How representative are clinical study patients with asthma or COPD for a larger "real life" population of patients with obstructive lung disease?

Mepolizumab add-on therapy in a real world cohort of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma: response rate, effectiveness, and safety

Introduction: Severe eosinophilic asthma is an incapacitating disease. Mepolizumab, a humanized anti-interleukin-5 monoclonal antibody, proved to be effective as an add-on therapy in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. However, only data from randomized controlled trials are available and real world data are lacking.Methods: A retrospective observational longitudinal study was conducted in a real world cohort of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma treated with mepolizumab. The primary objective was to determine response rate, based on a global evaluation of treatment effectiveness by the treating pulmonologist. Secondary objectives were to assess exacerbation frequency, systemic maintenance glucocorticoid usage, Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ), lung function, and adverse events.Results: Seventy-eight patients were included. Treatment with mepolizumab was considered beneficial and was therefore continued in 75.6% of patients 12 months from the initiation of mepolizumab. The most common reason for drop-out was insufficient response. Secondary objectives: 12 months from the initiation of mepolizumab there was a decrease of 3.2 (CI 2.5-4.1; p < 0.001) severe asthma exacerbations per year, a decrease of ACQ of 0.80 points (CI 0.49-1.12; p < 0.001), and an increase of 3.7 (CI 0.3-7.2; p = 0.034) percent of predicted FEV1 compared to baseline. At baseline 51.3% of patients were treated with systemic glucocorticoid maintenance therapy, compared to 15.4% (p < 0.001) of patients 12 months from the initiation of mepolizumab. No serious adverse events considered to be related to mepolizumab were reported.Conclusion: This study confirms that mepolizumab add-on therapy is effective and safe in a real world cohort of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma.

Asthma control and COPD symptom burden in patients using fixed-dose combination inhalers (SPRINT study)

Previous studies have found suboptimal control of symptom burden to be widespread among patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The Phase IV SPRINT study was conducted in 10 countries in Europe to assess asthma disease control and COPD symptom burden in patients treated with a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting beta agonists (LABAs). SPRINT included 1101 patients with asthma and 560 with COPD; all were receiving treatment with an FDC of ICS/LABA, delivered via various inhalers. Data were obtained over a 3-month period, during a single routine physician’s office visit. Asthma control was defined as Asthma Control Test (ACT) score >19. COPD symptom burden was assessed by COPD Assessment Test (CAT), with a CAT score <10 defining low COPD symptom burden. Among patients using any ICS/LABA FDC, 62% of patients with asthma had achieved disease control (ACT score >19) and 16% of patients with COPD had low symptom burden (CAT score <10).

Blood eosinophil count, a marker of inhaled corticosteroid effectiveness in preventing COPD exacerbations in post-hoc RCT and observational studies: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Blood eosinophil count has been proposed as a predictor of response to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) in the prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD. An optimal threshold of blood eosinophil count for prescribing ICS has not been agreed. Doubt has been cast on the role by observational studies. The role of inhaled corticosteroids in this relationship, independent of long-acting bronchodilators, has not been examined.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of post-hoc analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies examining three blood eosinophil thresholds and the independent role of ICS. Included studies were categorised by the form (relative or absolute count) and cut point of eosinophil threshold used. Thresholds assessed were relative eosinophil count of 2%, and absolute counts of 150 cells/μL and 300 cells/μL. Three meta-analyses of the effect of ICS use in post-hoc analyses of RCTs based on these counts were carried out. Initial analysis included all studies of ICS vs. any non-ICS regimen. Further analysis examined the effect of ICS, independent of the effect of long-acting bronchodilators.

Results

Sixteen studies examined the association between blood eosinophil count and response of exacerbation risk to ICS, in COPD patients. Eleven studies (25,881 patients) were post-hoc analyses of RCTs. Five studies (109,704 patients) were retrospective observational studies. The independent effect of ICS on the reduction of exacerbation risk was 20% at ≥2% blood eosinophil threshold (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74–0.85), 35% at ≥150 cells/μL blood eosinophil threshold (RR, 0.65; 0.52–0.79), and 39% at ≥300 cells/μL blood eosinophil threshold (RR, 0.61; 0.44–0.78). No association was found in four out of five observational studies.

Conclusion

This is the first systematic review to assess, in post-hoc analyses of RCTs, the independent effect of ICS in reducing the risk of COPD exacerbation across a range of blood eosinophil thresholds. Association between ICS prescription and reduced exacerbation risk at these thresholds was confirmed. The lack of association found in the observational studies questions the relevance of these observations to a “real world” COPD population. To clarify the clinical utility of this biomarker, the association should be tested in prospective effectiveness studies.

Defining severe obstructive lung disease in the biologic era: an endotype-based approach

Severe obstructive lung disease, which encompasses asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or features of both, remains a considerable global health problem and burden on healthcare resources. However, the clinical definitions of severe asthma and COPD do not reflect the heterogeneity within these diagnoses or the potential for overlap between them, which may lead to inappropriate treatment decisions. Furthermore, most studies exclude patients with diagnoses of both asthma and COPD. Clinical definitions can influence clinical trial design and are both influenced by, and influence, regulatory indications and treatment recommendations. Therefore, to ensure its relevance in the era of targeted biologic therapies, the definition of severe obstructive lung disease must be updated so that it includes all patients who could benefit from novel treatments and for whom associated costs are justified. Here, we review evolving clinical definitions of severe obstructive lung disease and evaluate how these have influenced trial design by summarising eligibility criteria and primary outcomes of phase III randomised controlled trials of biologic therapies. Based on our findings, we discuss the advantages of a phenotype- and endotype-based approach to select appropriate populations for future trials that may influence regulatory approvals and clinical practice, allowing targeted biologic therapies to benefit a greater proportion and range of patients. This calls for co-ordinated efforts between investigators, pharmaceutical developers and regulators to ensure biologic therapies reach their full potential in the management of severe obstructive lung disease.

Antibiotics for COPD exacerbations: does drug or duration matter? A primary care database analysis

Introduction

Antibiotics are routinely given to people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) presenting with lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) symptoms in primary care. Population prescribing habits and their consequences have not been well-described.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of antibiotic prescriptions for non-pneumonic exacerbations of COPD from 2010 to 2015 using the UK primary care Optimum Patient Care Research Database. As a proxy of initial treatment failure, second antibiotic prescriptions for LRTI or all indications within 14 days were the primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. We derived a model for repeat courses using univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis.

