The prevalence of malnutrition and its predictive value for the incidence of complications were determined in 155 patients hospitalized for internal or gastrointestinal diseases. At admission, 45% of the patients were malnourished according to the Subjective Global Assessment (physical examination plus questionnaire), 57% according to the Nutritional Risk Index [(1.5 x albumin) + (41.7 x present/usual weight)], and 62% according to the Maastricht Index [(20.68 - (0.24 x albumin) - (19.21 x transthyretin (prealbumin) - (1.86 x lymphocytes) - (0 04 x ideal weight)]. Crude odds ratios for the incidence of any complication in malnourished compared with well-nourished patients during hospitalization were 2.7 (95% CI: 1.4, 5.3) for the Subjective Global Assessment, 2.8 (1.5, 5.5) for the Nutritional Risk Index, and 3.1 (1.5, 6.4) for the Maastricht Index. Odds ratios were reduced to 1.7 (0.8, 3.6), 1.6 (0.7, 3.3), and 2.4 (1.1, 5.4), respectively, after a multivariate analysis that included disease category and disease severity. Because the confounding factors adjusted for are not only a measure of the severity of the disease but may also be influenced by malnutrition itself, the actual risk for complications due to malnutrition could be higher than the adjusted odds ratios. In conclusion, malnutrition was frequent in patients with gastrointestinal disease and other internal diseases at the time of admission. The severity of malnutrition in the patients predicted the occurrence of complications during their hospital stay and this association was not completely explained by confounding factors.

Objective: To investigate the validity of spirometric tests performed in general practice. Method: A repeated within subject comparison of spirometric tests with a “gold standard” (spirometric tests performed in a pulmonary function laboratory) was performed in 388 subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) from 61 general practices and four laboratories. General practitioners and practice assistants undertook a spirometry training programme. Within subject differences in forced expiratory volume in 1 second and forced vital capacity (ΔFEV₁ and ΔFVC) between laboratory and general practice tests were measured (practice minus laboratory value). The proportion of tests with FEV₁ reproducibility <5% or <200 ml served as a quality marker. Results: Mean ΔFEV₁ was 0.069 l (95% CI 0.054 to 0.084) and ΔFVC 0.081 l (95% CI 0.053 to 0.109) in the first year evaluation, indicating consistently higher values for general practice measurements. Second year results were similar. Laboratory and general practice FEV₁ values differed by up to 0.5 l, FVC values by up to 1.0 l. The proportion of non-reproducible tests was 16% for laboratory tests and 18% for general practice tests (p=0.302) in the first year, and 18% for both in the second year evaluation (p=1.000). Conclusions: Relevant spirometric indices measured by trained general practice staff were marginally but statistically significantly higher than those measured in pulmonary function laboratories. Because of the limited agreement between laboratory and general practice values, use of these measurements interchangeably should probably be avoided. With sufficient training of practice staff the current practice of performing spirometric tests in the primary care setting seems justifiable.

Background The effects of written action plans on recovery from exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have not been well studied. The aims of this study were to assess the effects of adherence to a written action plan on exacerbation recovery time and unscheduled healthcare utilisation and to explore factors associated with action plan adherence. Methods This was a 1-year prospective cohort study embedded in a randomised controlled trial. Exacerbation data were recorded for 252 patients with COPD who received a written action plan for prompt treatment of exacerbations with the instructions to initiate standing prescriptions for both antibiotics and prednisone within 3 days of exacerbation onset. Following the instructions was defined as adherence to the action plan. Results From the 288 exacerbations reported by 143 patients, start dates of antibiotics or prednisone were provided in 217 exacerbations reported by 119 patients (53.8% male, mean age 65.4 years, post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) 43.9% predicted). In 40.1% of exacerbations, patients adhered to their written action plan. Adherence reduced exacerbation recovery time with statistical (p=0.0001) and clinical (−5.8 days) significance, but did not affect unscheduled healthcare utilisation (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.83). Factors associated with an increased likelihood of adherence were influenza vaccination, cardiac comorbidity, younger age and lower FEV₁ as percentage predicted. Conclusions This study shows that adherence to a written action plan is associated with a reduction in exacerbation recovery time by prompt treatment. Knowing the factors that are associated with proper and prompt utilisation of an action plan permits healthcare professionals to better focus their self-management support on appropriate patients.

COPD often coexists with chronic conditions that may influence disease prognosis. We investigated associations between chronic (co)morbidities and exacerbations in primary care COPD patients. Retrospective cohort study based on 2012–2013 electronic health records from 179 Dutch general practices. Comorbidities from patients with physician-diagnosed COPD were categorized according to International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC) codes. Chi-squared tests, uni- and multivariable logistic, and Cox regression analyses were used to study associations with exacerbations, defined as oral corticosteroid prescriptions. Fourteen thousand six hundred three patients with COPD could be studied (mean age 67 (SD 12) years, 53% male) for two years. At baseline 12,826 (88%) suffered from ≥1 comorbidities, 3263 (22%) from ≥5. The most prevalent comorbidities were hypertension (35%), coronary heart disease (19%), and osteoarthritis (18%). Several comorbidities showed statistically significant associations with frequent (i.e., ≥2/year) exacerbations: heart failure (odds ratio [OR], 95% confidence interval: 1.72; 1.38–2.14), blindness & low vision (OR 1.46; 1.21–1.75), pulmonary cancer (OR 1.85; 1.28–2.67), depression 1.48; 1.14–1.91), prostate disorders (OR 1.50; 1.13–1.98), asthma (OR 1.36; 1.11–1.70), osteoporosis (OR 1.41; 1.11–1.80), diabetes (OR 0.80; 0.66–0.97), dyspepsia (OR 1.25; 1.03–1.50), and peripheral vascular disease (OR 1.20; 1.00–1.45). From all comorbidity categories, having another chronic respiratory disease beside COPD showed the highest risk for developing a new exacerbation (Cox hazard ratio 1.26; 1.17–1.36). Chronic comorbidities are highly prevalent in primary care COPD patients. Several chronic comorbidities were associated with having frequent exacerbations and increased exacerbation risk.

Allergic rhinitis is a major chronic respiratory disease because of its prevalence, impacts on quality of life and work/school performance, economic burden, and links with asthma. Family doctors (also known as ‘primary care physicians’ or ‘general practitioners’) play a major role in the management of allergic rhinitis as they make the diagnosis, start the treatment, give the relevant information, and monitor most of the patients. Disease management that follows evidence‐based practice guidelines yields better patient results, but such guidelines are often complicated and may recommend the use of resources not available in the family practice setting. A joint expert panel of the World Organization of Family Doctors (Wonca), the International Primary Care Airways Group (IPAG) and the International Primary Care Respiratory Group (IPCRG), offers support to family doctors worldwide by distilling the globally accepted, evidence‐based recommendations from the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) initiative into this brief reference guide.This guide provides tools intended to supplement a thorough history taking and the clinician’s professional judgment in order to provide the best possible care for patients with allergic rhinitis. A diagnostic Questionnaire specifically focuses the physician’s attention on key symptoms and markers of the disease. When questionnaire responses suggest a diagnosis of allergic rhinitis, a Diagnosis Guide and a simple flowchart then lead the clinician through a series of investigations commonly available in primary care to support the diagnosis. In addition, key aspects of differential diagnosis are illuminated.According to ARIA, allergic rhinitis may be classified as Intermittent or Persistent, and as Mild or Moderate/Severe. The classification of rhinitis determines the treatment necessary, as set out in an ARIA flowchart included in this guide. The guide also includes information about the strength of evidence for efficacy of certain rhinitis treatments, a brief discussion of pediatric aspects, and a glossary of allergic rhinitis medications to assist the clinician in making medication choices for each individual patient. Finally, many patients with allergic rhinitis also have concomitant asthma, and this must be checked.The World Organization of Family Doctors has been delegated by WHO as the group that will be taking primary responsibility for education about chronic respiratory diseases among primary care physicians globally. This document will be a major resource in this educational program.

Primary care spirometry is a uniquely valuable tool in the evaluation of patients with respiratory symptoms, allowing the general practitioner to diagnose or exclude chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), sometimes to confirm asthma, to determine the efficacy of asthma treatment and to correctly stage patients with COPD. The use of spirometry for case finding in asymptomatic COPD patients might become an option, once early intervention studies have shown it to be beneficial in these patients.The diagnosis of airway obstruction requires accurate and reproducible spirometric measurements, which should comply with the American Thoracic Society (ATS)/European Respiratory Society (ERS) guidelines. Low acceptability of spirometric manoeuvres has been reported in primary care practices. This may hamper the validity of the results and affect clinical decision making. Training and refresher courses may produce and maintain good-quality testing, promote the use of spirometric results in clinical practice and enhance the quality of interpretation.Softening the stringent ATS/ERS criteria could enhance the acceptability rates of spirometry when used in a general practice. However, the implications of potential simplifications on the quality of the data and clinical decision making remain to be investigated.Hand-held office spirometers have been developed in recent years, with a global quality and user-friendliness that makes them acceptable for use in general practices. The precision of the forced vital capacity measurements could be improved in some of the available models.