Kevin Gruffydd-Jones

Management of COPD in the UK primary-care setting: an analysis of real-life prescribing patterns

Background Despite the availability of national and international guidelines, evidence suggests that chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatment is not always prescribed according to recommendations. This study evaluated the current management of patients with COPD using a large UK primary-care database. Methods This analysis used electronic patient records and patient-completed questionnaires from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database. Data on current management were analyzed by the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group and presence or absence of a concomitant asthma diagnosis, in patients with a COPD diagnosis at ≥35 years of age and with spirometry results supportive of the COPD diagnosis. Results A total of 24,957 patients were analyzed, of whom 13,557 (54.3%) had moderate airflow limitation (GOLD Stage 2 COPD). The proportion of patients not receiving pharmacologic treatment for COPD was 17.0% in the total COPD population and 17.7% in the GOLD Stage 2 subset. Approximately 50% of patients in both cohorts were receiving inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), either in combination with a long-acting β2-agonist (LABA; 26.7% for both cohorts) or a LABA and a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA; 23.2% and 19.9%, respectively). ICS + LABA and ICS + LABA + LAMA were the most frequently used treatments in GOLD Groups A and B. Of patients without concomitant asthma, 53.7% of the total COPD population and 50.2% of the GOLD Stage 2 subset were receiving ICS. Of patients with GOLD Stage 2 COPD and no exacerbations in the previous year, 49% were prescribed ICS. A high proportion of GOLD Stage 2 COPD patients were symptomatic on their current management (36.6% with modified Medical Research Council score ≥2; 76.4% with COPD Assessment Test score ≥10). Conclusion COPD is not treated according to GOLD and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommendations in the UK primary-care setting. Some patients receive no treatment despite experiencing symptoms. Among those on treatment, most receive ICS irrespective of severity of airflow limitation, asthma diagnosis, and exacerbation history. Many patients on treatment continue to have symptoms.

The inevitable drift to triple therapy in COPD: an analysis of prescribing pathways in the UK

Background Real-world prescription pathways leading to triple therapy (TT) (inhaled corticosteroid [ICS] plus long-acting β2-agonist bronchodilator [LABA] plus long-acting muscarinic antagonist) differ from Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease [GOLD] and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence treatment recommendations. This study sets out to identify COPD patients without asthma receiving TT, and determine the pathways taken from diagnosis to the first prescription of TT. Methods This was a historical analysis of COPD patients without asthma from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database (387 primary-care practices across the UK) from 2002 to 2010. Patient disease severity was classified using GOLD 2013 criteria. Data were analyzed to determine prescribing of TT before, at, and after COPD diagnosis; the average time taken to receive TT; and the impact of lung function grade, modified Medical Research Council dyspnea score, and exacerbation history on the pathway to TT. Results During the study period, 32% of patients received TT. Of these, 19%, 28%, 37%, and 46% of patients classified as GOLD A, B, C, and D, respectively, progressed to TT after diagnosis (P<0.001). Of all patients prescribed TT, 25% were prescribed TT within 1 year of diagnosis, irrespective of GOLD classification (P=0.065). The most common prescription pathway to TT was LABA plus ICS. It was observed that exacerbation history did influence the pathway of LABA plus ICS to TT. Conclusion Real life UK prescription data demonstrates the inappropriate prescribing of TT and confirms that starting patients on ICS plus LABA results in the inevitable drift to overuse of TT. This study highlights the need for dissemination and implementation of COPD guidelines to physicians, ensuring that patients receive the recommended therapy.

The distribution of COPD in UK general practice using the new GOLD classification

The new Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2011 document recommends a combined assessment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) based on current symptoms and future risk. A large database of primary-care COPD patients across the UK was used to determine COPD distribution and characteristics according to the new GOLD classification. 80 general practices provided patients with a Read code diagnosis of COPD. Electronic and hand searches of patient medical records were undertaken, optimising data capture. Data for 9219 COPD patients were collected. For the 6283 patients with both forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and modified Medical Research Council scores (mean±sd age 69.2±10.6 years, body mass index 27.3±6.2 kg·m−2), GOLD 2011 group distributions were: A (low risk and fewer symptoms) 36.1%, B (low risk and more symptoms) 19.1%, C (high risk and fewer symptoms) 19.6% and D (high risk and more symptoms) 25.3%. This is in contrast with GOLD 2007 stage classification: I (mild) 17.1%, II (moderate) 52.2%, III (severe) 25.5% and IV (very severe) 5.2%. 20% of patients with FEV1 ≥50% predicted had more than two exacerbations in the previous 12 months. 70% of patients with FEV1 <50% pred had fewer than two exacerbations in the previous 12 months. This database, representative of UK primary-care COPD patients, identified greater proportions of patients in the mildest and most severe categories upon comparing 2011 versus 2007 GOLD classifications. Discordance between airflow limitation severity and exacerbation risk was observed. GOLD 2011 COPD classification criteria identified more patients in the mildest and more severe groups than GOLD 2007 http://ow.ly/t4uiO