Results

A total of 8.4% of the 9042 incident events received further antibiotics for LRTI, 15.5% further courses for any indication. Amoxicillin and doxycycline were the most common index and second-line drugs, respectively (58.7% and 28.7%), mostly given for 7 days. Index drugs other than amoxicillin, cardiovascular disease, pneumococcal vaccination and more primary care consultations were statistically significantly associated with repeat prescriptions for LRTI (p<0.05). The ORs and 95% CIs were: OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.49; OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.66; OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.55 and OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.07, respectively. Index duration, inhaled steroid use and exacerbation frequency were not statistically significant. The derived model had an area under the curve of 0.61, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.63.

Discussion

The prescription of multiple antibiotic courses for COPD exacerbations was relatively common-one in twelve patients receiving antibiotics for LRTI had a further course within 2 weeks. The findings support the current preference for amoxicillin as index drug within the limitations of this observational study. Further clinical trials to determine best practice in this common clinical situation appear required.

Bronchodilator reversibility in asthma and COPD: findings from three large population studies

Bronchodilator response (BDR) testing is used as a diagnostic method in obstructive airway diseases. The aim of this investigation was to compare different methods for measuring BDR in participants with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and to study to the extent to which BDR was related to symptom burden and phenotypic characteristics.Forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) and forced vital capacity (FVC) were measured before and 15 min after 200 μg of salbutamol in 35 628 subjects aged ≥16 years from three large international population studies. The subjects were categorised in three groups: current asthma (n=2833), COPD (n=1146) and no airway disease (n=31 649). Three definitions for flow-related reversibility (increase in FEV₁) and three for volume-related reversibility (increase in FVC) were used.The prevalence of bronchodilator reversibility expressed as increase FEV₁ ≥12% and 200 mL was 17.3% and 18.4% in participants with asthma and COPD, respectively, while the corresponding prevalence was 5.1% in those with no airway disease. In asthma, bronchodilator reversibility was associated with wheeze (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.04-1.79), atopy (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.04-1.79) and higher exhaled nitric oxide fraction, while in COPD neither flow- nor volume-related bronchodilator reversibility was associated with symptom burden, exacerbations or health status after adjusting for pre-bronchodilator FEV₁Bronchodilator reversibility was at least as common in participants with COPD as those with asthma. This indicates that measures of reversibility are of limited value for distinguishing asthma from COPD in population studies. However, in asthma, bronchodilator reversibility may be a phenotypic marker.

Randomized controlled trials of pharmacological treatments to prevent COPD exacerbations: applicability to real-life patients

BACKGROUND

In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, all efforts should be made to prevent exacerbations because each event modifies the trajectory of the disease. Treatment recommendations are mostly built on results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) whose methodology ensure internal validity. However, their relevance may be compromised by the lack of generalizability, due to poor representability of study populations compared to real-life patients. In order to delimit to whom the results of studies on current and future treatments apply, we sought to identify and characterize the fraction of COPD population that would be eligible for inclusion into RCTs aiming at decreasing exacerbation risk.

METHODS

We used the Initiatives-BPCO database, a French cohort of 1309 real-life COPD patients monitored in academic centers. We identified industry-sponsored phase III and IV trials that enrolled more than 500 patients, lasted at least one year and used exacerbations related endpoints. Eligibility criteria were extracted from each trial and applied to the patients.

RESULTS

The eligibility criteria of 16 RCTs were applied to the 1309 patients. The most discriminating eligibility criteria were FEV1, minimum exacerbation rate in the previous year and smoking history, responsible for the exclusion of 39.9, 36.7 and 16.8% of patients, respectively. Altogether, 2.3 to 46.7% of our patients would have satisfied all eligibility criteria.

CONCLUSION

These analyses confirm that an important gap exists between real-life patients and clinical trials populations in COPD, which limits the relevance of results and therefore should be considered when grading levels of evidence and designing future studies.

Reassessing the Role of Eosinophils as a Biomarker in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Blood eosinophils measurement, as proxy for tissue eosinophils, has become an important biomarker for exacerbation risk and response to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Its use to determine the pharmacological approach is recommended in the latest COPD guidelines. The potential role of blood eosinophils is mainly based on data derived from post-hoc and retrospective analyses that showed an association between increased blood eosinophils and risk of exacerbations, as well as mitigation of this risk with ICS. Yet other publications, including studies in real life COPD, do not confirm these assumptions. Moreover, anti-eosinophil therapy targeting interleukin (IL)-5 failed to reduce exacerbations in COPD patients with high blood eosinophils, which casts significant doubts on the role of eosinophils in COPD. Furthermore, a reduction of eosinophils might be harmful since COPD patients with relatively high eosinophils have better pulmonary function, better life quality, less infections and longer survival. These effects are probably linked to the role of eosinophils in the immune response against pathogens. In conclusion, in COPD, high blood eosinophils are widely used as a biomarker for exacerbation risk and response to ICS. However, much is yet to be learned about the reasons for the high eosinophil counts, their variations and their controversial effects on the fate of COPD patients.

Follow-up interviews from The Salford Lung Study (COPD) and analyses per treatment and exacerbations

The Salford Lung Study in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (SLS COPD) was a 12-month, Phase III, open-label, randomised study comparing the effectiveness and safety of initiating once-daily fluticasone furoate 100 µg/vilanterol 25 µg (FF/VI) with continuing usual care (UC). Follow-up interviews were conducted among a subset of 400 patients who completed SLS COPD to further understand patients' experiences with treatment outcomes and the impact of COPD, and potential risk factors associated with higher rates of exacerbations during SLS COPD. Another objective was to explore how such patient-centred outcomes differed by randomised treatment. Patients' perceived control over COPD and effects on quality of life (QoL) were similar between treatment groups at the time of the follow-up interview, but more patients in the FF/VI group compared with UC reported perceived improvements in COPD control and QoL during the study. Of patients who experienced ≥2 exacerbations during SLS COPD, a greater percentage were women, were unemployed or homemakers, or were on long-term sick leave. Having ≥2 exacerbations also appeared to be associated with smoking, seeing a hospital specialist, a feeling of having no/little control over COPD, perceived worsening of feelings of control and reduced overall QoL since the start of the study, being aware of impending exacerbation occurrence and a more severe last exacerbation. Initiation of FF/VI was associated with a greater perceived improvement in patients' control of their COPD and QoL throughout SLS COPD than continuation of UC. Suggestions that smoking status and feelings of control are potentially related to exacerbation require further investigation.

The REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool (RELEVANT): development of a novel quality assurance asset to rate observational comparative effectiveness research studies

BACKGROUND

Evidence from observational comparative effectiveness research (CER) is ranked below that from randomized controlled trials in traditional evidence hierarchies. However, asthma observational CER studies represent an important complementary evidence source answering different research questions and are particularly valuable in guiding clinical decision making in real-life patient and practice settings. Tools are required to assist in quality appraisal of observational CER to enable identification of and confidence in high-quality CER evidence to inform guideline development.

METHODS

The REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool (RELEVANT) was developed through a step-wise approach. We conducted an iterative refinement of the tool based on Task Force member expertise and feedback from pilot testing the tool until reaching adequate inter-rater agreement percentages. Two distinct pilots were conducted-the first involving six members of the Respiratory Effectiveness Group (REG) and European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) joint Task Force for quality appraisal of observational asthma CER; the second involving 22 members of REG and EAACI membership. The final tool consists of 21 quality sub-items distributed across seven methodology domains: Background, Design, Measures, Analysis, Results, Discussion/Interpretation, and Conflict of Interest. Eleven of these sub-items are considered critical and named "primary sub-items".

RESULTS

Following the second pilot, RELEVANT showed inter-rater agreement ≥ 70% for 94% of all primary and 93% for all secondary sub-items tested across three rater groups. For observational CER to be classified as sufficiently high quality for future guideline consideration, all RELEVANT primary sub-items must be fulfilled. The ten secondary sub-items further qualify the relative strengths and weaknesses of the published CER evidence. RELEVANT could also be applicable to general quality appraisal of observational CER across other medical specialties.

CONCLUSIONS

RELEVANT is the first quality checklist to assist in the appraisal of published observational CER developed through iterative feedback derived from pilot implementation and inter-rater agreement evaluation. Developed for a REG-EAACI Task Force quality appraisal of recent asthma CER, RELEVANT also has wider utility to support appraisal of CER literature in general (including pre-publication). It may also assist in manuscript development and in educating relevant stakeholders about key quality markers in observational CER.

Prospective observational study in patients with obstructive lung disease: NOVELTY design

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have overlapping clinical features and share pathobiological mechanisms but are often considered distinct disorders. Prospective, observational studies across asthma, COPD and asthma–COPD overlap are limited. NOVELTY is a global, prospective observational 3-year study enrolling ∼12 000 patients ≥12 years of age from primary and specialist clinical practices in 19 countries (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02760329).

NOVELTY's primary objectives are to describe patient characteristics, treatment patterns and disease burden over time, and to identify phenotypes and molecular endotypes associated with differential outcomes over time in patients with a diagnosis/suspected diagnosis of asthma and/or COPD. NOVELTY aims to recruit real-world patients, unlike clinical studies with restrictive inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Data collected at yearly intervals include clinical assessments, spirometry, biospecimens, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and healthcare utilisation (HCU). PROs and HCU will also be collected 3-monthly via internet/telephone. Data will be used to identify phenotypes and endotypes associated with different trajectories for symptom burden, clinical progression or remission and HCU. Results may allow patient classification across obstructive lung disease by clinical outcomes and biomarker profile, rather than by conventional diagnostic labels and severity categories.

NOVELTY will provide a rich data source on obstructive lung disease, to help improve patient outcomes and aid novel drug development.

NOVELTY is a global study to characterise patients with asthma and/or COPD and identify novel phenotypes and endotypeshttp://ow.ly/QFiH30n3IBF

Effectiveness trials: critical data to help understand how respiratory medicines really work?

Most of the information about the benefits, safety aspects, and cost effectiveness of pharmacological treatment in the respiratory field has been obtained from traditional efficacy studies, such as randomised controlled trials (RCT). The highly controlled environment of an RCT does not always reflect everyday practice. The collection, analysis, and application of effectiveness data to generate Real World Evidence (RWE) through pragmatic trials or observational studies therefore has the potential to improve decision making by regulators, payers, and clinicians.

Despite calls for more RWE, effectiveness data are not widely used in decision making in the respiratory field. Recent advances in data capture, curation, and storage combined with new analytical tools have now made it feasible for effectiveness data to become routine sources of evidence to supplement traditional efficacy data. In this paper, we will examine some of the current data gaps, diverse types of effectiveness data, look at proposed frameworks for the positioning of effectiveness data, as well as provide examples from therapeutic areas. We will give examples of both previous effectiveness studies and studies that are ongoing within the respiratory field. Effectiveness data hold the potential to address several evidentiary gaps related to the effectiveness, safety, and value of treatments in patients with respiratory diseases.

Randomised controlled trials in severe asthma: selection by phenotype or stereotype

Previous publications have highlighted the disparity between research trial populations and those in clinical practice, but it has not been established how this relates to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of phenotype-targeted biological therapies in severe asthma.Detailed characterisation data for 342 severe asthma patients within the Wessex Severe Asthma Cohort (WSAC) was compared against comprehensive trial eligibility criteria for published phase IIB and phase III RCTs evaluating biological therapies in severe asthma since 2000.37 RCTs evaluating 20 biological therapies were identified. Only a median of 9.8% (range 3.5-17.5%) of severe asthma patients were found to be eligible for enrolment in the phase III trials. Stipulations for airflow obstruction, bronchodilator reversibility and smoking history excluded significant numbers of patients. A median of 78.9% (range 73.2-86.6%) of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma would have been excluded from participation in the phase III licensing trials of interleukin (IL)-5/IL-5R targeted therapies.Despite including only well characterised and optimally treated severe asthmatics under specialist care within the WSAC study, the vast majority were excluded from trial participation by criteria designed to re-confirm diagnostic labels rather than by biomarker criteria that predict the characteristic addressed by the treatment.

Patient Satisfaction and Clinical Outcomes with Budesonide plus Formoterol Spiromax for Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Real-World, Observational Trial

BACKGROUND

The fixed-dose combination of budesonide/formoterol (B/F) has been available in the Spiromax® dry powder inhaler since 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess patient satisfaction, inhaler use errors, and disease control in patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treated with B/F Spiromax.

