Background. The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) underlines that spirometry is the gold standard as the most reproducible, standardised, and objective way of measuring airflow limitation in the diagnosis and assessment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). However, studies undertaken in different countries have suggested a widespread underuse of spirometry by general practitioners to establish the diagnosis of COPD. Precise estimates of the prevalence of physician-diagnosed COPD in Italy are not currently available. In collaboration with the Italian Academy of General practitioners (SIMG) we have investigated the degree of use of spirometry to establish the diagnosis of COPD in Italy. Methods. A standardised questionnaire has been selfadministered to a sample of 2425 Italian general practitioners (representing 5% of all the Italian doctors involved in general practice). They have been chosen to cover each of the Italian counties. Results. The prevalence of physician-diagnosed COPD was found to be approximately 4%. However, 30% of general practitioners do not use spirometry to establish the diagnosis of COPD. The main reasons given for the failure to use spirometry are (i) that spirometry is not necessary for the diagnosis of COPD or (ii) there are logistical limitations to the access of the patients to lung function laboratories. Conclusions. This data suggests that contrary to GOLD Guidelines, in Italy, as with other countries, spirometry is not always used in the diagnosis of COPD. There is a clear necessity for further education initiatives targeted to this group of physicians.

No abstract

The importance of the patients point of view on their health status is widely recognised. Patient-reported outcomes is a broad term encompassing a large variety of different health data reported by patients, as symptoms, functional status, Quality of Life and Health-Related Quality of Life. Measurements of Health-Related Quality of Life have been developed during many years of researches, and a lot of validated questionnaires exist. However, few attempts have been made to standardise the evaluation of instruments characteristics, no recommendations are made about interpretation on Health-Related Quality of Life results, especially regarding the clinical significance of a change leading a therapeutic approach. Moreover, the true value of Health-Related Quality of Life evaluations in clinical trials has not yet been completely defined. An important step towards a more structured and frequent use of Patient-Reported Outcomes in drug development is represented by the FDA Guidance, issued on February 2006. In our paper we aim to report some considerations on this Guidance. Our comments focus especially on the characteristics of instruments to use, the Minimal Important Difference, and the methods to calculate it. Furthermore, we present the advantages and opportunities of using the Patient-Reported Outcomes in drug development, as seen by a pharmaceutical company. The Patient-Reported Outcomes can provide additional data to make a drug more competitive than others of the same pharmacological class, and a well demonstrated positive impact on the patient' health status and daily life might allow a higher price and/or the inclusion in a reimbursement list. Applying extensively the FDA Guidance in the next trials could lead to a wider culture of subjective measurement, and to a greater consideration for the patient's opinions on his/her care. Moreover, prescribing doctors and payers could benefit from subjective information to better define the value of drugs.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) demonstrate a greater osteoporosis prevalence than the general population. This osteoporosis risk may be enhanced by treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs), which are recommended for COPD management when combined with long-acting bronchodilators, but may also be associated with reduced bone mineral density (BMD). We conducted a narrative literature review reporting results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of an ICS versus placebo over a treatment period of at least 12 months, with the aim of providing further insight into the link between bone fractures and ICS therapy. As of 16 October 2017, we identified 17 RCTs for inclusion. The ICSs studied were budesonide (six studies), fluticasone propionate (five studies), mometasone furoate (three studies), beclomethasone dipropionate, triamcinolone acetonide, and fluticasone furoate (one each). We found no difference in the number of bone fractures among patients receiving ICSs versus placebo across the six identified RCTs reporting fracture data. BMD data were available for subsets of patients in few studies, and baseline BMD data were rare; where these data were given, they were reported for treatment groups without stratification for factors known to affect BMD. Risk factors for reduced BMD and fractures, such as smoking and physical activity, were also often not reported. Furthermore, a standardized definition of the term “fracture” was not employed across these studies. The exact relationship between long-term ICS use and bone fracture incidence in patients with stable COPD remains unclear in light of our review. We have, however, identified several limiting factors in existing studies that may form the basis of future RCTs designed specifically to explore this relationship.