (71.2%) with a mean age of 72.5 years, and ex-smokers (44.4%). GPs reported sufficient control of the disease in 47.2% of the subjects with over two exacerbations in the last 12 months. Most patients have moderate COPD (51.5%), according to oGOLD, and belong to D groups (high risk, more symptoms) (45.6%), according to nGOLD. Overall, a low use of post-bronchodilator spirometry (65.1%) and of pulmonary rehabilitation (13.4%) was shown. The results highlighted a low prescriptive appropriateness but with higher value according to nGOLD than oGOLD: 61.4% vs 35.6%. STUDY LIMITATIONS: Prescription data only provide limited information to judge prescribing quality, thus the results have to be evaluated with caution; moreover, this study was not designed to assess the difference between oGOLD and nGOLD. CONCLUSIONS: Guideline recommendations are applied only partially within clinical practice. A higher prescriptive appropriateness is shown by GPs using nGOLD classification. This might be due to the fact that nGOLD, with respect to oGOLD, takes into account anamnestic usual features considered by GPs in their clinical practice.

The ARGA study with Italian general practitioners: prescriptions for allergic rhinitis and adherence to ARIA guidelines.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) are the healthcare professionals to whom patients with rhinitis firstly refer for their symptoms. OBJECTIVE: In the present study, we assessed drug prescriptions for allergic rhinitis (AR) and evaluated prescriptive adherence to ARIA treatment guidelines. METHODS: Data on 1379 AR patients were collected by 107 Italian GPs. Adherence to ARIA guidelines was evaluated according to AR severity classification. RESULTS: AR was diagnosed by GPs as mild intermittent for 46.2% of patients, mild persistent for 26.6%, moderate-severe intermittent for 20.2%, and moderate-severe persistent for 7%; 43.7% of AR patients had concomitant asthma. The most frequently prescribed therapeutic groups were antihistamines (anti-H, 76%) and nasal corticosteroids (NCS, 46%). Anti-H were significantly used more often to treat AR alone than AR + asthma (85 vs. 68%, p < 0.001), whereas NCS were used more often to treat AR + asthma than AR alone (50 vs. 42%, p = 0.01). Among patients with only mild intermittent AR, 39% were prescribed combined therapy. Among patients with moderate-severe persistent AR, 30% of those with AR alone and 18% of those with AR + asthma were prescribed monotherapy based on anti-H. GPs were more compliant with ARIA guidelines while treating AR alone (57%) than AR + asthma (46%) patients. The adherence increased according to the severity grade and was satisfactory for moderate-severe persistent AR (89% for AR alone and 95% for AR + asthma). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to ARIA guidelines is satisfactory only for treatment of more severe patients, thus GPs often tend to treat patients independently from ARIA guidelines. Since prescription data only provide limited information to judge prescribing quality, some deviation from the gold standard are to be expected.