METHODS

This non-interventional, prospective, 12-week study enrolled consecutive asthma or COPD patients who had recently begun treatment with B/F Spiromax or were switched from another inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist combination to B/F Spiromax in routine clinical practice. Patients recruited from 243 specialist respiratory clinics or general practices in Germany were assessed for patient satisfaction (Satisfaction with Inhalers and Preference questionnaire), inhaler application errors (modified Easy Low Instruction over Time checklist), disease control, and safety.

RESULTS

The population included 3,943 patients: asthma n = 2,707 (68.7%); COPD n = 1,236 (31.3%). At baseline, 60.1% of patients were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their previous inhaler, and this increased to 88.8% at week 12 of B/F Spiromax use. Overall, 62.1% of pre-treated patients preferred B/F Spiromax to their old inhaler. The frequency of any handling error observed with B/F Spiromax at week 12 was lower than at baseline (11.9 vs. 25.5% of patients, respectively). After 12 weeks, 77.4% were assessed as having improved (minimally, much, or very much) overall health status versus baseline. Guideline-defined disease severity (as rated by physicians) and patient-reported symptom severity improved during the study in both asthma and COPD patients. B/F Spiromax was well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

B/F Spiromax was associated with high patient satisfaction, low device handling error rate, and improvements in clinical outcomes in real-world clinical practice.

Real-world effectiveness evaluation of budesonide/formoterol Spiromax for the management of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the UK

OBJECTIVES

Budesonide/formoterol (BF) Spiromax ® is an inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist fixed-dose combination (FDC) inhaler, designed to minimise common inhaler errors and provide reliable and consistent dose delivery in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We evaluated non-inferiority of BF Spiromax after changing from another FDC inhaler, compared with continuing the original inhaler.

METHODS

Patients with asthma and/or COPD who switched to BF Spiromax were matched (1:3) with non-switchers. Data were obtained from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database and Clinical Practice Research Datalink in the UK. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving disease control (using the risk domain control (RDC) algorithm); secondary end points were: exacerbation rate, short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) use and treatment stability (achieved RDC; no maintenance treatment change). Non-inferiority was defined as having 95% CI lower bound above -10%, using conditional logistic regression and adjusted for relevant confounders.

RESULTS

Comparing 385 matched patients (asthma 253; COPD 132) who switched to BF Spiromax with 1091 (asthma 743; COPD 348) non-switchers, non-inferiority of BF Spiromax in RDC was demonstrated (adjusted difference: +6.6%; 95% CI -0.3 to 13.5). Among patients with asthma, switchers to BF Spiromax versus BF Turbuhaler® reported fewer exacerbations (adjusted rate ratio (RR) 0.76;95% CI 0.60 to 0.99; p=0.044); were less likely to use high daily doses of SABA (adjusted OR 0.71;95% CI 0.52 to 0.98; p=0.034); used fewer SABA inhalers (adjusted RR 0.92;95% CI 0.86 to 0.99; p=0.019); and were more likely to achieve treatment stability (adjusted OR 1.44;95% CI 1.02 to 2.04; p=0.037). No significant differences in these end points were seen among patients with COPD.

CONCLUSIONS

Among UK patients with asthma and COPD, real-world use of BF Spiromax was non-inferior to BF Turbuhaler in terms of disease control. Among patients with asthma, switching to BF Spiromax was associated with reduced exacerbations, reduced SABA use and improved treatment stability versus continuing on BF Turbuhaler.

Study investigating the generalisability of a COPD trial based in primary care (Salford Lung Study) and the presence of a Hawthorne effect

Introduction

Traditional phase IIIb randomised trials may not reflect routine clinical practice. The Salford Lung Study in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (SLS COPD) allowed broad inclusion criteria and followed patients in routine practice. We assessed whether SLS COPD approximated the England COPD population and evidence for a Hawthorne effect.

Methods

This observational cohort study compared patients with COPD in the usual care arm of SLS COPD (2012–2014) with matched non-trial patients with COPD in England from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink database. Generalisability was explored with baseline demographics, clinical and treatment variables; outcomes included COPD exacerbations in adjusted models and pretrial versus peritrial comparisons.

Results

Trial participants were younger (mean, 66.7 vs 71.1 years), more deprived (most deprived quintile, 51.5% vs 21.4%), more current smokers (47.5% vs 32.1%), with more severe Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease stages but less comorbidity than non-trial patients. There were no material differences in other characteristics. Acute COPD exacerbation rates were high in the trial population (98.37th percentile).

Conclusion

The trial population was similar to the non-trial COPD population. We observed some evidence of a Hawthorne effect, with more exacerbations recorded in trial patients; however, the largest effect was observed through behavioural changes in patients and general practitioner coding practices.

Comparison of correct technique and preference for Spiromax®, Easyhaler® and Turbuhaler®: a single-site, single-visit, crossover study in inhaler-naïve adult volunteers

Background: Many patients do not use inhalers correctly. Inhalers associated with good technique have the potential to improve symptom control and are often preferred by patients. Methods: Inhaler-naïve, adult volunteers were randomized to use empty Spiromax®, Easyhaler®, and Turbuhaler® dry powder inhalers (DPIs) in one of six possible sequences in this single-site, single-visit, crossover study conducted in Sweden. Randomization was stratified by age and gender. Participants attempted to use each device intuitively (no instructions) and after reading the instructions for use from the patient information leaflet. Device preference was surveyed after using all devices. Mastery of device handling (i.e. dose preparation) or inhalation was defined as having no healthcare-professional-observed errors. The primary endpoint was mastery of device handling after reading the instructions. Results: More participants mastered device handling with Spiromax vs Easyhaler or Turbuhaler, both intuitively (44%, 0%, and 10%, respectively) and after reading the instructions (99%, 56%, and 81%, respectively). Fewer participants had ≥1 device-handling error with Spiromax than with the other devices. The percentage of participants still showing inhalation errors after reading the instructions ranged between 21% for Spiromax and 40% for Easyhaler. After reading instructions, mastery of handling and inhalation was numerically lower among older (aged >60 years) vs younger participants across all devices. Most participants preferred Spiromax for device handling (59%) and intuitiveness/ease of use (61%). Conclusion: These findings highlight that important differences exist between DPI devices, which could have implications for disease control when selecting a device for a patient.