Inhaler Errors in the CRITIKAL Study: Type, Frequency, and Association with Asthma Outcomes

BACKGROUND Poor inhaler technique has been linked to poor asthma outcomes. Training can reduce the number of inhaler errors, but it is unknown which errors have the greatest impact on asthma outcomes. OBJECTIVE The CRITical Inhaler mistaKes and Asthma controL study investigated the association between specific inhaler errors and asthma outcomes. METHODS This analysis used data from the iHARP asthma review service-a multicenter cross-sectional study of adults with asthma. The review took place between 2011 and 2014 and captured data from more than 5000 patients on demographic characteristics, asthma symptoms, and inhaler errors observed by purposefully trained health care professionals. People with asthma receiving a fixed-dose combination treatment with inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta agonist were categorized by the controller inhaler device they used-dry-powder inhalers or metered-dose inhalers: inhaler errors were analyzed within device cohorts. Error frequency, asthma symptom control, and exacerbation rate were analyzed to identify critical errors. RESULTS This report contains data from 3660 patients. Insufficient inspiratory effort was common (made by 32%-38% of dry-powder inhaler users) and was associated with uncontrolled asthma (adjusted odds ratios [95% CI], 1.30 [1.08-1.57] and 1.56 [1.17-2.07] in those using Turbohaler and Diskus devices, respectively) and increased exacerbation rate. In metered-dose inhaler users, actuation before inhalation (24.9% of patients) was associated with uncontrolled asthma (1.55 [1.11-2.16]). Several more generic and device-specific errors were also identified as critical. CONCLUSIONS Specific inhaler errors have been identified as critical errors, evidenced by frequency and association with asthma outcomes. Asthma management should target inhaler training to reduce key critical errors.

Characteristics of patients making serious inhaler errors with a dry powder inhaler and association with asthma-related events in a primary care setting

Abstract Objective: Correct inhaler technique is central to effective delivery of asthma therapy. The study aim was to identify factors associated with serious inhaler technique errors and their prevalence among primary care patients with asthma using the Diskus dry powder inhaler (DPI). Methods: This was a historical, multinational, cross-sectional study (2011–2013) using the iHARP database, an international initiative that includes patient- and healthcare provider-reported questionnaires from eight countries. Patients with asthma were observed for serious inhaler errors by trained healthcare providers as predefined by the iHARP steering committee. Multivariable logistic regression, stepwise reduced, was used to identify clinical characteristics and asthma-related outcomes associated with ≥1 serious errors. Results: Of 3681 patients with asthma, 623 (17%) were using a Diskus (mean [SD] age, 51 [14]; 61% women). A total of 341 (55%) patients made ≥1 serious errors. The most common errors were the failure to exhale before inhalation, insufficient breath-hold at the end of inhalation, and inhalation that was not forceful from the start. Factors significantly associated with ≥1 serious errors included asthma-related hospitalization the previous year (odds ratio [OR] 2.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26–3.40); obesity (OR 1.75; 1.17–2.63); poor asthma control the previous 4 weeks (OR 1.57; 1.04–2.36); female sex (OR 1.51; 1.08–2.10); and no inhaler technique review during the previous year (OR 1.45; 1.04–2.02). Conclusions: Patients with evidence of poor asthma control should be targeted for a review of their inhaler technique even when using a device thought to have a low error rate.

Clinical and cost effectiveness of switching asthma patients from fluticasone-salmeterol to extra-fine particle beclometasone-formoterol: a retrospective matched observational study of real-world patients

Background: Efficacy trials suggest that extra-fine particle beclometasone dipropionate-formoterol (efBDP-FOR) is comparable to fluticasone propionate-salmeterol (FP-SAL) in preventing asthma exacerbations at a clinically equivalent dosage. However, switching from FP-SAL to efBDP-FOR has not been evaluated in real-world asthma patients. Aims: The REACH (Real-world Effectiveness in Asthma therapy of Combination inHalers) study investigated the clinical and cost effectiveness of switching typical asthma patients from FP-SAL to efBDP-FOR. Methods: A retrospective matched (1:3) observational study of 1,528 asthma patients aged 18–80 years from clinical practice databases was performed. Patients remaining on FP-SAL (n=1,146) were compared with those switched to efBDP-FOR at an equivalent or lower inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dosage (n=382). Clinical and economic outcomes were compared between groups for the year before and after the switch. Non-inferiority (at least equivalence) of efBDP-FOR was tested against FP-SAL by comparing exacerbation rates during the outcome year. Results: efBDP-FOR was non-inferior to FP-SAL (adjusted exacerbation rate ratio 1.01 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.37)). Switching to efBDP-FOR resulted in significantly better (p<0.05) odds of achieving overall asthma control (no asthma-related hospitalisations, bronchial infections, or acute oral steroids; salbutamol ≤200μg/day) and lower daily short-acting β2-agonist usage at a lower daily ICS dosage (mean −130μg/day FP equivalents; p<0.001). It also reduced mean asthma-related healthcare costs by £93.63/patient/year (p<0.001). Conclusions: Asthma patients may be switched from FP-SAL to efBDP-FOR at an equivalent or lower ICS dosage with no reduction in clinical effectiveness but a significant reduction in cost.

