A structured review evaluating content validity of the Asthma Control Test, and its consistency with U.S. guidelines and patient expectations for asthma control.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the content of the Asthma Control Test (ACT) served as a valid measure of asthma control (i.e., content validity) by mapping ACT items to the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) guideline asthma control definitions, and to language used by patients to describe their asthma. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and EMBASE databases were used for a structured literature analysis. STUDY SELECTIONS: Full-text, English-language articles that reported findings from qualitative studies conducted in adults, focusing on patient descriptors of asthma symptoms, impacts, or severity, were included. Pediatric studies, studies conducted in patients without asthma, and studies that did not contain qualitative data were excluded. RESULTS: ACT items reflected all domains of asthma impairment described in the NHLBI guidelines, except pulmonary function. Following the literature review, 28 full-text publications were identified that included patient descriptors that could be mapped to ACT items. For example, per ACT Item 1, patients described having trouble at work, school, and completing household chores; and, per ACT Item 2, patients used the phrase "short of breath" to describe asthma-associated symptoms. CONCLUSION: ACT item content corresponded well with the NHLBI guideline definitions of the impairment domain of asthma control (focused on asthma symptoms and impact), and we identified numerous examples in the literature indicating that ACT concepts and item content mirror the language patients use when discussing asthma symptoms and impact, and their degree of asthma control. This provides further evidence to support content validity of the ACT as a measure of asthma control.

Relationship between the Asthma Control Test (ACT) and other outcomes: a targeted literature review.

BACKGROUND: The Asthma Control Test (ACT) has been used to assess asthma control in both clinical trials and clinical practice. However, the relationships between ACT score and other measures of asthma impact are not fully understood. Here, we evaluate how ACT scores relate to other clinical, patient-reported, or economic asthma outcomes. METHODS: A targeted literature search of online databases and conference abstracts was performed. Data were extracted from articles reporting ACT score alongside one or more of: Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score; rescue medication use; exacerbations; lung function; health-/asthma-related quality of life (QoL); sleep quality; work and productivity; and healthcare resource use (HRU) and costs. RESULTS: A total of 1653 publications were identified, 74 of which were included in the final analysis. Of these, 69 studies found that improvement in ACT score was related to improvement in outcome(s), either as correlation or by association. The level of evidence for each relationship differed widely between outcomes: substantial evidence was identified for relationships between ACT score and ACQ score, lung function, and asthma-related QoL; moderate evidence was obtained for relationships between ACT score and rescue medication use, exacerbations, sleep quality, and work and productivity; limited evidence was identified for relationships between ACT score and general health-related QoL, HRU, and healthcare costs. CONCLUSIONS: Findings of this review suggest that the ACT is an appropriate measure for overall asthma impact and support its use in clinical trial settings. GlaxoSmithKline plc. study number HO-17-18170.

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 .).

Can medicines development improve outcomes in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease management by driving effectiveness?

Despite the availability of treatment guidelines and inhaled medications for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), much remains to be done to lessen the burden of these respiratory diseases for patients. The challenge of selecting effective and efficacious drugs for patients is a key focus area for healthcare professionals. Here we discuss the concept of "drivers of effectiveness"- features of a medicine which may increase or decrease its effectiveness in the presence of real-world factors - and highlight the importance of considering these drivers in the early stages of drug development, and exploring their impact in carefully designed pragmatic trials. Using the Salford Lung Studies (SLS) in asthma and COPD as an illustrative example, we discuss various features of the inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist combination, fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI), as potential drivers of effectiveness that may have contributed to the improved patient outcomes observed with initiation of FF/VI versus continuation of usual care in the UK primary care setting.

