NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Screening for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Targeted Evidence Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
Evidence Synthesis, No. 215
Investigators: Jennifer S. Lin, MD, MCR, Elizabeth M. Webber, MS, and Rachel G. Thomas, MPH.
Structured Abstract
Objective:
We conducted a targeted evidence update to support the US Preventive Services Task Force in updating its 2016 recommendation on Screening for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Our review addressed three key questions: 1) Does screening for COPD improve health-related quality of life or reduce morbidity or mortality?, 2) Does treatment of screen-detected or mild to moderate COPD improve health-related quality of life or reduce morbidity or mortality?, 3) What are the adverse effects of COPD treatments in this population?; and one contextual question: 1) Does identifying asymptomatic adults with COPD improve the delivery and uptake of targeted preventive services (e.g., smoking cessation, recommended immunizations, lung cancer screening)?
Data Sources:
We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL from January 1, 2015, to January 22, 2021, to identify literature published since the previous recommendation. Because the previous review did not include non-pharmacologic interventions, we supplemented these searches by examining reference lists of relevant recent reviews to identify studies prior to 2015.
Study Selection:
Two investigators independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles against a set of a priori inclusion and quality criteria. Inclusion criteria for treatment benefits and harms specified persons with mild (defined as forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] ≥ 80 percent predicted) to moderate (FEV1 50-79 percent predicted) COPD or a mean population FEV1 ≥ 60 percent predicted.
Data Analysis:
One investigator abstracted data into an evidence table and a second investigator checked these data. We provide a narrative synthesis of the newly identified evidence for each question; quantitative synthesis was not appropriate due to heterogeneity and few trials for any given intervention and outcome.
Results:
We found no trials examining the effectiveness of screening or active case finding for COPD on health outcomes. We included 16 trials evaluating the treatment of mild to moderate, or minimally symptomatic, COPD: 3 trials (n=20,058) evaluated long acting beta agonists (LABA), long acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), and/or inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), and 13 trials (n=3,657) evaluated non-pharmacologic interventions (i.e., self-management interventions, exercise counseling interventions, supervised exercise and pulmonary rehabilitation interventions, and clinician education interventions). Two trials (SUMMIT and UPLIFT) found that LABA, LAMA, ICS, or LABA/ICS reduced exacerbations or clinically important deterioration in persons with fairly symptomatic moderate COPD. One trial (UPLIFT) found that LAMA, specifically tiotropium, also reduced exacerbations in a subgroup analysis (n=357) of persons with minimal symptoms (i.e., GOLD category A). Overall, there was no consistent benefit observed for any type of non-pharmacologic intervention across a range of patient outcomes. One of the two trials (n=114) evaluating the same exercise-focused web-based intervention in a VA population demonstrated a reduction in COPD exacerbations at 65 weeks. Other trials, not conducted in the US, evaluating more intensive self-management interventions, supervised exercise, and pulmonary rehabilitation interventions in persons with mild to moderate COPD, or minimal symptoms, did not demonstrate a reduction in exacerbations or other outcomes. Only three included trials reported on smoking cessation, vaccination, or lung cancer screening outcomes. These trials, combined with six additional comparative studies evaluating the incremental value of receipt of spirometry on smoking cessation, found no consistent improvement in smoking cessation. Only one trial evaluating a clinician training intervention to improve COPD care reported vaccination outcomes and demonstrated an improvement in uptake of influenza vaccination. None of the included treatment trials that reported adverse effects found significant harms. Two large observational studies in a screen-relevant population demonstrated an association of the initiation of LAMA or LABA with the risk of a serious cardiovascular event in treatment-naïve patients and an association of ICS use with the risk of developing diabetes.
Limitations:
It is unclear how generalizable the observed treatment benefit, the reduction of exacerbations, is to a screen-detected population, as these findings were primarily in persons with fairly symptomatic moderate COPD. It is unclear if and how small sample sizes, usual care comparators in trials conducted outside the US, and/or poor adherence to the non-pharmacologic interventions contributed to the largely null findings of these trials. The small number of included participants and limited length of followup in the majority of included trials (or their relevant subgroup analyses) limits the ability to detect uncommon harms or longer-term harms. Harms of LABA, LAMA, and ICS demonstrated in the included observational trials should be interpreted in context of the larger body of literature on harms of inhaled therapies.
Conclusions:
The findings of this targeted evidence update are generally consistent with the findings of the previous systematic review supporting the 2016 recommendation. To date, there are still no comparative studies on the effectiveness of screening or active case finding for COPD on patient health outcomes. The demonstrated benefits of pharmacologic treatment for COPD are still largely limited to persons with moderate airflow obstruction; and there was no consistent benefit observed for a range of non-pharmacologic interventions in mild to moderate COPD, or in minimally symptomatic persons with COPD.
Contents
- Acknowledgments
- Chapter 1. Introduction
- Chapter 2. Methods
- Chapter 3. Results
- Literature Search
- KQ1. Does Screening for COPD Improve Health-Related Quality of Life or Reduce Morbidity or Mortality?
- KQ2. Does Treatment of Screen Detected or Mild to Moderate COPD Improve Health-Related Quality of Life or Reduce Morbidity or Mortality?
- KQ3. What Are the Adverse Effects of COPD Treatments in This Population?
- Chapter 4. Discussion
- References
- Appendixes
Suggested citation:
Lin JS, Webber EM, Thomas RG. Screening for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Targeted Evidence Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Evidence Synthesis No. 215. AHRQ Publication No. 21-05287-EF-1. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2022.
This report is based on research conducted by the Kaiser Permanente Research Affiliates Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. HHSA-290-2015-00007-I). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The information in this report is intended to help healthcare decision makers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of healthcare services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information (i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients).
This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied.
- NLM CatalogRelated NLM Catalog Entries
- Review Screening for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force[ 2016]Review Screening for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task ForceGuirguis-Blake JM, Senger CA, Webber EM, Mularski R, Whitlock EP. 2016 Apr
- Review Inhaled corticosteroids with combination inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists and long-acting muscarinic antagonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.[Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023]Review Inhaled corticosteroids with combination inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists and long-acting muscarinic antagonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.van Geffen WH, Tan DJ, Walters JA, Walters EH. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Dec 6; 12(12):CD011600. Epub 2023 Dec 6.
- Review Screening for Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults: An Evidence Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force[ 2020]Review Screening for Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults: An Evidence Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task ForcePatnode CD, Perdue LA, Rossom RC, Rushkin MC, Redmond N, Thomas RG, Lin JS. 2020 Feb
- Screening for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.[JAMA. 2022]Screening for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.Webber EM, Lin JS, Thomas RG. JAMA. 2022 May 10; 327(18):1812-1816.
- Review Behavioral Counseling to Promote a Healthy Lifestyle for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Persons With Cardiovascular Risk Factors: An Updated Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force[ 2014]Review Behavioral Counseling to Promote a Healthy Lifestyle for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Persons With Cardiovascular Risk Factors: An Updated Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task ForceLin JS, O'Connor EA, Evans CV, Senger CA, Rowland MG, Groom HC. 2014 Aug
- Screening for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Targeted Evidence Update ...Screening for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Targeted Evidence Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
- The Development and Shaping of the Brain - Discovering the BrainThe Development and Shaping of the Brain - Discovering the Brain
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...