David Leather

Comparison of Changes in Bone Density and Turnover with Abacavir-Lamivudine versus Tenofovir-Emtricitabine in HIV-Infected Adults: 48-Week Results from the ASSERT Study

BACKGROUND Abacavir-lamivudine and tenofovir DF-emtricitabine fixed-dose combinations are commonly used as first-line antiretroviral therapies. However, few studies have comprehensively compared their relative safety profiles. METHODS In this European, multicenter, open-label, 96-week study, antiretroviral-naive adult subjects with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection were randomized to receive either abacavir-lamivudine or tenofovir-emtricitabine with efavirenz. Primary analyses were conducted after 48 weeks of treatment. Bone mineral density (BMD), a powered secondary end point, was assessed by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry. Bone turnover markers (osteocalcin, procollagen 1 N-terminal propeptide, bone specific alkaline phosphatase, and type 1 collagen cross-linked C telopeptide [CTx]) were assessed in an exploratory analysis. RESULTS A total of 385 subjects were enrolled in the study. BMD loss was observed in both treatment groups, with a significant difference in the change from baseline in both total hip (abacavir-lamivudine group, -1.9%; tenofovir-emtricitabine group, -3.6%; P < .001) and lumbar spine (abacavir-lamivudine group, -1.6%; tenofovir-emtricitabine group, -2.4%; P = .036). BMD loss of >or=6% was more common in the tenofovir-emtricitabine group (13% of the tenofovir-emtricitabine group vs 3% of the abacavir-lamivudine group had a loss of >or=6% in the hip; 15% vs 5% had a loss of >or=6% in the spine). Bone turnover markers increased in both treatment groups over the first 24 weeks, stabilizing or decreasing thereafter. Increases in all markers were significantly greater in the tenofovir-emtricitabine treatment group than in the abacavir-lamivudine group at week 24. All but CTx remained significantly different at week 48 (eg, osteocalcin: abacavir-lamivudine group, +8.07 mg/L; tenofovir-emtricitabine group, +11.92 mg/L; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrated the impact of first-line treatment regimens on bone. Greater increases in bone turnover and decreases in BMD were observed in subjects treated with tenofovir-emtricitabine than were observed in subjects treated with abacavir-lamivudine.

Effectiveness of Fluticasone Furoate–Vilanterol for COPD in Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND Evidence for the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) comes from closely monitored efficacy trials involving groups of patients who were selected on the basis of restricted entry criteria. There is a need for randomized trials to be conducted in conditions that are closer to usual clinical practice. METHODS In a controlled effectiveness trial conducted in 75 general practices, we randomly assigned 2799 patients with COPD to a once-daily inhaled combination of fluticasone furoate at a dose of 100 μg and vilanterol at a dose of 25 μg (the fluticasone furoate-vilanterol group) or to usual care (the usual-care group). The primary outcome was the rate of moderate or severe exacerbations among patients who had had an exacerbation within 1 year before the trial. Secondary outcomes were the rates of primary care contact (contact with a general practitioner, nurse, or other health care professional) and secondary care contact (inpatient admission, outpatient visit with a specialist, or visit to the emergency department), modification of the initial trial treatment for COPD, and the rate of exacerbations among patients who had had an exacerbation within 3 years before the trial, as assessed in a time-to-event analysis. RESULTS The rate of moderate or severe exacerbations was significantly lower, by 8.4% (95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 15.2), with fluticasone furoate-vilanterol therapy than with usual care (P=0.02). There was no significant difference in the annual rate of COPD-related contacts to primary or secondary care. There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of the first moderate or severe exacerbation and the first severe exacerbation in the time-to-event analyses. There were no excess serious adverse events of pneumonia in the fluticasone furoate-vilanterol group. The numbers of other serious adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS In patients with COPD and a history of exacerbations, a once-daily treatment regimen of combined fluticasone furoate and vilanterol was associated with a lower rate of exacerbations than usual care, without a greater risk of serious adverse events. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; Salford Lung Study ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01551758 .).

Obtaining real-world evidence: the Salford Lung Study.

We need to assess clinical treatments in real-life settings outside of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Pragmatic RCT (pRCT) data can supplement RCTs by providing effectiveness information to support healthcare decisions. Electronic health records can facilitate concurrent safety monitoring and data collection without direct patient contact for large randomised study populations in pRCTs. The Salford Lung Study is the worlds first phase III pRCT in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which aims to randomise over 7000 patients. This paper describes the hurdles overcome and the enormous effort and resource required to establish this comparative effectiveness study of a prelicence intervention. GlaxoSmithKline protocol HZC115151 Asthma study clinicaltrials.gov registration NCT01706198 COPD study clinicaltrials.gov registration NCT01551758

Utility of COPD Assessment Test (CAT) in primary care consultations: a randomised controlled trial.