Pharmacological Management of Diabetic Macular Edema in Real-Life Observational Studies

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

of observational studies concerning the pharmacological management of diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

A literature review was conducted using the PubMed database on 1 February 2018 to identify studies evaluating the efficacy of anti-VEGF and dexamethasone (DEX) implants for DME. Studies with more than 10 patients and follow-up of more than 6 months were selected. Analyses were carried out on the overall population and on subgroups defined according to baseline visual acuity (BVA) and the patients' naïve or non-naïve status.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies evaluating the efficacy of anti-VEGF and 31 studies evaluating the efficacy of DEX-implants were retained, concerning 6,842 and 1,703 eyes, respectively. A mean gain of +4.7 letters for a mean of 5.8 injections (mean follow-up: 15.6 months) and +9.6 letters for a mean of 1.6 injections (10.3 months) was found in the anti-VEGF and DEX-implant studies, respectively. Final VA appears to be similar for both treatment (62 letters for anti-VEGF, 61.2 letters for DEX-implant), and BVA appears lower for DEX-implant, which may partially explain the greater visual gain. The DEX-implant studies show greater gains in VA compared to the anti-VEGF studies, especially for higher BVA. Indeed, mean gains for the subgroups of patients with BVA<50 letters, 5060 letters are +4.3, +5.8, and +3.1 letters, respectively, in the anti-VEGF studies and +10.5, +9.3, and +8.8 letters, respectively, in the DEX-implant studies. Regarding the patient's initial status, only naïve status appears to confer the best functional response in DEX-implant studies.

CONCLUSION

Observational studies investigating DEX-implant report clinically similar final VA when compared to anti-VEGF, but superior visual gains in real-life practice. This latter difference could be due to the better BVA, but also to the fact that less injections were administered in the anti-VEGF observational studies than in the interventional studies.

Effect of combination of pre- and postoperative pulmonary rehabilitation on onset of postoperative pneumonia: a retrospective cohort study based on data from the diagnosis procedure combination database in Japan

BACKGROUND

To examine the effect of rehabilitation on postoperative pulmonary complication when it is conducted in combination of both before and after lung cancer surgery, as compared with either before or after surgery and no rehabilitation.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted to examine the effect of rehabilitation before and after lung cancer surgery on the causes of postoperative pneumonia. Data were collected from the diagnosis procedure combination (DPC) database. Patients admitted who received operative treatment for a new primary (ICD codes: C34) were selected. The inclusion criteria were patients who had pneumonectomy, malignant tumor surgery for the lung (thoracotomy), or thoracoscopic surgery (endoscopic; treatment code: K511-00, K513-00~03, and K514-00, 02). The exclusion criteria were patients who had a lung transplantation (treatment code: K514-03~06), suspected diagnosis, and a pneumonia within 3 months before being diagnosed as having lung cancer. Main outcome was onset of postoperative pneumonia.

RESULTS

Among 76,739 lung cancer patients, 15,146 who underwent lung cancer surgery were included in the analysis. In the combination of pre- and postoperative group, as compared with the preoperative [odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.8, 1.8-4.4], postoperative (1.9, 1.6-2.3), and no rehabilitation group (2.5, 2.1-2.8), the onset of pneumonia was less frequent.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination of preoperative and postoperative rehabilitations significantly prevents postoperative pneumonia as compared with having preoperative, postoperative, or no rehabilitation.

Promoting smoking abstinence among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Initial feasibility

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the third leading cause of death in the U.S., with the majority of COPD deaths attributable to cigarette smoking. Despite this, individuals with COPD have a higher prevalence of smoking, poorer quit rates, and higher relapse rates compared to smokers without a COPD diagnosis. We examined the feasibility of an incentives-based intervention for producing an initial period of biochemically-verified smoking abstinence among daily smokers with COPD. Participants were randomly assigned to a Contingent (n = 13) or Noncontingent (n = 16) incentives condition and visited the clinic for 14 consecutive days. Contingent participants earned vouchers with monetary value contingent on breath carbon monoxide (CO) levels during Study Days 1–5 and urinary cotinine during Days 6–14. Voucher earnings began at $9.00 and increased by $1.50 with each subsequent negative sample for maximum possible of $362.50. Noncontingent participants received vouchers of comparable value independent of smoking status. Differences between conditions varied across study days for daily smoking abstinence (X² = 45.27, p < 0.0001), CO (F(13, 280) = 1.95, p = 0.025), and cotinine (F(13, 279) = 2.20, p = 0.010), with generally higher rates of abstinence and lower CO and cotinine levels observed in the Contingent vs. Noncontingent conditions. Results from this randomized pilot study support the potential efficacy of an incentives-based intervention for reducing cigarette smoking among individuals with COPD. Further research efforts should seek to promote and evaluate longer-term abstinence and associated changes in respiratory function.

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.

Health status in patients with COPD treated with roflumilast: two large noninterventional real-life studies: DINO and DACOTA

Purpose

DINO and DACOTA were prospective, noninterventional studies assessing the health status and quality of life of patients with COPD newly treated with roflumilast 500 μg once-daily add-on therapy.

Patients and methods

Patients were evaluated over 6 months. Clinical COPD questionnaire (CCQ) and COPD assessment test (CAT) scores were recorded at baseline and after 3 and 6 months. In DACOTA, post-bronchodilator FEV1 was recorded at each time point.

Results

Of 5,462 and 3,645 patients recruited into DINO and DACOTA, respectively, 3,274 patients in DINO and 916 patients in DACOTA completed the 6-month visit. Almost all patients had severe or very severe airway obstruction; mean baseline CCQ total score was 3.9 in DINO and 3.7 in DACOTA. Overall, 33.8% of patients in DACOTA and 30.6% in DINO discontinued treatment prematurely. Significant and clinically relevant improvements in CCQ total scores were observed in both studies (mean change from baseline of 1.36 in DINO and 0.91 in DACOTA at Month 6 [all P<0.001]). Changes in CAT total score from baseline to Month 6 indicated that the average clinical impact of COPD was reduced from a severe (score: 21-30) to a moderate (score: 11-20) impairment. In DACOTA, mean change in post-bronchodilator FEV1 was 202 mL (P<0.001). Diarrhea, nausea, and weight decrease were the most frequently reported adverse drug reactions.

Conclusion

In real-life clinical practice, roflumilast treatment as an add-on therapy is associated with clinically relevant improvements in health status and quality of life.

Stable COPD Treatment: Where are We?