The 2010 NICE COPD Guidelines: how do they compare with the GOLD guidelines?

The UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has produced a 2010 partial update of its original 2004 Guidelines on COPD management. The definition of airflow obstruction has been altered to a post-bronchodilator FEV1/FVC ratio < 0.7 and the severity of airflow obstruction has been similarly aligned with the Global initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guideline definition. However, patients with GOLD Stage 1 (i.e. FEV1 predicted ≥ 80%) must be symptomatic for a diagnosis of COPD to be made under the new NICE criteria. Recent large scale trials have resulted in a new inhaled pharmacotherapy algorithm which includes early use of inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist combination therapy for patients with an FEV1 < 50% predicted. In spite of an apparent emphasis on pharmacotherapy, both GOLD and NICE Guidelines emphasise that COPD is a multi-system disease requiring a multidimensional approach to treatment. In particular, the importance of smoking cessation and pulmonary rehabilitation is reiterated, the latter not only being of use in managing stable disease but also following hospital discharge.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler

ABSTRACT Objective: To compare the effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol using fixed dosing (BUD/FORM) with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) alone or alternative ICS and long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) regimens for adults with moderate/severe asthma. Methods: BIOSIS, CENTRAL, EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched for abstracts and papers. All searching was completed in July 2006. No restriction was placed on language. Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using a fixed effects model. RCTs were included if the comparator with BUD/FORM had an equivalent daily dose of ICS at the start of the trial. The primary outcome measure was, ‘treatment failure’, defined as: asthma-related serious adverse event, oral glucocorticosteroid treatment, A&E visit and/or admission to hospital, withdrawal due to a need for additional asthma therapy. Results: Of the 330 papers identified in the literature search, 15 met the inclusion criteria. The following alternative treatments were found: ICS alone (BUD), BUD/FORM adjustable maintenance dose (BUD/FORM-AMD), and salmeterol/fluticasone in a single inhaler (SALM/FP). Meta-analysis of treatment failure demonstrated a 50% increase with BUD versus BUD/FORM (Relative Risk [RR] 1.50, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.12–2.02, p = 0.007; 2 RCTs); a trend in favour of a reduction with BUD/FORM-AMD versus BUD/FORM (RR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.77–1.02, p = 0.09; 11 RCTs); and no evidence of a difference with SALM/FP versus BUD/FORM (RR 0.99, 95% CI: 0.83–1.16, p = 0.86; 3 RCTs). Significant heterogeneity was not detected in the primary analyses. Secondary analyses demonstrated the following significant differences: hospitalisations/A&E visits (49% increased risk with SALM/FP vs. BUD/FORM, RR 1.49, 95% CI: 1.07–2.08, p = 0.02, and 28% reduced risk with BUD/FORM-AMD vs. BUD/FORM, RR 0.72, 95% CI: 0.52–0.99, p = 0.04); and use of oral steroids (51% increase in risk with BUD vs. BUD/FORM, RR 1.51, 95% CI: 1.10–2.09, p = 0.01, and 19% reduced risk with BUD/FORM-AMD vs. BUD/FORM, RR 0.81, 95% CI: 0.70–0.95, p = 0.01). Conclusions: Fixed-dose BUD/FORM is an effective treatment option for adult patients with moderate/severe asthma when compared to BUD and SALM/FP, with adjustable maintenance dosing demonstrating important advantages over fixed dosing in relation to exacerbation prevention and reduced treatment load.

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.

Changes in initial COPD treatment choice over time and factors influencing prescribing decisions in UK primary care : a real-world study

Prescribing patterns in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are often inconsistent with published guidelines. This retrospective, observational study utilised data from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database to examine the changes in COPD prescribing patterns over time and to identify predictors of physician treatment choice for patients newly diagnosed with COPD. Initial therapy was defined as the treatment(s) prescribed at or within 1 year before COPD diagnosis. Changes over time were assessed in three cohorts based on the date of diagnosis: (1) 1997–2001; (2) 2002–2006; and (3) 2007–2010. Factors affecting the odds of being prescribed any initial therapy or any initial maintenance therapy were identified by univariable and multivariable logistic regression. The analysis included 20,154 patients, 45% of whom were prescribed an initial regimen containing an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), whereas 28% received no initial pharmacological treatment. Prescribing of ICS monotherapy decreased over time, as did the proportion of patients receiving no therapy at or within 1 year before diagnosis. Comorbid asthma, a high exacerbation rate, increased symptoms and poor lung function each increased the likelihood of being prescribed any initial therapy or initial maintenance therapy; comorbid asthma and an annual rate of ⩾3 exacerbations were the strongest predictors. In conclusion, our analyses revealed major differences between actual prescribing behaviour and guideline recommendations for patients with newly diagnosed COPD, with many patients receiving no treatment and large numbers of patients receiving ICS-containing regimens. Predictors of initial therapy were identified.