Background: One of the aims of the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) is to aid communication between the physician and patient about the burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on the patients life. Aims: To investigate the impact of the CAT on the quality of primary care consultations in COPD patients. Methods: Primary care physicians across Europe conducted six consultations with standardised COPD patients (played by trained actors). Physicians were randomised to see the patient with the completed CAT (CAT+ arm) or without (no CAT arm) during the consultation. These were videoed and independent assessors scored the physicians on their ability to identify and address patient-specific issues such as depression (sub-score A); review standard COPD issues such as breathlessness (sub-score B); their understanding of the case (understanding score); and their overall performance. The primary endpoint was the global score (sub-scores A+B; scale range 0–40). Results: A total of 165 physicians enrolled in the study and carried out six consultations each; 882 consultations were deemed suitable for analysis. No difference was seen between the arms in the global score (no CAT arm 20.3; CAT+ arm 20.7; 95% CI −1.0 to 1.8; p=0.606) or on sub-score A (p=0.255). A statistically significant difference, though of limited clinical relevance, was observed in mean sub-score B (no CAT arm 8.8; CAT+ arm 9.6; 95% CI 0.0 to 1.6; p=0.045). There was no difference in understanding score (p=0.824) or overall performance (p=0.655). Conclusions: The CAT is a disease-specific instrument that aids physician assessment of COPD. It does not appear to improve detection of non-COPD symptoms and co-morbidities.

Effectiveness of fluticasone furoate plus vilanterol on asthma control in clinical practice: an open-label, parallel group, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Evidence for management of asthma comes from closely monitored efficacy trials done in highly selected patient groups. There is a need for randomised trials that are closer to usual clinical practice. METHODS We did an open-label, randomised, controlled, two-arm effectiveness trial at 74 general practice clinics in Salford and South Manchester, UK. Patients aged 18 years or older with a general practitioners diagnosis of symptomatic asthma and on maintenance inhaler therapy were randomly assigned to initiate treatment with a once-daily inhaled combination of either 100 μg or 200 μg fluticasone furoate with 25 μg vilanterol or optimised usual care and followed up for 12 months. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients who achieved an asthma control test (ACT) score of 20 or greater or an increase in ACT score from baseline of 3 or greater at 24 weeks (termed responders), in patients with a baseline ACT score less than 20 (the primary effectiveness analysis population). All effectiveness analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01706198. FINDINGS Between Nov 12, 2012, and Dec 16, 2016, 4725 patients were enrolled and 4233 randomly assigned to initiate treatment with fluticasone furoate and vilanterol (n=2114) or usual care (n=2119). 1207 patients (605 assigned to usual care, 602 to fluticasone furoate and vilanterol) had a baseline ACT score greater than or equal to 20 and were thus excluded from the primary effectiveness analysis population. At week 24, the odds of being a responder were higher for patients who initiated treatment with fluticasone furoate and vilanterol than for those on usual care (977 [71%] of 1373 in the fluticasone furoate and vilanterol group vs 784 [56%] of 1399 in the usual care group; odds ratio [OR] 2·00 [95% CI 1·70-2·34], p<0·0001). At week 24, the adjusted mean ACT score increased by 4·4 points from baseline in patients initiated with fluticasone furoate and vilanterol, compared with 2·8 points in the usual care group (difference 1·6 [95% CI 1·3-2·0], p<0·0001). This result was consistent for the duration of the study. Pneumonia was uncommon, with no differences between groups; there was no difference in other serious adverse events between the groups. INTERPRETATION In patients with a general practitioners diagnosis of symptomatic asthma and on maintenance inhaler therapy, initiation of a once-daily treatment regimen of combined fluticasone furoate and vilanterol improved asthma control without increasing the risk of serious adverse events when compared with optimised usual care. FUNDING GlaxoSmithKline.

Putting patients in control of data from electronic health records

Research using data from electronic health records offers great potential in healthcare, but patients must be informed about how their data are to be used and for what purpose, argue John New and colleagues

Effectiveness versus Efficacy Trials in COPD: How study design influences outcomes and applicability.