The number of pharmacological treatments available for COPD has increased markedly in the last years, mostly corresponding to new agents, combinations and devices within know pharmacological classes. Hierarchizing these options is not straightforward since expected effects are limited by the intrinsically fixed character of the underlying lung damage. In addition, all options have not been directly compared face-to-face. Therefore, guidelines derive from some level of subjective interpretation of the available evidence. Determining which magnitude of change can be taken as clinically relevant is complex although crucial to define long-term strategies. Similarly, estimating not only the possible benefits but also the risks of treatments at the individual level is of major importance to guide choices. In the future biomarkers may be of help in that respect. They will hopefully emerge from progresses in systems biology and medicine. Before then, prescriptions should be restricted to the appropriate treatment indications, as established by high level studies and formalized by guidelines.

Advancing the management of obstructive airways diseases through translational research

Obstructive airways diseases (OAD) represent a huge burden of illness world-wide, and in spite of the development of effective therapies, significant morbidity and mortality related to asthma and COPD still remains. Over the past decade, our understanding of OAD has improved vastly, and novel treatments have evolved. This evolution is the result of successful translational research, which has connected clinical presentations of OAD and underlying disease mechanisms, thereby enabling the development of targeted treatments. The next challenge of translational research will be to position these novel treatments for OAD for optimal clinical use. At the same time, there is great potential in these treatments providing even better insights into disease mechanisms in OAD by studying the effects of blocking individual immunological pathways. To optimize this potential, there is a need to ensure that translational aspects are added to randomized clinical trials, as well as real-world studies, but also to use other trial designs such as platform studies, which allow for simultaneous assessment of different interventions. Furthermore, demonstrating clinical impact, that is research translation, is an increasingly important component of successful translational research. This review outlines concepts of translational research, exemplifying how translational research has moved management of obstructive airways diseases into the next century, with the introduction of targeted, individualized therapy. Furthermore, the review describes how these therapies may be used as research tools to further our understanding of disease mechanisms in OAD, through translational, mechanistic studies. We underline the current need for implementing basic immunological concepts into clinical care in order to optimize the use of novel targeted treatments and to further the clinical understanding of disease mechanisms. Finally, potential barriers to adoption of novel targeted therapies into routine practice and how these may be overcome are described.

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.

Prospective evaluation of chronic pain disorders and treatments

BACKGROUND

The incidence of chronic pain is variable among individuals who have sustained traumatic or surgical injury. Also, treatments for pain rarely are effective consistently for a procedure or agent, and no therapies are considered effective for pain that is chronic.

NEW METHOD

Difficulties with standard methods for conducting clinical trials call attention to a need for protocols that provide a new understanding of the development of and control over chronic pain. Prospective single-subject research designs can document varieties of pain progression over time for individuals. Subsequent grouping of individuals with common characteristics directs a mechanism-based approach to therapy.

RESULTS

Tracking of individuals' pain and associated influences over time is consistent with clinical practice, noting and adapting to changes that occur.

COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS

Grouping patients with diverse characteristics and variable effects of therapy is problematic. Conventional evaluation of pain assesses patients with similar injuries or surgery without characterizations of individuals who develop chronic pain or recover over time. Also, classical evaluation of therapies involves comparison of groups receiving treatment or a placebo without characterization of patients with successful and unsuccessful results.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-subject prospective studies can inform clinical trials according to individual differences that would be obscured by comparison of groups with unknown variation in characteristics that influence pain and therapeutic effectiveness.

Real-world outcomes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease initiating long-acting mono bronchodilator therapy

BACKGROUND

Randomized clinical trials have shown long-acting mono bronchodilator therapy to be efficacious in improving lung function and dyspnea, while reducing exacerbations; however, less is known regarding the effectiveness in routine clinical practice. This study examined treatment patterns, rescue medication use, healthcare resource utilization and costs, and exacerbations in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who initiated long-acting mono bronchodilator therapy in real-world settings.

METHODS

This retrospective study used US claims data from adult patients with COPD initiating long-acting mono bronchodilator therapy between 1 January 2008 and 31 January 2015. Patients were required to have continuous health plan enrollment 12 months prior to (baseline period) and 12 months following therapy initiation (follow-up period). Outcomes, including treatment patterns, rescue medication use, exacerbations, and healthcare utilization and costs, were measured until the earliest of treatment augmentation or discontinuation, death, health plan disenrollment, or the end of the study period. Results were analyzed descriptively for all measures. Baseline and follow-up measures of all-cause and COPD-related healthcare costs and exacerbations [per patient per month (PPPM)] were compared using paired t tests.

RESULTS

Among 27,394 patients with a mean follow up of 6.3 months, 18.2% augmented, 74.2% discontinued, and 7.6% continued long-acting mono bronchodilator therapy. Rescue medication use was prevalent during the follow-up period, with an average of 1.0 short-acting β agonist (SABA) fills/month and 0.8 short-acting muscarinic antagonist (SAMA) fills/month, among patients with at least one fill for the medication of interest. PPPM mean number of exacerbations was more than triple (0.17 versus 0.05, p < 0.001) and PPPM exacerbation-related costs were more than double over the follow-up period compared with baseline ($1070 versus $485). COPD-related costs accounted for 50% of all-cause costs during the follow-up period and were significantly higher compared with baseline ($1206 versus $592, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients initiating long-acting mono bronchodilator therapy had high rates of medication discontinuation or augmentation. Patients used more rescue medications and experienced significantly more COPD exacerbations with higher healthcare costs compared with baseline. Further research is warranted to determine whether more aggressive initial therapy would result in symptom improvement.

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 practitioner's 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 practitioner's 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.

From Evidence Based Medicine to Medicine Based Evidence

Evidence based medicine, using randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses as the major tools and sources of evidence about average results for heterogeneous groups of patients, developed as a reaction against poorly designed observational treatment research and physician reliance on personal experience with other patients as a guide to decision-making about a patient at hand. However, these tools do not answer the clinician's question: "Will a given therapeutic regimen help my patient at a given point in her/his clinical course?" We introduce fine-grained profiling of the patient at hand, accompanied by comparative evidence of responses from approximate matches to this patient on whom a contemplated treatment has/has not been administered. This represents medicine based evidence that is tuned to decision-making for the particular patient.