Use of Both Qualitative and Quantitative Methods to Estimate Meaningful Change Thresholds for Key Endpoints in Pediatric Asthma Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Diary-derived symptom score and rescue medication use endpoints, such as symptom-free days (SFDs) and rescue medication-free days (RFD), are frequently used as clinical trial endpoints. Estimates of meaningful change for SFDs and RFDs have not been generated in pediatric populations. This research aimed to generate evidence supporting estimates of the individual within-patient changes that constitute an important or meaningful change in SFDs, RFDs, and updated estimates on the Childhood Asthma Control Test (C-ACT) in pediatric asthma populations aged 5-11 years. METHODS: Semistructured, qualitative interviews were conducted with children (ages 8-11 years) who had asthma and parents/caregivers of children (4-11 years) with asthma. Before the interview (4-9 days) participants were asked to complete a morning and evening diary. RESULTS: On average, parent/caregiver estimates of the difference in SFDs between a "very bad" and a "little bad" week for their children's asthma were largely concordant with the values reported by their children (differences of 1.8 and 1.4 SFDs, respectively). Both parents/caregivers and children were able to articulate what a meaningful level of change would be on the C-ACT at the item level. This qualitative study generated C-ACT item-level meaningful change estimates in the region of 1-3 category change, which potentially suggests that, if scaled up to represent C-ACT total score, this would lead to change estimates of 7-15 points. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that both children with asthma and parents/caregivers can quantitatively estimate and to some extent qualitatively articulate meaningful change in SFDs and RFDs.

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

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.

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.

Once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol 100/25 mcg versus twice daily combination therapies in COPD - mixed treatment comparisons of clinical efficacy.

BACKGROUND: Fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol (VI) 100/25 mcg is a once-daily inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting beta2 agonist (LABA) treatment approved in the United States, Canada and Europe for the long-term maintenance therapy of COPD. We report data from mixed treatment comparisons (MTC) of once-daily FF/VI against established twice-daily ICS/LABA combination therapies on clinical efficacy outcomes. METHODS: Data from 33 parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ICS/LABAs, of ≥8 weeks' duration in patients ≥12 years of age with COPD, identified by systematic review, were analysed using covariate-adjusted Bayesian hierarchical models for three efficacy outcomes. Lung function, assessed by change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), was the outcome of primary interest (n = 28 studies). Secondary objectives were assessment of annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations (n = 15) and patient-reported health status, measured by change from baseline in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) Total score (n = 20). Overall, 25 different treatments were included in the MTC; we report findings, including probabilities of non-inferiority, for comparisons of once-daily FF/VI 100/25 mcg with twice-daily fluticasone propionate (FP)/salmeterol (SAL) 500/50 mcg and budesonide (BUD)/formoterol (FORM) 400/12 mcg. RESULTS: For FEV1, FF/VI 100/25 mcg demonstrated >99% probability of non-inferiority to FP/SAL 500/50 mcg and BUD/FORM 400/12 mcg using a 50 mL margin. For annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations, FF/VI 100/25 mcg demonstrated 73% and 77% probability of non-inferiority to FP/SAL 500/50 mcg and BUD/FORM 400/12 mcg, respectively, using a 10% rate ratio margin. For SGRQ Total score, the corresponding probabilities of non-inferiority were 99% and 98%, respectively, on a 2-unit margin. Significant covariate effects were identified: increased age was associated with deterioration in FEV1 and reduced exacerbation frequency; shorter study duration was associated with reduced exacerbation frequency. CONCLUSIONS: FF/VI 100/25 mcg was comparable with corresponding doses of FP/SAL and BUD/FORM on lung function and health status outcomes. Non-inferiority on moderate/severe exacerbation rate was not demonstrated to the same degree of confidence, though observed rates were similar. Model limitations include a weak treatment network for the exacerbation analysis and variability across the included studies. Our data support previous RCT findings suggesting that the efficacy of FF/VI 100/25 mcg on lung function and health status in COPD is comparable with twice-daily ICS/LABAs.

Measurement properties of an asthma symptom and rescue medication use diary.

INTRODUCTION: Assessment of symptoms and rescue medication use are well-established endpoints for clinical trials evaluating asthma treatment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the measurement properties of an asthma symptom and rescue medication use (ASRMU) diary for clinical trials involving asthma patients aged ≥12 years. METHODS: Interviews with 35 patients were conducted to confirm the importance of key concepts in the ASRMU diary. Scores of symptom and rescue medication use were converted to symptom-free days (SFD) and rescue-free days (RFD). Test-retest reliability and equivalence (based on intra-class correlation coefficients [ICCs]) between paper-and-pencil and electronic (eDiary) versions were evaluated in a prospective study in 47 patients. Responsiveness of the ASRMU diary was evaluated through differences in percentage of SFD and of RFD by treatment group in eight asthma clinical trials that assessed inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting ß2-agonists (LABA), alone or in combination. A ninth placebo-controlled study calculated effect sizes. Minimal important differences (MID) were determined using anchor-based methods from two trials and by interviewing 11 patients. RESULTS: Patient interviews supported content validity for the ASRMU diary. Test-retest reliability was acceptable for SFD (ICC:0.70-0.75), but varied for RFD (ICC:0.58-0.78). Paper-and-pencil and eDiary modes of administration were equivalent (SFD, ICC=0.84; RFD, ICC=0.70). ICS/LABA had the largest percentage of SFD and RFD, followed by monotherapy and then placebo. MIDs were 7.7-14.7% for SFD and 8.4-15.6% for RFD. CONCLUSIONS: The ASRMU diary captures the disease-specific concepts of greatest importance to asthma patients and provides important information for asthma diagnosis and treatment evaluation.

