Differences in COPD management across clinician type: Maintenance treatment habits and patient characteristics among US pulmonologists, internal/family medicine physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Chronic Respiratory Disease Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-06-05 DOI:10.1177/14799731251346191
Mario Castro, Kevin C Carney, Steven M Romanelli, Amy L Dixon, Maryam Q Abdul Rahman, Kavita Aggarwal, Barbara P Yawn
{"title":"Differences in COPD management across clinician type: Maintenance treatment habits and patient characteristics among US pulmonologists, internal/family medicine physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants.","authors":"Mario Castro, Kevin C Carney, Steven M Romanelli, Amy L Dixon, Maryam Q Abdul Rahman, Kavita Aggarwal, Barbara P Yawn","doi":"10.1177/14799731251346191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectivesTreatment recommendations for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are based on single or combination long-acting bronchodilator therapy (β<sub>2</sub>-agonists [LABAs] or muscarinic receptor antagonists [LAMAs]), with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for those at risk of exacerbations. This study evaluated differences in patient characteristics and treatment patterns among US clinicians.MethodsMedical record data for patients with COPD were abstracted via a retrospective cross-sectional survey by pulmonologists, internal/family medicine physicians, nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs).ResultsData on 700 patients were collected from 175 clinicians: 100 pulmonologists, 45 internal/family medicine physicians, 30 NP/PAs. Respondents classified patients as having Mild (11%), Moderate (51%), or Severe/Very Severe (38%) COPD, with highest perceived disease burden for patients with Severe/Very Severe COPD. Dual therapies were prescribed differently according to clinician type. Internal/family medicine physicians and NP/PAs prescribed LABA/ICS to a significantly higher proportion of patients than pulmonologists, who favored use of dual bronchodilator therapy. Regardless of clinician type, COPD management was complex, with patients starting and transitioning to multiple treatments throughout their care.ConclusionDifferences in COPD treatment patterns exist across US clinicians. Despite current maintenance treatment, COPD had a profound impact on patients, indicating a need for improved therapies for COPD.</p>","PeriodicalId":10217,"journal":{"name":"Chronic Respiratory Disease","volume":"22 ","pages":"14799731251346191"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12141797/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chronic Respiratory Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14799731251346191","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ObjectivesTreatment recommendations for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are based on single or combination long-acting bronchodilator therapy (β2-agonists [LABAs] or muscarinic receptor antagonists [LAMAs]), with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for those at risk of exacerbations. This study evaluated differences in patient characteristics and treatment patterns among US clinicians.MethodsMedical record data for patients with COPD were abstracted via a retrospective cross-sectional survey by pulmonologists, internal/family medicine physicians, nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs).ResultsData on 700 patients were collected from 175 clinicians: 100 pulmonologists, 45 internal/family medicine physicians, 30 NP/PAs. Respondents classified patients as having Mild (11%), Moderate (51%), or Severe/Very Severe (38%) COPD, with highest perceived disease burden for patients with Severe/Very Severe COPD. Dual therapies were prescribed differently according to clinician type. Internal/family medicine physicians and NP/PAs prescribed LABA/ICS to a significantly higher proportion of patients than pulmonologists, who favored use of dual bronchodilator therapy. Regardless of clinician type, COPD management was complex, with patients starting and transitioning to multiple treatments throughout their care.ConclusionDifferences in COPD treatment patterns exist across US clinicians. Despite current maintenance treatment, COPD had a profound impact on patients, indicating a need for improved therapies for COPD.

不同临床医生类型COPD管理的差异:美国肺科医生、内科/家庭医学医生、执业护士和医师助理的维持治疗习惯和患者特征。
慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)的治疗建议是基于单一或联合长效支气管扩张剂治疗(β2激动剂[LABAs]或毒蕈碱受体拮抗剂[LAMAs]),并对有恶化风险的患者使用吸入皮质类固醇(ICS)。本研究评估了美国临床医生在患者特征和治疗模式上的差异。方法通过回顾性横断面调查抽取COPD患者的病历资料,调查对象包括肺科医生、内科/家庭医学医生、执业护士(NPs)和医师助理(PAs)。结果来自175名临床医生的700例患者的数据:100名肺科医生,45名内科/家庭医学医生,30名NP/PAs。受访者将患者分为轻度(11%)、中度(51%)或重度/极重度(38%)COPD,重度/极重度COPD患者的疾病负担最高。根据临床医生类型,采用不同的双重治疗方法。内科/家庭医学医生和NP/PAs给患者开LABA/ICS的比例明显高于支持使用双支气管扩张剂治疗的肺科医生。无论临床医生类型如何,COPD的管理都是复杂的,患者在整个治疗过程中开始和过渡到多种治疗。结论:美国临床医生COPD治疗模式存在差异。尽管目前的维持治疗,COPD对患者有深远的影响,表明需要改进COPD的治疗方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Chronic Respiratory Disease
Chronic Respiratory Disease RESPIRATORY SYSTEM-
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
7.30%
发文量
47
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Chronic Respiratory Disease is a peer-reviewed, open access, scholarly journal, created in response to the rising incidence of chronic respiratory diseases worldwide. It publishes high quality research papers and original articles that have immediate relevance to clinical practice and its multi-disciplinary perspective reflects the nature of modern treatment. The journal provides a high quality, multi-disciplinary focus for the publication of original papers, reviews and commentary in the broad area of chronic respiratory disease, particularly its treatment and management.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信