Alison Chisholm

Prescribing practices and asthma control with hydrofluoroalkane-beclomethasone and fluticasone: A real-world observational study

BACKGROUND Long-term randomized trials comparing asthma outcomes between inhaled corticosteroids in real-world populations are lacking. As such, rigorously conducted observational studies to complement the findings of randomized trials are needed. OBJECTIVE We sought to compare asthma-related outcomes over 1 year as recorded in a large primary care database for patients aged 5 to 60 years receiving a first prescription (initiation population) or dose increase (step-up population) of hydrofluoroalkane (HFA)-beclomethasone or fluticasone. METHODS We used a retrospective matched cohort study in which patients were matched on baseline demographic and disease severity measures. Coprimary outcomes were asthma control (a composite measure comprising no unplanned visit or hospitalization for asthma, oral corticosteroids, or antibiotics for lower respiratory tract infection) and exacerbation rate. RESULTS More than 80% of patients in each population achieved asthma control; 10% and 16% of patients in the initiation and step-up populations, respectively, received add-on or combination therapy during the year. Fluticasone was prescribed at significantly higher doses than HFA-beclomethasone for both populations (P <or= .001). In the initiation population (n = 1319 in each cohort) the adjusted odds ratio for achieving asthma control with HFA-beclomethasone was 1.30 (95% CI, 1.02-1.65) relative to fluticasone. In the step-up population (cohorts: n = 250) the adjusted odds ratio for achieving asthma control with HFA-beclomethasone was 1.22 (95% CI, 0.66-2.26). Exacerbation rates were similar between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS In a real-world setting patients receiving HFA-beclomethasone had a similar or better chance of achieving asthma control at lower prescribed doses than with fluticasone.

Opportunities to diagnose chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in routine care in the UK: a retrospective study of a clinical cohort.

BACKGROUND Patterns of health-care use and comorbidities present in patients in the period before diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are unknown. We investigated these factors to inform future case-finding strategies. METHODS We did a retrospective analysis of a clinical cohort in the UK with data from Jan 1, 1990 to Dec 31, 2009 (General Practice Research Database and Optimum Patient Care Research Database). We assessed patients aged 40 years or older who had an electronically coded diagnosis of COPD in their primary care records and had a minimum of 3 years of continuous practice data for COPD (2 years before diagnosis up to a maximum of 20 years, and 1 year after diagnosis) and at least two prescriptions for COPD since diagnosis. We identified missed opportunites to diagnose COPD from routinely collected patient data by reviewing patterns of health-care use and comorbidities present before diagnosis. We assessed patterns of health-care use in terms of lower respiratory consultations (infective and non-infective), lower respiratory consultations with a course of antibiotics or oral steroids, and chest radiography. If these events did not lead to a diagnosis of COPD, they were deemed to be missed opportunities. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01655667. FINDINGS We assessed data for 38,859 patients. Opportunities for diagnosis were missed in 32,900 (85%) of 38,859 patients in the 5 years immediately preceding diagnosis of COPD; in 12,856 (58%) of 22,286 in the 6-10 years before diagnosis, in 3943 (42%) of 9351 in the 11-15 years before diagnosis; and in 95 (8%) of 1167 in the 16-20 years before diagnosis. Between 1990 and 2009, we noted decreases in the age at diagnosis (0·05 years of age per year, 95% CI 0·03-0·07) and yearly frequency of lower respiratory prescribing consultations (rate ratio 0·982 opportunities per year, 95% CI 0·979-0·985). Prevalence of all comorbidities present at COPD diagnosis increased except for asthma and bronchiectasis, which decreased between 1990 and 2007, from 281 (33·4%) of 842 patients to 451 of 1465 (30·8%) for asthma, and from 53 of 842 (6·3%) to 53 of 1465 (3·6%) for bronchiectasis. In the 2 years before diagnosis, of 6897 patients who had had a chest radiography, only 2296 (33%) also had spirometry. INTERPRETATION Opportunities to diagnose COPD at an earlier stage are being missed, and could be improved by case-finding in patients with lower respiratory tract symptoms and concordant long-term comorbidities. FUNDING UK Department of Health, Research in Real Life.