Extrafine Versus Fine Inhaled Corticosteroids in Relation to Asthma Control: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Real-Life Studies

BACKGROUND

The particle size of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) may affect airway drug deposition and effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of extrafine ICSs (mass median aerodynamic diameter, <2 μm) versus fine-particle ICSs administered as ICS monotherapy or ICS-long-acting β-agonist combination therapy by conducting a meta-analysis of observational real-life asthma studies to estimate the treatment effect of extrafine ICSs.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were reviewed for asthma observational comparative effectiveness studies from January 2004 to June 2016. Studies were included if they reported odds and relative risk ratios and met all inclusion criteria (Respiratory Effectiveness Group/European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology quality standards, comparison of extrafine ICSs with same or different ICS molecule, ≥12-month follow-up). End-point data (asthma control, exacerbations, prescribed ICS dose) were pooled. Random-effects meta-analysis modeling was used. The study protocol is published in the PROSPERO register CRD42016039137.

RESULTS

Seven studies with 33,453 subjects aged 5 to 80 years met eligibility criteria for inclusion. Six studies used extrafine beclometasone propionate and 1 study used both extrafine beclometasone propionate and extrafine ciclesonide as comparators with fine-particle ICSs. The overall odds of achieving asthma control were significantly higher for extrafine ICSs compared with fine-particle ICSs (odds ratio, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.22-1.46). Overall exacerbation rate ratios (0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97) and ICS dose (weighted mean difference, -170 μg; 95% CI, -222 to -118 μg) were significantly lower for extrafine ICSs compared with fine-particle ICSs.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis demonstrates that extrafine ICSs have significantly higher odds of achieving asthma control with lower exacerbation rates at significantly lower prescribed doses than fine-particle ICSs.

Comparative effectiveness of indacaterol/glycopyrronium in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Indacaterol/glycopyrronium has been the first long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) fixed-dose combination to be approved as a maintenance treatment in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. Comparative effectiveness studies indicate that it is constantly superior to a LAMA or a LABA alone or even a LABA/inhaled corticosteroid combination, regardless of the drugs used. However, definitive data documenting the benefit of indacaterol/glycopyrronium fixed-dose combination over these consolidated therapies are still absent in a real-world setting, although the results of pivotal randomized controlled trials show that this is the case. Therefore, in addition to the large body of evidence already available supporting the use of indacaterol/glycopyrronium, pragmatic observational studies or ad hoc designed trials should be planned to collect data that could confirm the high effectiveness of indacaterol/glycopyrronium even in the real-life clinical practice.

Real-life effectiveness of asthma treatment with a fixed-dose fluticasone/formoterol pressurised metered-dose inhaler - Results from a non-interventional study

OBJECTIVE

Prospective, non-interventional study of fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting beta₂-agonist (LABA) combination therapy with fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate (FP/FORM) across a spectrum of community-based patients with asthma in a real-life setting.

METHODS

In FP/FORM-treated patients aged ≥12 years, asthma control (Asthma Control Test™ [ACT]), incidence of severe exacerbations, lung function, quality of life (asthma quality of life questionnaire [AQLQ]) and adverse events (AEs) were assessed over one year.

RESULTS

Almost 40% (n = 555) of the full analysis population (N = 1410) were receiving ICS/LABA therapy prior to enrolment; 69.8% completed the study. Asthma control (mean ACT ± standard deviation) improved from 16.3 ± 5.0 at baseline to 19.8 ± 4.5 at study end. ACT scores were significantly (p < 0.0001) higher than baseline at all observation timepoints, including the first assessment at 4-6 weeks. The percentage of patients with asthma control increased (baseline: 30.9%; study end: 62.4%), and the percentage of patients with ≥1 severe asthma exacerbation decreased (12 months before: 35.8%; during study: 5.9%). Lung function (forced expiratory volume in one second, peak expiratory flow) improved from baseline to each observation timepoint (p < 0.0001 for all). Improvement in asthma status was accompanied by ameliorated quality of life: AQLQ scores improved significantly from baseline to all observation timepoints (p < 0.0001 for all). AEs accorded with the summary of product characteristics. After study completion, 70% of patients continued FP/FORM treatment.

CONCLUSION

In this one-year study, FP/FORM treatment was associated with clinically relevant improvements in asthma status in a diverse population of patients under real-life conditions.

Late-Onset Asthma: A Diagnostic and Management Challenge

Late-onset asthma is common, associated with poor outcome, underdiagnosed and undertreated, possibly due to the modifying effect of ageing on disease expression. Although the diagnostic work-up in elderly individuals suspected of having asthma follows the same steps as in younger individuals (case history and spirometry), it is important to acknowledge that elderly individuals are likely to have diminished bronchodilator reversibility and some degree of fixed airflow obstruction. Elderly individuals, therefore, often require further objective tests, including bronchial challenge testing, to objectively confirm asthma. If necessary, a trial of oral or inhaled corticosteroid might be necessary. Asthma can be diagnosed when increased airflow variability is identified in a symptomatic patient, and if the patient does not have a history of exposure, primarily smoking, known to cause chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, the diagnosis is asthma even if the patient does not have fully reversible airflow obstruction. Pharmacological therapy in patients with late-onset asthma follows international guidelines, including treatment with the lowest effective dose of inhaled corticosteroid to minimize the risk of systemic effects. However, most recommendations are based on extrapolation from findings in younger patients. Comorbidities are very common in patients with late-onset asthma and need to be taken into account in the management of the disease. In conclusion, late-onset asthma is poorly recognized and sub-optimally treated, the latter not least because elderly patients are excluded from most randomized controlled trials. Future studies should focus on the development of evidence-based guidelines for diagnosis and the pharmacological therapy of asthma in the elderly, including late-onset asthma.

Patient-centered outcomes research to improve asthma outcomes

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute is funding 8 comparative effectiveness research projects to improve patient-centered outcomes for African American and Hispanic/Latino patients with uncontrolled asthma. These projects aim to compare multilevel interventions with known efficacy at the community, home, and health system levels to enhance patient and clinician uptake of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's National Asthma Education Prevention Program guidelines and improve outcomes. The National Asthma Education Prevention Program guidelines provide clinicians with a range of acceptable approaches for the diagnosis and management of asthma and define general practices that meet the needs of most patients. Yet disparities in asthma care and outcomes remain pervasive for African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute AsthmaNet consortium has identified several top research priorities for pediatric and adult populations, including a recommendation to examine tailored approaches based on race/ethnicity. In addition, the guidelines emphasize the need for studies that focus on multicomponent interventions recognizing that single interventions are generally ineffective. This article will describe the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute-funded asthma projects and how they are individually and collectively addressing evidence gaps in asthma care by focusing on multicomponent and tailored approaches for improving outcomes and reducing disparities for African American and Hispanic/Latino patients.