Sexual functioning in patients with major depressive disorder in randomized placebo-controlled studies of extended release quetiapine fumarate.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated sexual functioning from 6 acute, randomized, placebo-controlled studies (6-10 weeks) of once-daily extended release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) 50, 150, or 300 mg/day as monotherapy (Studies 1-4) or adjunct therapy (Studies 6-7) in major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: We present a pre-planned, non-inferiority analysis of quetiapine XR monotherapy versus placebo using Changes in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) total score change (Studies 1-4). Post hoc analyses evaluated CSFQ total and domain scores for fixed-dose monotherapy (Studies 1-2), modified fixed-dose (Studies 3-4), and adjunct therapy studies (Studies 6-7). CSFQ data for active comparators (duloxetine [Study 2], escitalopram [Study 4]) are reported. RESULTS: Quetiapine XR monotherapy was non-inferior to placebo for sexual functioning (least squares mean [LSM] difference in CSFQ score change versus placebo, 0.16 [95% confidence interval: -0.59, 0.92]); LSM change in CSFQ score: 1.90, quetiapine XR (all doses) and 1.73, placebo. LSM differences versus placebo (95% confidence interval): 0.18 (-1.40, 1.75), duloxetine (Study 2); 0.16 (-1.77, 2.10), escitalopram (Study 4). LSM differences with adjunct quetiapine XR 150 mg/day (0.52; p = 0.338) or 300 mg/day (0.22; p = 0.679) were comparable with placebo plus antidepressants. Post hoc all-patient and gender-specific analyses were comparable for CSFQ total scores versus placebo with quetiapine XR 50, 150, or 300 mg/day, duloxetine, and escitalopram. Discussion Lack of negative effects on sexual functioning in patients with MDD may improve treatment acceptability. CONCLUSION: Quetiapine XR (monotherapy or adjunct therapy) had an impact on sexual function that was comparable with placebo.

Qualitative assessment of attributes and ease of use of the ELLIPTA™ dry powder inhaler for delivery of maintenance therapy for asthma and COPD.

BACKGROUND: Medications for respiratory disorders including asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are typically delivered to the lung by means of a handheld inhaler. Patient preference for and ability to use the inhaler may influence their adherence to maintenance therapy, and adherence may affect treatment outcomes. In this study, patient experience of using a dry powder inhaler (DPI), the ELLIPTA™ DPI, in clinical trials of a new maintenance therapy for asthma and COPD was investigated. The ELLIPTA DPI has been designed to contain two separate blister strips from which inhalation powder can be delivered, and to be simple to use with a large, easy-to-read dose counter. METHODS: Semi-structured, in-depth, qualitative interviews were carried out 2-4 weeks after patients had completed one of six phase IIIa clinical trials using the ELLIPTA DPI. Interview participants were asked about their satisfaction with various attributes of the inhaler and their preference for the ELLIPTA DPI relative to currently-prescribed inhalers, and responses were explored using an inductive content analysis approach. Participants also rated the performance of the inhaler on several criteria, using a subjective 1-10 scale. RESULTS: Participants with asthma (n = 33) and COPD (n = 42) reported high levels of satisfaction with the ELLIPTA DPI. It was frequently described as straightforward to operate and easy to use by interview participants. Ergonomic design, mouthpiece fit, and dose counter visibility and ease of interpretation emerged as frequently cited drivers of preference for the ELLIPTA DPI compared with their current prescribed inhaler. Of participants with asthma, 71% preferred the ELLIPTA DPI to DISKUS™ and 60% to metered dose inhalers. Of participants with COPD, 86% preferred the ELLIPTA DPI to DISKUS, 95% to HandiHaler™, and 85% to metered dose inhalers. Overall average performance scores were >9 (out of 10) in participants with asthma and COPD. CONCLUSION: The ELLIPTA DPI was associated with high patient satisfaction and was preferred to other inhalers by interview participants with asthma and COPD. The development of an inhaler that is regarded as easy and intuitive to use may have positive implications for adherence to therapy in asthma and COPD.

