OBJECTIVES: Case finding is proposed as an important component of the forthcoming English National Clinical Strategy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) because of accepted widespread underdiagnosis worldwide. However the best method of identification is not known. The extent of undiagnosed clinically significant COPD in England is described and the effectiveness of an active compared with an opportunistic approach to case finding is evaluated. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was carried out using using Health Survey for England (HSE) 1995-1996 data supplemented with published literature. A model comparing an active approach (mailed questionnaires plus opportunistic identification) with an opportunistic-only approach of case finding among ever smokers aged 40-79 years was evaluated. There were 20 496 participants aged >or=30 years with valid lung function measurements. The main outcome measure was undiagnosed clinically significant COPD (any respiratory symptom with both forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1))/forced vital capacity (FVC) <0.7 and FEV(1) <80% predicted). RESULTS: 971 (4.7%) had clinically significant COPD, of whom 840 (86.5%) did not report a previous diagnosis. Undiagnosed cases were more likely to be female, and smoked less. 25.3% had severe disease (FEV(1) <50% predicted), 38.5% Medical Research Council (MRC) grade 3 dyspnoea and 44.1% were current smokers. The active case-finding strategy can potentially identify 70% more new cases than opportunistic identification alone (3.8 vs 2.2 per 100 targeted). Treating these new cases could reduce hospitalisations by at least 3300 per year in England and deaths by 2885 over 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: There is important undiagnosed clinically significant COPD in the population, and the addition of a systematic case-finding approach may be more effective in identifying these cases. The cost-effectiveness of this approach needs to be tested empirically in a prospective study.
OBJECTIVES: Case finding is proposed as an important component of the forthcoming English National Clinical Strategy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) because of accepted widespread underdiagnosis worldwide. However the best method of identification is not known. The extent of undiagnosed clinically significant COPD in England is described and the effectiveness of an active compared with an opportunistic approach to case finding is evaluated. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was carried out using using Health Survey for England (HSE) 1995-1996 data supplemented with published literature. A model comparing an active approach (mailed questionnaires plus opportunistic identification) with an opportunistic-only approach of case finding among ever smokers aged 40-79 years was evaluated. There were 20 496 participants aged >or=30 years with valid lung function measurements. The main outcome measure was undiagnosed clinically significant COPD (any respiratory symptom with both forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1))/forced vital capacity (FVC) <0.7 and FEV(1) <80% predicted). RESULTS: 971 (4.7%) had clinically significant COPD, of whom 840 (86.5%) did not report a previous diagnosis. Undiagnosed cases were more likely to be female, and smoked less. 25.3% had severe disease (FEV(1) <50% predicted), 38.5% Medical Research Council (MRC) grade 3 dyspnoea and 44.1% were current smokers. The active case-finding strategy can potentially identify 70% more new cases than opportunistic identification alone (3.8 vs 2.2 per 100 targeted). Treating these new cases could reduce hospitalisations by at least 3300 per year in England and deaths by 2885 over 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: There is important undiagnosed clinically significant COPD in the population, and the addition of a systematic case-finding approach may be more effective in identifying these cases. The cost-effectiveness of this approach needs to be tested empirically in a prospective study.
Authors: David B Price; David G Tinkelman; R J Halbert; Robert J Nordyke; Sharon Isonaka; Dmitry Nonikov; Elizabeth F Juniper; Daryl Freeman; Thomas Hausen; Mark L Levy; Anders Ostrem; Thys van der Molen; Constant P van Schayck Journal: Respiration Date: 2005-12-05 Impact factor: 3.580
Authors: Anamika Jithoo; Paul L Enright; Peter Burney; A Sonia Buist; Eric D Bateman; Wan C Tan; Michael Studnicka; Filip Mejza; Suzanne Gillespie; William M Vollmer Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2012-06-27 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Eva Balcells; Elena Gimeno-Santos; Jordi de Batlle; Maria Antonia Ramon; Esther Rodríguez; Marta Benet; Eva Farrero; Antoni Ferrer; Stefano Guerra; Jaume Ferrer; Jaume Sauleda; Joan A Barberà; Àlvar Agustí; Robert Rodriguez-Roisin; Joaquim Gea; Josep M Antó; Judith Garcia-Aymerich Journal: BMC Pulm Med Date: 2015-01-17 Impact factor: 3.317
Authors: Firdaus A A Mohamed Hoesein; Pim A de Jong; Jan-Willem J Lammers; Willem Pthm Mali; Michael Schmidt; Harry J de Koning; Carlijn van der Aalst; Matthijs Oudkerk; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Bram van Ginneken; Eva M van Rikxoort; Pieter Zanen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-06-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Shamil Mm Haroon; Rachel E Jordan; Joanne O'Beirne-Elliman; Peymane Adab Journal: NPJ Prim Care Respir Med Date: 2015-08-27 Impact factor: 2.871