Infection-mediated asthma: etiology, mechanisms and treatment options, with focus on Chlamydia pneumoniae and macrolides

Asthma is a chronic respiratory disease characterized by reversible airway obstruction and airway hyperresponsiveness to non-specific bronchoconstriction agonists as the primary underlying pathophysiology. The worldwide incidence of asthma has increased dramatically in the last 40 years. According to World Health Organization (WHO) estimates, over 300 million children and adults worldwide currently suffer from this incurable disease and 255,000 die from the disease each year. It is now well accepted that asthma is a heterogeneous syndrome and many clinical subtypes have been described. Viral infections such as respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and human rhinovirus (hRV) have been implicated in asthma exacerbation in children because of their ability to cause severe airway inflammation and wheezing. Infections with atypical bacteria also appear to play a role in the induction and exacerbation of asthma in both children and adults. Recent studies confirm the existence of an infectious asthma etiology mediated by Chlamydia pneumoniae (CP) and possibly by other viral, bacterial and fungal microbes. It is also likely that early-life infections with microbes such as CP could lead to alterations in the lung microbiome that significantly affect asthma risk and treatment outcomes. These infectious microbes may exacerbate the symptoms of established chronic asthma and may even contribute to the initial development of the clinical onset of the disease. It is now becoming more widely accepted that patterns of airway inflammation differ based on the trigger responsible for asthma initiation and exacerbation. Therefore, a better understanding of asthma subtypes is now being explored more aggressively, not only to decipher pathophysiologic mechanisms but also to select treatment and guide prognoses. This review will explore infection-mediated asthma with special emphasis on the protean manifestations of CP lung infection, clinical characteristics of infection-mediated asthma, mechanisms involved and antibiotic treatment outcomes.

The value of pragmatic and observational studies in health care and public health

Evidence-based practice is an important component of health care service delivery. However, there is a tendency, embodied in tools such as Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, to focus principally on the classification of study design, at the expense of a detailed assessment of the strengths and limitations of the individual study. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and in particular the classical “explanatory” RCT, have a privileged place in the hierarchy of evidence. However, classical RCTs have substantial limitations, most notably a lack of generalizability, which limit their direct applicability to clinical practice implementation. Pragmatic and observational studies can provide an invaluable perspective into real-world applicability. This evidence could be used more widely to complement ideal-condition results from classical RCTs, following the principle of triangulation. In this review article, we discuss several types of pragmatic and observational studies that could be used in this capacity. We discuss their particular strengths and how their limitations may be overcome and provide real-life examples by means of illustration.

Use of electronic medical records and biomarkers to manage risk and resource efficiencies

The migration from paper to electronic medical records (EMRs) was motivated by the administrative need to record, retrieve and process increasing amounts of clinical data in the 1980s. In the intervening period, there has been growing recognition of the potential of such records for achieving care efficiencies, informing clinical decision making and real-life research. EMRs can be used to characterise patient groups, management approaches and differential outcomes. Characterisation can also help with identification of potential biomarkers for future risk determination and likely treatment response. The future heralds even greater opportunities through integration of clinical records and a range of technology-based solutions within a more complete electronic health record (EHR). Through application of algorithms based on identified risk predictors and disease determinants, clinical records could also be used to enable risk stratification of patients to optimise targeted interventions, conserving resources to achieve individual patient and system-wide benefit. In this review, we reflect on the evolution of the EMR and EHR and discuss current and emerging opportunities, particularly with respect to biomarkers and targeting of innovative biologic interventions. We also consider some of the critical issues associated with realising the potential of the EHR as a clinical aid and research tool in an age of emerging technologies.​​​​.

Incidence and long-term outcome of severe asthma-COPD overlap compared to asthma and COPD alone: a 35-year prospective study of 57,053 middle-aged adults

Background

Incidence and prognosis for severe asthma–COPD overlap is poorly characterized. We investigated incidence and long-term outcome for patients with asthma–COPD overlap compared to asthma and COPD alone.

Materials and methods

A total of 57,053 adults (aged 50–64 years) enrolled in the Danish Diet, Cancer, and Health cohort (1993–1997) were followed in the National Patients Registry for admissions for asthma (DJ45–46) and COPD (DJ40–44) and vital status. Asthma–COPD overlap was defined as at least one hospital admission for asthma and one for COPD (different time points), and incident asthma–COPD overlap as at least one of the diagnoses occurring after enrollment into the Diet, Cancer, and Health cohort.

Results

A total of 1,845 (3.2%) and 4,037 (7.1%) participants had admissions for asthma and COPD, respectively, with 662 (1.2%) participants with asthma–COPD overlap. Incidence rate of asthma–COPD overlap per 1,000 person-years was higher in women (0.73) than in men (0.54) (P<0.02). Mortality rate was higher in asthma–COPD overlap (25.9 per 1,000 person-years) compared with COPD (23.1, P<0.05) and asthma (7.9, P<0.001) alone. Compared to COPD alone, mortality was higher in women with asthma–COPD overlap (19.6 and 25.5, respectively; P<0.01), and the excess mortality rate for asthma–COPD overlap patients was most prominent for younger age groups (12.9 compared to 7.2 and 4.6 for COPD and asthma alone, respectively; P<0.01).

Conclusion

This large population-based study revealed a higher incidence of severe asthma–COPD overlap in women compared to men, and furthermore that all-cause mortality is higher in women and younger subjects with asthma–COPD overlap compared with those with asthma or COPD alone.

Eligibility of real-life patients with COPD for inclusion in RCTs: a commentary

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are performed to provide evidence to support treatment decisions. Based on the nature of those studies and the need to avoid confounding factors, it has been argued that the population selected in RCTs only partially represents the real-life population. This assumption casts doubts on the applicability of the results provided by RCTs in the management of individuals with an established diagnosis of COPD, and advocates the need for complementary studies with a pragmatic design. Herein, we comment on the recent article published by Halpin and colleagues on the Journal [Halpin et al, Respir Res 17:120, 2016], in which higher rates of inclusions in RCTs for COPD are found compared to previous observations. By analyzing the design of the studies and the end results, we conclude that the accumulating evidence contribute to shed lights on how representative is the outpatient population of real life settings.