Within-trial economic analysis of resource use from COMET-ICE: A phase 3 clinical trial evaluating sotrovimab for the treatment of patients with COVID-19 at high risk of progression.

BACKGROUND: Final results for the primary endpoint of the COVID-19 Monoclonal antibody Efficacy Trial-Intent to Care Early (COMET-ICE) randomized controlled trial (NCT04545060) showed a 79% (P < 0.001) adjusted relative risk reduction in longer-than-24-hour hospitalization or death due to any cause in high-risk patients with COVID-19 receiving sotrovimab compared with placebo at Day 29. Given the substantial costs associated with COVID-19 hospitalizations, there is a need to quantify the economic impact of clinical trial outcomes to inform decisionmaking. OBJECTIVE: To compare longer-than-24-hour hospitalization costs (primary objective) and total health care costs (secondary objective) associated with COVID-19 care in the sotrovimab vs placebo group in the COMET-ICE trial. METHODS: This was a 2-step, retrospective, post hoc, within-trial economic analysis. Step 1 was a health care claims (MarketScan) database analysis to source unit cost data (2020 USD) from a US payer perspective for COVID-19 care-related resource use from April 1 through June 30, 2020, among adults diagnosed with COVID-19 at high risk of progression (similar to those enrolled in the COMET-ICE trial). Cost per day for an inpatient event stratified by the following maximum respiratory support levels was obtained: no respiratory support or oxygen therapy only, noninvasive ventilation, and invasive mechanical ventilation. Cost per event was obtained for outpatient resource use. Step 2 was the within-trial economic analysis, in which unit costs from Step 1 were applied to the resource use (based on maximum respiratory support and length of stay for inpatient events and number of visits for outpatient events) observed during the first 29 days post-randomization in COMET-ICE. RESULTS: A total of 1,057 patients from the intent-to-treat COMET-ICE population were included (sotrovimab, n = 528; placebo, n = 529). Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were well balanced between groups. During 29 days of follow-up, mean (SD) costs for the primary endpoint, longer-than-24-hour hospitalization, were $2,827 ($15,545) in the placebo group and $485 ($5,049) in the sotrovimab group (difference, -$2,342; P < 0.0001). Total health care costs were $2,850 ($15,546) in the placebo group and $525 ($5,070) in the sotrovimab group (difference, -$2,325; P = 0.0021). CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc within-trial economic analysis of COMET-ICE data shows that early treatment with sotrovimab vs placebo may be associated with lower longer-than-24-hour hospitalization costs and total health care costs for COVID-19 care in high-risk patients with COVID-19. These findings may be important in informing decision-making regarding use of sotrovimab in clinical practice. DISCLOSURES: Dr Lokhandwala and Ms Farrelly are employees of Xcenda LLC; Xcenda received funding from GSK to support the conduct of this study and did not receive funding for manuscript development. Mr Acharya and Dr Coutinho were employees of Xcenda LLC during the conduct of the study. Mr Bell and Dr Svedsater are employees of, and hold stocks/shares in, GSK. This study was funded by GSK (study 216974) and Vir Biotechnology, Inc. The study sponsors were involved in the study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; and the decision to submit the report for publication.

Understanding the relationships between health outcomes in generalized anxiety disorder clinical trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Wilson-Cleary health outcomes model is a hypothesized pathway linking traditional clinical variables to health-related quality of life (HRQL). This study tested the application of the Wilson-Cleary model to a patient population with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) using longitudinal clinical trial data. METHODS: These secondary analyses pooled data from three similar 8-week, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized, multicenter trials of quetiapine XR therapy in GAD. Relevant health assessments for the model concepts included the Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness, Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety, the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire-Short Form. A lagged path model tested whether the hypothesized relationships at baseline and week 8 between the concepts of the adapted Wilson-Cleary model were consistent with the observed data. RESULTS: The resulting model fit the data (RMSEA = 0.077; CFI = 0.98; NFI = 0.96) and explained 56% of the variance in overall quality of life assessment at baseline and 69% of the variance in this assessment at week 8. Moderate to strong relationships between the adjacent hypothesized concepts support the specified model. CONCLUSION: This adapted Wilson-Cleary model for health outcomes validated in GAD should improve the understanding and usefulness of health status measurements in this condition and increase the applications of this model to other clinical trial data.

