open access

Vol 85, No 3 (2017)
ORIGINAL PAPERS
Published online: 2017-06-30
Submitted: 2017-04-11
Get Citation

Public spirometry campaign in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease screening – hope or hype?

Piotr Korczyński, Katarzyna Górska, Piotr Jankowski, Jakub Kosiński, Agata Kudas, Katarzyna Sułek, Maria Jankowska, Kaja Jaśkiewicz, Rafał Krenke
DOI: 10.5603/ARM.2017.0024
·
Adv Respir Med 2017;85(3):143-150.

open access

Vol 85, No 3 (2017)
ORIGINAL PAPERS
Published online: 2017-06-30
Submitted: 2017-04-11

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Underdiagnosis of COPD seems to be a relevant clinical and social problem. We hypothesized that active public spirometry campaign may help identify subjects with airflow limitation consistent with COPD.

The aim of the study was (1) to evaluate the willingness of random smokers to undergo public spirometry, (2) to assess the ability to obtain an acceptable quality spirometry during a public campaign, and (3) to assess the relationships between the presence and severity of respiratory symptoms and readiness to undergo spirometry.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: Pedestrians aged > 40 years and a smoking history > 10 pack-years were recruited by medical students to fill a questionnaire and perform spirometry. Those with obstructive or borderline ventilatory insuffciency were invited and encouraged to undergo stationary spirometry in a pulmonary outpatient department.

RESULTS: Nine hundred and five subjects meeting the inclusion criteria were invited to the study. Only 178 subjects agreed to complete the questionnaire and undergo spirometry. Airway obstruction and borderline spirometry result (classified as possible airway obstruction) were found in 22 and 37 subjects, respectively. Of these, only 15 patients attended follow-up visit to verify public spirometry results. Extrapolation of the limited data showed the incidence of newly diagnosed airway obstruction as 10.7%.

CONCLUSION: Public spirometry campaign does not seem to be an effective way of COPD screening. Smokers are reluctant to undergo complimentary spirometry even in the presence of pronounced respiratory symptoms. Our observations may be helpful in elaborating future screening programs for COPD.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Underdiagnosis of COPD seems to be a relevant clinical and social problem. We hypothesized that active public spirometry campaign may help identify subjects with airflow limitation consistent with COPD.

The aim of the study was (1) to evaluate the willingness of random smokers to undergo public spirometry, (2) to assess the ability to obtain an acceptable quality spirometry during a public campaign, and (3) to assess the relationships between the presence and severity of respiratory symptoms and readiness to undergo spirometry.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: Pedestrians aged > 40 years and a smoking history > 10 pack-years were recruited by medical students to fill a questionnaire and perform spirometry. Those with obstructive or borderline ventilatory insuffciency were invited and encouraged to undergo stationary spirometry in a pulmonary outpatient department.

RESULTS: Nine hundred and five subjects meeting the inclusion criteria were invited to the study. Only 178 subjects agreed to complete the questionnaire and undergo spirometry. Airway obstruction and borderline spirometry result (classified as possible airway obstruction) were found in 22 and 37 subjects, respectively. Of these, only 15 patients attended follow-up visit to verify public spirometry results. Extrapolation of the limited data showed the incidence of newly diagnosed airway obstruction as 10.7%.

CONCLUSION: Public spirometry campaign does not seem to be an effective way of COPD screening. Smokers are reluctant to undergo complimentary spirometry even in the presence of pronounced respiratory symptoms. Our observations may be helpful in elaborating future screening programs for COPD.

Get Citation

Keywords

airway obstruction; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; public spirometry

About this article
Title

Public spirometry campaign in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease screening – hope or hype?

Journal

Advances in Respiratory Medicine

Issue

Vol 85, No 3 (2017)

Pages

143-150

Published online

2017-06-30

DOI

10.5603/ARM.2017.0024

Bibliographic record

Adv Respir Med 2017;85(3):143-150.

Keywords

airway obstruction
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
public spirometry

Authors

Piotr Korczyński
Katarzyna Górska
Piotr Jankowski
Jakub Kosiński
Agata Kudas
Katarzyna Sułek
Maria Jankowska
Kaja Jaśkiewicz
Rafał Krenke

