RESUMO
Importance: Most of the global morbidity and mortality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) occurs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), with significant economic effects. Objective: To assess the discriminative accuracy of 3 instruments using questionnaires and peak expiratory flow (PEF) to screen for COPD in 3 LMIC settings. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional analysis of discriminative accuracy, conducted between January 2018 and March 2020 in semiurban Bhaktapur, Nepal; urban Lima, Peru; and rural Nakaseke, Uganda, using a random age- and sex-stratified sample of the population 40 years or older. Exposures: Three screening tools, the COPD Assessment in Primary Care to Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk (CAPTURE; range, 0-6; high risk indicated by a score of 5 or more or score 2-5 with low PEF [<250 L/min for females and <350 L/min for males]), the COPD in LMICs Assessment questionnaire (COLA-6; range, 0-5; high risk indicated by a score of 4 or more), and the Lung Function Questionnaire (LFQ; range, 0-25; high risk indicated by a score of 18 or less) were assessed against a reference standard diagnosis of COPD using quality-assured postbronchodilator spirometry. CAPTURE and COLA-6 include a measure of PEF. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was discriminative accuracy of the tools in identifying COPD as measured by area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) with 95% CIs. Secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. Results: Among 10â¯709 adults who consented to participate in the study (mean age, 56.3 years (SD, 11.7); 50% female), 35% had ever smoked, and 30% were currently exposed to biomass smoke. The unweighted prevalence of COPD at the 3 sites was 18.2% (642/3534 participants) in Nepal, 2.7% (97/3550) in Peru, and 7.4% (264/3580) in Uganda. Among 1000 COPD cases, 49.3% had clinically important disease (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease classification B-D), 16.4% had severe or very severe airflow obstruction (forced expiratory volume in 1 second <50% predicted), and 95.3% of cases were previously undiagnosed. The AUC for the screening instruments ranged from 0.717 (95% CI, 0.677-0.774) for LFQ in Peru to 0.791 (95% CI, 0.770-0.809) for COLA-6 in Nepal. The sensitivity ranged from 34.8% (95% CI, 25.3%-45.2%) for COLA-6 in Nepal to 64.2% (95% CI, 60.3%-67.9%) for CAPTURE in Nepal. The mean time to administer the instruments was 7.6 minutes (SD 1.11), and data completeness was 99.5%. Conclusions and Relevance: This study demonstrated that screening instruments for COPD were feasible to administer in 3 low- and middle-income settings. Further research is needed to assess instrument performance in other low- and middle-income settings and to determine whether implementation is associated with improved clinical outcomes.
Assuntos
Países em Desenvolvimento , Pico do Fluxo Expiratório , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/diagnóstico , Inquéritos e Questionários , Adulto , Obstrução das Vias Respiratórias/epidemiologia , Estudos Transversais , Estudos de Viabilidade , Feminino , Volume Expiratório Forçado , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Nepal/epidemiologia , Peru/epidemiologia , Valor Preditivo dos Testes , Prevalência , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/classificação , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/epidemiologia , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/fisiopatologia , Curva ROC , Padrões de Referência , Sensibilidade e Especificidade , Fumar/epidemiologia , Espirometria/métodos , Poluição por Fumaça de Tabaco/estatística & dados numéricos , Uganda/epidemiologiaRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the implementation of a package of activities through the joint action of three international healthcare professional associations (HCPAs) increased the use of essential interventions (EIs) for delivery and neonatal care. METHODS: A noncontrolled pre-intervention versus post-intervention study was conducted from June 13 to December 13, 2016, among women older than 18 years of age, who had delivered at one of two urban tertiary hospitals in Nepal. RESULTS: The study included 9252 women. Minimal change was found after the implementation of EIs that were used frequently at baseline (e.g. social support during delivery in the emergency room, and promotion and support for early initiation of breastfeeding). By contrast, an increase was recorded for some EIs that had not been used regularly at baseline. For example, the rate of timely administration of prophylactic antibiotics before cesarean delivery increased from 0.0% (0/496) to 94.0% (409/435) at one hospital. Nonetheless, some EIs with low use at baseline did not show improvement after implementation (e.g. kangaroo mother care). CONCLUSION: The present study strengthened previous findings regarding the uptake of EIs following joint promotion by HCPAs in low-income settings.