Persistence and Adherence to ICS/LABA Drugs in UK Patients with Asthma: A Retrospective New-User Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Asthma is associated with significant economic burden. Inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta2-agonist (ICS/LABA) combination therapies are considered mainstays of treatment. We describe real-world use of ICS/LABAs by comparing treatment persistence and adherence among patients with asthma in the United Kingdom initiating fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) versus budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FM) or beclometasone dipropionate/formoterol (BDP/FM). METHODS: A retrospective new-user active comparator database study was conducted in the IQVIA Medical Research Database. Propensity score (PS) matching was performed for FF/VI versus BUD/FM, and FF/VI versus BDP/FM. The primary objective was to compare patient treatment persistence (time to discontinuation), while secondary objectives included assessing adherence (mean proportion of days covered [PDC] with medication in the study period) and the proportions of patients achieving ≥ 50% and ≥ 80% PDC. RESULTS: New users of FF/VI (N = 966), BUD/FM (N = 5931) and BDP/FM (N = 9607) were identified and PS-matched: FF/VI (n = 945) versus BUD/FM (n = 3272), and FF/VI (n = 902) versus BDP/FM (n = 3465). At 12 months, treatment persistence was 69% (FF/VI), 53% (BUD/FM) and 57% (BDP/FM). The likelihood of treatment discontinuation within 12 months after initiation with FF/VI was 35% lower than with BUD/FM and 31% lower than for BDP/FM (both p < 0.001). Mean PDC was higher for FF/VI compared with BUD/FM (77.7 vs 72.4; p < 0.0001) and BDP/FM (78.2 vs 71.0; p < 0.0001). The odds of achieving ≥ 50% and ≥ 80% PDC were greater for FF/VI than for BUD/FM and BDP/FM. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, patients who initiated FF/VI were less likely to discontinue treatment and showed greater treatment adherence versus patients who initiated BUD/FM or BDP/FM.

Cost-consequence analysis of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol for asthma management in Spain: an analysis based on the Salford Lung Study in asthma.

OBJECTIVES: The Salford Lung Study in asthma (SLS asthma) is a 12-month, open-label randomised clinical trial comparing clinical effectiveness of initiating once-daily inhaled combination of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) 184/22 mcg or 92/22 mcg, with continuing optimized usual care (UC) with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone, or in combination with a long-acting ß2-agonist (ICS/LABA), in asthmatic patients followed in primary care in the UK. The objective of the analysis is to estimate the economic impact of these results when applied in Spain. METHODS: A 1-year cost-consequence model was populated with SLS asthma, adopting the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective. 775,900 of diagnosed asthmatic patients ≥ 18 years old currently managed with UC in Spain were included in the analysis. Effectiveness data included the percentage of patients per Asthma Control Test (ACT) category at 24 and 52 weeks from SLS asthma. Direct costs (pharmacological and per ACT category) were estimated from Spanish public sources and literature (€, 2018). Base case analysis assumed an increased use of FF/VI from 10 to 20% within 1 year. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Within the 775,900 asthmatic patients analysed, substitution of UC with FF/VI was associated with reduced costs due to ACT improvement, leading to potential total annual savings of €4,927,672. Sensitivity analyses ranged from €6,012,975 to €14,783,015 cost savings associated with FF/VI. An analysis considering patients only on ICS/LABA showed potential cost savings of €8,207,448. CONCLUSIONS: The improved asthma control for FF/VI compared with UC observed in SLS asthma could be translated into potential savings for the Spanish NHS. These results may be useful for decision makers.

Correction to: Cost-consequence analysis of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol for asthma management in Spain: an analysis based on the Salford Lung Study in asthma.

In the published article, the Table 1 was published incorrectly.

Impact of socioeconomic status on participation and outcomes in the Salford Lung Studies.