References (28)
  1. Rabe KF, Hurd S, Anzueto A, et al. Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease. Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: GOLD executive summary. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2007; 176(6): 532–555.
  2. Adeloye D, Chua S, Lee C, et al. Global Health Epidemiology Reference Group (GHERG). Global and regional estimates of COPD prevalence: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Glob Health. 2015; 5(2): 020415.
  3. Diaz-Guzman E, Mannino DM. Epidemiology and prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Clin Chest Med. 2014; 35: 7–16.
  4. Nizankowska-Mogilnicka E, Mejza F, Buist AS, et al. Prevalence of COPD and tobacco smoking in Malopolska region--results from the BOLD study in Poland. Pol Arch Med Wewn. 2007; 117(9): 402–410.
  5. Pływaczewski R, Maciejewski J, Bednarek M, et al. Prevalence, severity and underdiagnosis of COPD in the primary care setting. Thorax. 2008; 63(5): 402–407.
  6. Pływaczewski R, Bednarek M, Jonczak L, et al. [Prevalence of COPD in Warsaw population]. Pneumonol Alergol Pol. 2003; 71(7-8): 329–335.
  7. Sliwiński P, Górecka D, Jassem E, et al. [Polish respiratory society guidelines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease]. Pneumonol Alergol Pol. 2014; 82(3): 227–263.
  8. Polakowska M, Kaleta D, Piotrowski W, et al. Tobacco smoking in Poland in the years from 2003 to 2014. Multi‑centre National Population Health Examination Survey (WOBASZ). Pol Arch Intern Med. 2017; 127(2): 91–99.
  9. Price D, Crockett A, Arne M, et al. Spirometry in primary care case-identification, diagnosis and management of COPD. Prim Care Respir J. 2009; 18(3): 216–223.
  10. Miller MR, Hankinson J, Brusasco V, et al. ATS/ERS Task Force. Standardisation of spirometry. Eur Respir J. 2005; 26(2): 319–338.
  11. Pellegrino R, Viegi G, Brusasco V, et al. Interpretative strategies for lung function tests. Eur Respir J. 2005; 26(5): 948–968.
  12. Sterk PJ, Fabbri LM, Quanjer PH, et al. Standardized lung function testing. Report working party. Bull Eur Physiopathol Respir. 1983; 19 Suppl 5: 1–95.
  13. Haroon SMm, Jordan RE, O'Beirne-Elliman J, et al. Effectiveness of case finding strategies for COPD in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med. 2015; 25: 15056.
  14. Labor M, Vrbica Ž, Gudelj I, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of a pocket screening spirometer in diagnosing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in general practice: a cross sectional validation study using tertiary care as a reference. BMC Fam Pract. 2016; 17(1): 112.
  15. Shaughnessy JJ, Zechmeister EB, Zechmeister JS. Survy Research. In:, , Research Methods in Psychology. New York, NY. ; 2012: 137–182.
  16. Ziółkowski B, Pacholec A, Muszyński J. Alarm symptoms, risk factors for digestive tract cancer and readiness to participate in an endoscopic screening program. Gastroenterology Review. 2013; 2: 108–114.
  17. Karch A, Vogelmeier C, Welte T, et al. COSYCONET Study Group. The German COPD cohort COSYCONET: Aims, methods and descriptive analysis of the study population at baseline. Respir Med. 2016; 114: 27–37.
  18. Nishimura M, Makita H, Nagai K, et al. Hokkaido COPD Cohort Study Investigators. Annual change in pulmonary function and clinical phenotype in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012; 185(1): 44–52.
  19. Fu SN, Yu WC, Wong CKH, et al. Prevalence of undiagnosed airflow obstruction among people with a history of smoking in a primary care setting. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2016; 11: 2391–2399.
  20. Løkke A, Ulrik CS, Dahl R, et al. TOP GOLD study-group. Detection of previously undiagnosed cases of COPD in a high-risk population identified in general practice. COPD. 2012; 9(5): 458–465.
  21. Zieliñski J, Bednarek M. Know the Age of Your Lung Study Group. Early detection of COPD in a high-risk population using spirometric screening. Chest. 2001; 119(3): 731–736.
  22. Maio S, Sherrill DL, MacNee W, et al. European Respiratory Society/European Lung Foundation Spirometry Tent Working Group. The European Respiratory Society spirometry tent: a unique form of screening for airway obstruction. Eur Respir J. 2012; 39(6): 1458–1467.
  23. Nelson SB, LaVange LM, Nie Y, et al. Questionnaires and pocket spirometers provide an alternative approach for COPD screening in the general population. Chest. 2012; 142(2): 358–366.
  24. Degryse J, Buffels J, Van Dijck Y, et al. Accuracy of office spirometry performed by trained primary-care physicians using the MIR Spirobank hand-held spirometer. Respiration. 2012; 83(6): 543–552.
  25. Dabrowiecki P, Badyda AJ, Chcialowski A, et al. Spirometry day: a means to enhance social knowledge on respiratory diseases. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2013; 788: 213–219.
  26. Rhee CK, Kim JW, Hwang YIl, et al. Discrepancies between modified Medical Research Council dyspnea score and COPD assessment test score in patients with COPD. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2015; 10: 1623–1631.
  27. Casanova C, Marin JM, Martinez-Gonzalez C, et al. COPD History Assessment in Spain (CHAIN) Cohort. Differential Effect of Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea, COPD Assessment Test, and Clinical COPD Questionnaire for Symptoms Evaluation Within the New GOLD Staging and Mortality in COPD. Chest. 2015; 148(1): 159–168.
  28. Raghavan N, Lam YM, Webb KA, et al. Components of the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) associated with a diagnosis of COPD in a random population sample. COPD. 2012; 9(2): 175–183.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

Czasopismo Pneumonologia i Alergologia Polska dostęne jest również w Ikamed - księgarnia medyczna

Wydawcą serwisu jest "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk

tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl