4.1 Article

Adherence to GOLD guideline treatment recommendations among pulmonologists in Turkey

Journal

Publisher

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/COPD.S85324

Keywords

adherence; COPD; Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease guidelines; treatment approach; Turkey; overtreatment; inhaled corticosteroid

Funding

  1. Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Istanbul, Turkey

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Low adherence to Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guideline recommendations has been reported worldwide. There has been no study on the adherence to GOLD guidelines for COPD treatment in Turkey. Objectives: To investigate the rates of adherence to GOLD 2010 guidelines for COPD treatment among pulmonologists. Design: A multi-center, cross-sectional, observational study was carried out in eleven pulmonary outpatient clinics across Turkey. Adherence to GOLD was evaluated through hospital records. Demographic and clinical data were recorded. Results: Study included 719 patients (mean age: 62.9 +/- 9.7 years; males 85.4%) of whom 16 was classified as GOLD Stage I, 238 as II, 346 as III, and 119 as IV, and only 59.5% received appropriate treatment. Rates of guideline adherence varied across GOLD stages (I, 6.3%; II, 14.7%; III, 84.4%; and IV, 84%). Causes of inappropriate therapies were overtreatment (Stage I, 100% and Stage II, 91.1%), undertreatment (Stage III, 3.3% and Stage IV, 10.9%) and lack of treatment (Stage II, 3.8%; Stage III, 2.3%; and Stage IV, 5.9%). The most preferred regimen (43.4%) was long-acting beta 2-agonist-inhaled corticosteroid-long-acting muscarinic antagonist. Overall, 614 patients (89%) received treatment containing inhaled corticosteroid. Conclusion: Pulmonologists in Turkey have low rates of adherence to GOLD guidelines in COPD treatment. Inappropriateness of therapies was due to overtreatment in early stages and excessive use of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) in all disease stages.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available