Guidelines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management are based largely on results from double-blind randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of efficacy. These trials have high internal validity and test whether a drug is efficacious, but they are conducted in highly selected populations that may differ significantly from patients with COPD seen in routine practice. We compared the baseline characteristics, healthcare use and outcomes between the Salford Lung Study (SLS), an open-label effectiveness RCT, with six recent large-scale efficacy RCTs. We also calculated the proportion of SLS patients who would have been eligible for inclusion in an efficacy RCT by applying the inclusion criteria used in efficacy trials of combination treatments. SLS patients were older, included more females and more current smokers, had more comorbidities (including asthma), and had more often experienced exacerbations prior to inclusion. In the SLS, rates of moderate or severe exacerbations, incidence of overall serious adverse events (SAEs), and SAEs of pneumonia were more frequent. A maximum of 30% of patients enrolled in the SLS would have been eligible for a phase IIIa regulatory exacerbation study. Patients in large COPD efficacy RCTs have limited representativeness compared with an effectiveness trial. This should be considered when interpreting efficacy RCT outcomes and their inclusion into guidelines. Efficacy trials are less representative than effectiveness trials and both are required when evaluating treatments http://ow.ly/plwd30he4a2

Monitoring safety in a phase III real‐world effectiveness trial: use of novel methodology in the Salford Lung Study

The Salford Lung Study (SLS) programme, encompassing two phase III pragmatic randomised controlled trials, was designed to generate evidence on the effectiveness of a once‐daily treatment for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in routine primary care using electronic health records.

Patient-reported outcomes with initiation of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol versus continuing usual care in the asthma Salford Lung Study

BACKGROUND The Asthma Salford Lung Study demonstrated the effectiveness and safety of initiating once-daily inhaled fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) versus continuing usual care (UC) in asthma patients in UK primary care [1]. Here, we report a detailed analysis of patient-reported outcome (PRO) endpoints. METHODS Adults with symptomatic asthma maintained on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) ± long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) were randomized 1:1 to initiate FF/VI (100 [200]/25 μg) or continue UC. PROs were measured using the Asthma Control Test (ACT), Standardized Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ [S]), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment: asthma questionnaire, and EQ-5D-3L (EuroQol 5-Dimensions 3-Levels) questionnaire, at timepoints across the 12-month study period. RESULTS The individual components of ACT response (total score ≥20 or improvement from baseline ≥3) both contributed to the composite primary effectiveness endpoint at Week 24, with odds ratios favoring FF/VI over UC in both cases. Patients initiating FF/VI versus continuing UC were more likely to maintain/improve asthma control, regardless of baseline control status. The odds of patients being responders on AQLQ (S) total score and on individual AQLQ domains at Week 52 were significantly higher for FF/VI versus UC (all p < .001). FF/VI was associated with significantly greater reductions in overall work and activity impairment due to asthma (both p < .001), and a significantly greater change from baseline in EQ visual analogue scale score (p = .007), versus UC at Week 52. PRO findings were consistent across baseline ICS and ICS/LABA subsets. CONCLUSIONS Initiation of FF/VI versus continuing UC was associated with consistent improvements in PROs.

Effectiveness of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol versus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol on asthma control in the Salford Lung Study

Abstract Objective: The Asthma Salford Lung Study demonstrated the effectiveness of initiating once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) versus continuing usual care in asthma patients in UK primary care [1]. Here, we report a secondary analysis in a subset of patients with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/Salm) as their baseline intended maintenance therapy, to evaluate the relative effectiveness of initiating FF/VI versus continuing FP/Salm. Methods: Adults with symptomatic asthma were randomised to initiate FF/VI 100[200]/25 µg or continue FP/Salm. The Asthma Control Test (ACT), Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Asthma questionnaire, severe exacerbations, salbutamol inhaler prescriptions and serious adverse events (SAEs) were recorded throughout the 12-month treatment period. Results: One thousand two hundred and sixty-four patients (FF/VI 646; FP/Salm 618) were included in this subset analysis; 978 had baseline ACT score <20 and were included in the primary effectiveness analysis (PEA) population. At week 24, odds of patients being ACT responders (total score ≥20 and/or improvement from baseline ≥3) were significantly higher with FF/VI versus FP/Salm (71% vs. 56%; odds ratio 2.03 [95% CI: 1.53, 2.68]; p < 0.001 [PEA]). Significant benefit with FF/VI versus FP/Salm was also observed for AQLQ responders, activity impairment due to asthma, exacerbation rates, and salbutamol inhalers prescribed. No significant between-group differences were observed for impairment while working or work absenteeism due to asthma. Conclusions: For patients in primary care, initiating FF/VI was significantly better than continuing with FP/Salm for improving asthma control and quality of life, and reducing asthma exacerbations, with no notable difference in SAEs. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01706198.