Diagnostic value of oral prednisolone test for chronic obstructive pulmonary disorders

Diagnostic value of a 3-day course of prednisolone in patients with possible rheumatoid arthritis - the TryCort study

Background

In patients with tender and swollen finger joints, the differential diagnosis between rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA) of the hands can be initially difficult. This prospective study (the TryCort study) was performed to study the diagnostic value of prednisolone in differentiating between RA and hand OA. We present the results of this potentially diagnostic test in patients with possible RA in daily clinical practice by demonstrating the results of a pilot and a validation part of this ‘prednisolone test’ (pred-test).

Methods

We investigated the response to a 3-day course of 20 mg of prednisolone in patients with suspicion of RA. All patients received 1 g of paracetamol per day for 5 days for pain relief. On days 3–5, a morning dose of 20 mg of prednisolone was added. Hand pain was quantified on a 0–10 Numerical Rating Scale, and the subjective percentage of improvement (0–100%) was recorded. Thresholds for response to prednisolone were investigated in a pilot phase with differentiation in response between patients with RA and patients with OA of the hands, both with pain in the hands ≥4. In a validation phase, the best differentiating cut-off of the pilot phase was applied to discriminate responders from non-responders in consecutive patients with hand pain ≥4 referred because of suspected RA. Final diagnoses were made by the expert upon re-examination at week 12. Primary outcomes were the sensitivity and specificity of a positive test in relation to the diagnosis.

Results

A percentage of 40% subjective improvement of pain in the hands on day 3 discriminated best between RA and OA in the pilot phase. Among 95 patients with complete data in the validation phase, RA was diagnosed in about 50%. Patients with RA had more swollen joints, higher C-reactive protein levels and slightly higher Health Assessment Questionnaire scores. The pred-test was positive in 42.1% of all patients (40 of 95). The median percentage of improvement on day 5 was higher in RA than in non-RA: 50% (IQR 30–60%) vs. 20% (IQR 10–30%) (p < 0.001). The sensitivity and specificity of the pred-test were 0.6 (95% CI 0.5–0.8) and 0.8 (95% CI 0.7–0.9), respectively, and the positive and negative predictive values were 0.77 and 0.70, respectively.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this is the first evaluation of the widely used pred-test that has ever been performed. The pred-test had a moderate sensitivity and a good specificity. We conclude that rheumatologists may use this test in unclear clinical situations to better differentiate between inflammatory and other conditions.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01395251. Registered on 14 Jul 2011.

EudraCT number: 2011-002633-19. Registered on 21 Dec 2011.

Diagnosis and pharmacotherapy of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the finnish guidelines

The Finnish Medical Society Duodecim initiated and managed the update of the Finnish national guideline for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The Finnish COPD guideline was revised to acknowledge the progress in diagnosis and management of COPD. This Finnish COPD guideline in English language is a part of the original guideline and focuses on the diagnosis, assessment and pharmacotherapy of stable COPD. It is intended to be used mainly in primary health care but not forgetting respiratory specialists and other healthcare workers. The new recommendations and statements are based on the best evidence available from the medical literature, other published national guidelines and the GOLD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) report. This guideline introduces the diagnostic approach, differential diagnostics towards asthma, assessment and treatment strategy to control symptoms and to prevent exacerbations. The pharmacotherapy is based on the symptoms and a clinical phenotype of the individual patient. The guideline defines three clinically relevant phenotypes including the low and high exacerbation risk phenotypes and the neglected asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS). These clinical phenotypes can help clinicians to identify patients that respond to specific pharmacological interventions. For the low exacerbation risk phenotype, pharmacotherapy with short-acting β2 -agonists (salbutamol, terbutaline) or anticholinergics (ipratropium) or their combination (fenoterol-ipratropium) is recommended in patients with less symptoms. If short-acting bronchodilators are not enough to control symptoms, a long-acting β2 -agonist (formoterol, indacaterol, olodaterol or salmeterol) or a long-acting anticholinergic (muscarinic receptor antagonists; aclidinium, glycopyrronium, tiotropium, umeclidinium) or their combination is recommended. For the high exacerbation risk phenotype, pharmacotherapy with a long-acting anticholinergic or a fixed combination of an inhaled glucocorticoid and a long-acting β2 -agonist (budesonide-formoterol, beclomethasone dipropionate-formoterol, fluticasone propionate-salmeterol or fluticasone furoate-vilanterol) is recommended as a first choice. Other treatment options for this phenotype include combination of long-acting bronchodilators given from separate inhalers or as a fixed combination (glycopyrronium-indacaterol or umeclidinium-vilanterol) or a triple combination of an inhaled glucocorticoid, a long-acting β2 -agonist and a long-acting anticholinergic. If the patient has severe-to-very severe COPD (FEV1  < 50% predicted), chronic bronchitis and frequent exacerbations despite long-acting bronchodilators, the pharmacotherapy may include also roflumilast. ACOS is a phenotype of COPD in which there are features that comply with both asthma and COPD. Patients belonging to this phenotype have usually been excluded from studies evaluating the effects of drugs both in asthma and in COPD. Thus, evidence-based recommendation of treatment cannot be given. The treatment should cover both diseases. Generally, the therapy should include at least inhaled glucocorticoids (beclomethasone dipropionate, budesonide, ciclesonide, fluticasone furoate, fluticasone propionate or mometasone) combined with a long-acting bronchodilator (β2 -agonist or anticholinergic or both).

Use of expert panels to define the reference standard in diagnostic research: a systematic review of published methods and reporting

BACKGROUND

In diagnostic studies, a single and error-free test that can be used as the reference (gold) standard often does not exist. One solution is the use of panel diagnosis, i.e., a group of experts who assess the results from multiple tests to reach a final diagnosis in each patient. Although panel diagnosis, also known as consensus or expert diagnosis, is frequently used as the reference standard, guidance on preferred methodology is lacking. The aim of this study is to provide an overview of methods used in panel diagnoses and to provide initial guidance on the use and reporting of panel diagnosis as reference standard.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

PubMed was systematically searched for diagnostic studies applying a panel diagnosis as reference standard published up to May 31, 2012. We included diagnostic studies in which the final diagnosis was made by two or more persons based on results from multiple tests. General study characteristics and details of panel methodology were extracted. Eighty-one studies were included, of which most reported on psychiatry (37%) and cardiovascular (21%) diseases. Data extraction was hampered by incomplete reporting; one or more pieces of critical information about panel reference standard methodology was missing in 83% of studies. In most studies (75%), the panel consisted of three or fewer members. Panel members were blinded to the results of the index test results in 31% of studies. Reproducibility of the decision process was assessed in 17 (21%) studies. Reported details on panel constitution, information for diagnosis and methods of decision making varied considerably between studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Methods of panel diagnosis varied substantially across studies and many aspects of the procedure were either unclear or not reported. On the basis of our review, we identified areas for improvement and developed a checklist and flow chart for initial guidance for researchers conducting and reporting of studies involving panel diagnosis. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.