COPD and asthma prevalence is associated with socioeconomic status (or "deprivation"), yet deprivation is rarely considered in typical large-scale efficacy randomised controlled trials that recruit highly selected patient populations. In this post hoc analysis of the Salford Lung Studies in COPD and asthma (two 12-month, open-label, effectiveness randomised controlled trials conducted in UK primary care), we evaluated the impact of patient deprivation on clinical outcomes with initiating fluticasone furoate/vilanterol versus continuing usual care. Patients were categorised into deprivation quintiles based on postcode and a countrywide database of indices of deprivation, and trial outcomes by quintile were assessed. 52% of patients in the COPD study were included in the most deprived quintile, contrasting with 20% in the asthma study. Greater deprivation was associated with higher rates of primary/secondary healthcare contacts and costs. However, the treatment effect of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol versus usual care for primary (COPD: moderate/severe exacerbations; asthma: Asthma Control Test responders at week 24) and secondary/other (healthcare consumption, adherence, treatment modifications, study withdrawals, exacerbations, serious adverse events) outcomes was similar across deprivation quintiles. Our findings support the recruitment of participants from all socioeconomic strata to allow assessment of data generalisability to routine clinical practice.

A descriptive follow-up interview study assessing patient-centred outcomes: Salford Lung Study in Asthma (SLS Asthma).

The Salford Lung Study in Asthma (SLS Asthma) was a multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label trial that assessed initiating once-daily, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) 100 µg/25 µg or 200 µg/25 µg versus continuing usual care. A subgroup (n = 400) from SLS Asthma was enrolled in this exploratory, interview-based follow-up study. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected via questionnaires. The primary objective was to capture patient-centred outcomes (symptom experience, quality of life [QoL], disease management behaviours) and patient experience. Secondary objectives were to assess the correlation of patient-reported outcomes with pre-defined variables from SLS Asthma (Asthma Control Test [ACT] score). The follow-up sample was representative of the SLS Asthma population; half reported asthma improvement during the study. Breathlessness was the most likely symptom to improve (47.8% of patients reported improvement). Most patients reported 'no change' in overall QoL (57.5%) and daily life domains (functioning 66.3%, activities 68.3%, relationships 86.8%, psychological 68.5%). Functioning was reported as the most frequently improved domain (29.8% of patients). Perceived improvement in asthma control (42.5%) and confidence (37.3%) was frequent. ACT responders (defined as patients achieving an ACT score ≥20 and/or an increase of ≥3 in ACT score from baseline at Week 52) were more likely to report asthma improvement (88.7% of patients reporting 'a lot' of improvement) than non-responders. Patients' asthma experiences generally improved during SLS Asthma. Clinical improvements were often associated with perceived improvement by patients, particularly among ACT responders.

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.

Evaluating the Impact and Benefits of Fluticasone Furoate/Vilanterol in Individuals with Asthma or COPD: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Patient Experiences.

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluated patients' experiences with fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) combination therapy in UK patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: Participants aged ≥ 18 years, with self-reported, physician-diagnosed asthma or COPD (≥ 1 year) who had been receiving FF/VI (≥ 3 months) were recruited from UK primary care. This two-phase, mixed-methods study consisted of a semi-structured, telephone-interview phase (qualitative) and a self-completed online/paper-survey phase (quantitative). RESULTS: The telephone-interview phase included 50 individuals [asthma, n = 25; COPD, n = 25; mean age (SD) 56.7 years (13.3); 50% female]. Of these, 21 with asthma reported that their condition was stable/well controlled and 13 with COPD felt their condition was manageable. Most participants found FF/VI easy to use (asthma, 25; COPD, 23), easy to integrate into their daily routine (asthma, 25; COPD, 24), and able to control symptoms for ≥ 24 h (asthma, 14; COPD, 16). During the survey phase, 199 individuals were recruited [asthma, n = 100; COPD, n = 99; mean age (SD) 63.6 years (15.1); 59.3% female]. Most participants were satisfied/very satisfied with the efficacy of FF/VI in terms of all-day symptom relief (asthma, 84%; COPD, 75%) and found FF/VI easy/very easy to fit into their daily routine (asthma, 99%; COPD, 96%), easy/very easy to use (asthma, 97%; COPD, 92%), and convenient/very convenient to take as instructed (asthma, 95%; COPD, 93%). Significantly more individuals with asthma (87% versus 46%, P < 0.001) and numerically more individuals with COPD (84% versus 76%, P = 0.055) were satisfied/very satisfied with FF/VI compared with their most recent previous maintenance medication. CONCLUSION: The majority of individuals in this study had confidence in FF/VI and were satisfied or very satisfied with various key attributes of the treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: GSK study HO-15-15503/204888. FUNDING: GSK.