Integrating real-life studies in the global therapeutic research framework

www.thelancet.com/respiratory Vol 1 December 2013 e29 Eff ectiveness Group collaborators held in February and May, 2013. The framework (figure 1) 3–9 classifies studies within a twodimensional real-life space bound by the study population (y-axis) and ecology of care (x-axis). The ecology of care axis categorises study interventions along a continuous scale (from highly-controlled efficacy RCT management and follow-up, at one end, to usual care at the other). The label between the two— pragmatically controlled—refers to controlled trials that are designed to resemble usual care in terms of Integrating real-life studies in the global therapeutic research framework

Asthma control with extrafine‐particle hydrofluoroalkane–beclometasone vs. large‐particle chlorofluorocarbon–beclometasone: a real‐world observational study

Background The extrafine‐particle formulation of hydrofluoroalkane–beclometasone (EF HFA–BDP; Qvar®) demonstrates improved total and small airway deposition compared with large‐particle chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)–BDP. In some short‐term studies, EF HFA–BDP provides greater effects on lung function than CFC–BDP, and hence is recommended to be prescribed at a lower dose, but whether there are differences in asthma outcomes during long‐term treatment is unknown.

Quality standards for real-world research. Focus on observational database studies of comparative effectiveness

Real-world research can use observational or clinical trial designs, in both cases putting emphasis on high external validity, to complement the classical efficacy randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with high internal validity. Real-world research is made necessary by the variety of factors that can play an important a role in modulating effectiveness in real life but are often tightly controlled in RCTs, such as comorbidities and concomitant treatments, adherence, inhalation technique, access to care, strength of doctor-caregiver communication, and socio-economic and other organizational factors. Real-world studies belong to two main categories: pragmatic trials and observational studies, which can be prospective or retrospective. Focusing on comparative database observational studies, the process aimed at ensuring high-quality research can be divided into three parts: preparation of research, analyses and reporting, and discussion of results. Key points include a priori planning of data collection and analyses, identification of appropriate database(s), proper outcomes definition, study registration with commitment to publish, bias minimization through matching and adjustment processes accounting for potential confounders, and sensitivity analyses testing the robustness of results. When these conditions are met, observational database studies can reach a sufficient level of evidence to help create guidelines (i.e., clinical and regulatory decision-making).

Predicting frequent asthma exacerbations using blood eosinophil count and other patient data routinely available in clinical practice

Purpose Acute, severe asthma exacerbations can be difficult to predict and thus prevent. Patients who have frequent exacerbations are of particular concern. Practical exacerbation predictors are needed for these patients in the primary-care setting. Patients and methods Medical records of 130,547 asthma patients aged 12–80 years from the UK Optimum Patient Care Research Database and Clinical Practice Research Datalink, 1990–2013, were examined for 1 year before (baseline) and 1 year after (outcome) their most recent blood eosinophil count. Baseline variables predictive (P<0.05) of exacerbation in the outcome year were compared between patients who had two or more exacerbations and those who had no exacerbation or only one exacerbation, using uni- and multivariable logistic regression models. Exacerbation was defined as asthma-related hospital attendance/admission (emergency or inpatient) or acute oral corticosteroid (OCS) course. Results Blood eosinophil count >400/µL (versus ≤400/µL) increased the likelihood of two or more exacerbations >1.4-fold (odds ratio [OR]: 1.48 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.39, 1.58); P<0.001). Variables that significantly increased the odds by up to 1.4-fold included increasing age (per year), female gender (versus male), being overweight or obese (versus normal body mass index), being a smoker (versus nonsmoker), having anxiety/depression, diabetes, eczema, gastroesophageal reflux disease, or rhinitis, and prescription for acetaminophen or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Compared with treatment at British Thoracic Society step 2 (daily controller ± reliever), treatment at step 0 (none) or 1 (as-needed reliever) increased the odds by 1.2- and 1.6-fold, respectively, and treatment at step 3, 4, or 5 increased the odds by 1.3-, 1.9-, or 3.1-fold, respectively (all P<0.05). Acute OCS use was the single best predictor of two or more exacerbations. Even one course increased the odds by more than threefold (OR: 3.75 [95% CI: 3.50, 4.01]; P<0.001), and three or more courses increased the odds by >25-fold (OR: 25.7 [95% CI: 23.9, 27.6]; P<0.001). Conclusion Blood eosinophil count and several other variables routinely available in patient records may be used to predict frequent asthma exacerbations.

Reassessing the Evidence Hierarchy in Asthma: Evaluating Comparative Effectiveness

Classical randomized controlled trials are the gold standard in medical evidence because of their high internal validity. However, their necessarily strict design can limit their external validity and the ability to extrapolate these data to real world patients. Therefore, alternatively designed studies may play a complementary role in evaluating the comparative effectiveness of therapies in nonidealized patients in more naturalistic, real world settings. Observational studies have high external validity and can evaluate real world outcomes. Their strength lies in hypothesis generation and testing and in identifying areas in which further clinical trials may be required. Pragmatic trials are designed to maximize applicability of trial results to usual care settings by relying on clinically important outcomes and enrolling a wide range of participants. A combination of these approaches is preferable and necessary.

Effectiveness of same versus mixed asthma inhaler devices: a retrospective observational study in primary care.

Purpose Correct use of inhaler devices is fundamental to effective asthma management but represents an important challenge for patients. The correct inhalation manoeuvre differs markedly for different inhaler types. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes for patients prescribed the same inhaler device versus mixed device types for asthma controller and reliever therapy. Methods This retrospective observational study identified patients with asthma (ages 4-80 years) in a large primary care database who were prescribed an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) for the first time. We compared outcomes for patients prescribed the same breath-actuated inhaler (BAI) for ICS controller and salbutamol reliever versus mixed devices (BAI for controller and pressurised metered-dose inhaler [pMDI] for reliever). The 2-year study included 1 baseline year before the ICS prescription (to identify and correct for confounding factors) and 1 outcome year. Endpoints were asthma control (defined as no hospital attendance for asthma, oral corticosteroids, or antibiotics for lower respiratory tract infection) and severe exacerbations (hospitalisation or oral corticosteroids for asthma). Results Patients prescribed the same device (n=3,428) were significantly more likely to achieve asthma control (adjusted odds ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.28) and recorded significantly lower severe exacerbation rates (adjusted rate ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.93) than those prescribed mixed devices (n=5,452). Conclusions These findings suggest that, when possible, the same device should be prescribed for both ICS and reliever therapy when patients are initiating ICS.

Real-world research and its importance in respiratory medicine

Educational Aims To improve understanding of: The relative benefits and limitations of evidence derived from different study designs and the role that real-life asthma studies can play in addressing limitations in the classical randomised controlled trial (cRCT) evidence base. The importance of guideline recommendations being modified to fit the populations studied and the model of care provided in their reference studies. Key points Classical randomised controlled trials (cRCTs) show results from a narrow patient group with a constrained ecology of care. Patients with “real-life” co-morbidities and lifestyle factors receiving usual care often have different responses to medication which will not be captured by cRCTs if they are excluded by strict selection criteria. Meta-analyses, used to direct guidelines, contain an inherent meta-bias based on patient selection and artificial patient care. Guideline recommendations should clarify where they related to cRCT ideals (in terms of patient populations, medical resources and care received) and could be enhanced through inclusion of evidence from studies designed to better model the populations and care approaches present in routine care. Summary Clinical practice requires a complex interplay between experience and training, research, guidelines and judgement, and must not only draw on data from traditional or classical randomised controlled trials (cRCTs), but also from pragmatically designed studies that better reflect real-life clinical practice. To minimise extraneous variables and to optimise their internal validity, cRCTs exclude patients, clinical characteristics and variations in care that could potentially confound outcomes. The result is that respiratory cRCTs often enrol a small, non-representative subset of patients and overlook the important interplay and interactions between patients and the real world, which can effect treatment outcomes. Evidence from real-life studies (e.g. naturalistic or pragmatic clinical trials and observational studies encompassing healthcare database studies and cohort studies) can be combined with cRCT evidence to provide a fuller picture of intervention effectiveness and realistic treatment outcomes, and can provide useful insights into alternative management approaches in more challenging asthma patients. The Respiratory Effectiveness Group (REG), in collaboration with the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) and the European Respiratory Society (ERS), is developing quality appraisal tools and methods for integrating different sources of evidence. A REG/EAACI taskforce aims to help support future guideline developers to avoid a one-size-fits-all approach to recommendations and to tailor the conclusions of their meta-analyses to the populations under consideration.

Characteristics of patients preferring once-daily controller therapy for asthma and COPD: A retrospective cohort study

Background: Patient preference is an important factor when choosing an inhaler device for asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Aims: To identify characteristics of patients with asthma or COPD who prefer a once-daily controller medication regimen. Methods: This retrospective observational study used electronic patient records and linked outcomes from patient-completed questionnaires in a primary care database. We compared the characteristics of patients indicating a preference for once-daily therapy with those who were unsure or indicating no preference. Results: Of 3,731 patients with asthma, 2,174 (58%) were women; the mean age was 46 years (range 2–94). Of 2,138 patients with COPD, 980 (46%) were women; the mean age was 70 years (range 35–98). Approximately half of the patients in each cohort indicated once-daily preference, one-quarter were unsure, and one-quarter did not prefer once-daily therapy. In patients with asthma or COPD, the preference for once-daily controller medication was significantly associated with poor adherence and higher concerns about medication. In asthma, good control and low self-perceived controller medication need were associated with once-daily preference. By contrast, in COPD, a high self-perceived need for controller medication was associated with once-daily preference. There was no significant relationship between once-daily preference and age, sex, disease severity, or exacerbation history. Conclusions: Understanding patient preferences may help prescribers to individualise therapy better for asthma and COPD.