意大利关于慢性阻塞性肺病三重吸入疗法的德尔菲共识。

IF 2 Q3 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Paolo Solidoro, Federico Dente, Claudio Micheletto, Giovanni Pappagallo, Girolamo Pelaia, Alberto Papi
{"title":"意大利关于慢性阻塞性肺病三重吸入疗法的德尔菲共识。","authors":"Paolo Solidoro, Federico Dente, Claudio Micheletto, Giovanni Pappagallo, Girolamo Pelaia, Alberto Papi","doi":"10.5826/mrm.2024.949","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) lacks standardization due to the diverse clinical presentation, comorbidities, and limited acceptance of recommended approaches by physicians. To address this, a multicenter study was conducted among Italian respiratory physicians to assess consensus on COPD management and pharmacological treatment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study employed the Delphi process using the Estimate-Talk-Estimate method, involving a scientific board and expert panel. During a 6-month period, the scientific board conducted the first Delphi round and identified 11 broad areas of COPD management to be evaluated while the second Delphi round translated all 11 items into statements. The statements were subsequently presented to the expert panel for independent rating on a nine-point scale. Consensus was considered achieved if the median score was 7 or higher. Consistently high levels of consensus were observed in the first rating, allowing the scientific board to finalize the statements without requiring further rounds.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Topics generating substantial discussion included the pre-COPD phase, patient-reported outcomes, direct escalation from a single bronchodilator to triple therapy, and the role of adverse events, particularly pneumonia, in guiding triple therapy prescriptions. Notably, these topics exhibited higher standard deviations, indicating greater variation in expert opinions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study emphasized the significance that Italian pulmonologists attribute to managing mortality, tailoring treatments, and addressing cardiovascular comorbidities in COPD patients. While unanimous consensus was not achieved for all statements, the results provide valuable insights to inform clinical decision-making among physicians and contribute to a better understanding of COPD management practices in Italy.</p>","PeriodicalId":51135,"journal":{"name":"Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11414512/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Italian Delphi Consensus on the Triple inhalation Therapy in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.\",\"authors\":\"Paolo Solidoro, Federico Dente, Claudio Micheletto, Giovanni Pappagallo, Girolamo Pelaia, Alberto Papi\",\"doi\":\"10.5826/mrm.2024.949\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) lacks standardization due to the diverse clinical presentation, comorbidities, and limited acceptance of recommended approaches by physicians. To address this, a multicenter study was conducted among Italian respiratory physicians to assess consensus on COPD management and pharmacological treatment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study employed the Delphi process using the Estimate-Talk-Estimate method, involving a scientific board and expert panel. During a 6-month period, the scientific board conducted the first Delphi round and identified 11 broad areas of COPD management to be evaluated while the second Delphi round translated all 11 items into statements. The statements were subsequently presented to the expert panel for independent rating on a nine-point scale. Consensus was considered achieved if the median score was 7 or higher. Consistently high levels of consensus were observed in the first rating, allowing the scientific board to finalize the statements without requiring further rounds.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Topics generating substantial discussion included the pre-COPD phase, patient-reported outcomes, direct escalation from a single bronchodilator to triple therapy, and the role of adverse events, particularly pneumonia, in guiding triple therapy prescriptions. Notably, these topics exhibited higher standard deviations, indicating greater variation in expert opinions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study emphasized the significance that Italian pulmonologists attribute to managing mortality, tailoring treatments, and addressing cardiovascular comorbidities in COPD patients. While unanimous consensus was not achieved for all statements, the results provide valuable insights to inform clinical decision-making among physicians and contribute to a better understanding of COPD management practices in Italy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51135,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11414512/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5826/mrm.2024.949\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5826/mrm.2024.949","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:由于慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)的临床表现和并发症多种多样,而且医生对推荐方法的接受程度有限,因此慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)的管理缺乏标准化。为此,我们在意大利呼吸科医生中开展了一项多中心研究,以评估慢性阻塞性肺病管理和药物治疗的共识:方法:研究采用德尔菲程序,使用估计-谈话-估计方法,由科学委员会和专家小组参与。在为期 6 个月的时间里,科学委员会进行了第一轮德尔菲,确定了需评估的 11 个慢性阻塞性肺病管理的广泛领域,而第二轮德尔菲则将所有 11 个项目转化为声明。声明随后提交给专家小组,由专家小组按照九级评分标准进行独立评分。如果中位数分数达到或超过 7 分,则认为达成了共识。在第一轮评分中,各方达成了一致的高度共识,因此科学委员会无需再进行第二轮评分,即可最终确定声明:结果:引起大量讨论的主题包括 COPD 前期、患者报告结果、从单一支气管扩张剂直接升级到三联疗法,以及不良事件(尤其是肺炎)在指导三联疗法处方中的作用。值得注意的是,这些主题的标准偏差较大,表明专家意见的差异更大:这项研究强调了意大利肺科专家对控制死亡率、调整治疗方法和解决慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者心血管合并症问题的重视。虽然未能就所有声明达成一致共识,但研究结果为医生的临床决策提供了宝贵的见解,有助于更好地了解意大利的慢性阻塞性肺病管理实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An Italian Delphi Consensus on the Triple inhalation Therapy in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Background: The management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) lacks standardization due to the diverse clinical presentation, comorbidities, and limited acceptance of recommended approaches by physicians. To address this, a multicenter study was conducted among Italian respiratory physicians to assess consensus on COPD management and pharmacological treatment.

Methods: The study employed the Delphi process using the Estimate-Talk-Estimate method, involving a scientific board and expert panel. During a 6-month period, the scientific board conducted the first Delphi round and identified 11 broad areas of COPD management to be evaluated while the second Delphi round translated all 11 items into statements. The statements were subsequently presented to the expert panel for independent rating on a nine-point scale. Consensus was considered achieved if the median score was 7 or higher. Consistently high levels of consensus were observed in the first rating, allowing the scientific board to finalize the statements without requiring further rounds.

Results: Topics generating substantial discussion included the pre-COPD phase, patient-reported outcomes, direct escalation from a single bronchodilator to triple therapy, and the role of adverse events, particularly pneumonia, in guiding triple therapy prescriptions. Notably, these topics exhibited higher standard deviations, indicating greater variation in expert opinions.

Conclusions: The study emphasized the significance that Italian pulmonologists attribute to managing mortality, tailoring treatments, and addressing cardiovascular comorbidities in COPD patients. While unanimous consensus was not achieved for all statements, the results provide valuable insights to inform clinical decision-making among physicians and contribute to a better understanding of COPD management practices in Italy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine is the official journal of the Italian Respiratory Society - Società Italiana di Pneumologia (IRS/SIP). The journal publishes on all aspects of respiratory medicine and related fields, with a particular focus on interdisciplinary and translational research. The interdisciplinary nature of the journal provides a unique opportunity for researchers, clinicians and healthcare professionals across specialties to collaborate and exchange information. The journal provides a high visibility platform for the publication and dissemination of top quality original scientific articles, reviews and important position papers documenting clinical and experimental advances.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信