Risk Assessment of Acute Myocardial Infarction and Stroke Associated with Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonists, Alone or in Combination, versus Long-Acting beta2-Agonists.

Background: The long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) aclidinium was approved in Europe in 2012 to relieve symptoms in adult patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A post-authorization safety study was initiated to assess potential cardiovascular risks associated with LAMAs versus long-acting beta2-agonists. Purpose: To estimate incidence rates and adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in new users of aclidinium, aclidinium/formoterol, tiotropium, other LAMA, long-acting beta-agonists/inhaled corticosteroids (LABA/ICS), and LAMA/LABA compared with initiators of LABA. Patients and Methods: This population-based cohort study included patients with COPD aged ≥40 years initiating COPD medications in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum database from 2012 to 2019. Poisson regression models were used to estimate the IRR for AMI, stroke, and MACE in users of COPD medications versus LABA, adjusting for clinically relevant covariables. Results: The study included 11,121 new users of aclidinium, 4804 of aclidinium/formoterol, 56,198 of tiotropium, 23,856 of other LAMA, 17,450 of LAMA/LABA, 70,289 of LABA/ICS, and 13,716 of LABA. During periods of continuous medication use after initiation (current use), crude incidence rates per 1000 person-years for AMI ranged from 8.7 (aclidinium/formoterol) to 12.4 (LAMA/LABA), for stroke ranged from 4.8 (aclidinium/formoterol) to 7.2 (LAMA/LABA), and for MACE ranged from 13.5 (aclidinium/formoterol) to 19.3 (LAMA/LABA). Using LABA as reference, adjusted IRRs [95% confidence intervals] were close to 1 for all study drugs for AMI (lowest for aclidinium/formoterol, 0.95 [0.60-1.52], and highest for LAMA/LABA, 1.23 [0.91-1.67]), stroke (lowest for aclidinium/formoterol, 0.64 [0.39-1.06], and highest for tiotropium, 1.02 [0.81-1.27] for tiotropium) and for MACE (lowest for aclidinium, 0.93 [0.75-1.16], and highest for LAMA/LABA, 1.24 [0.97-1.59]). Conclusion: Risks of AMI, stroke, and MACE in current users of aclidinium, aclidinium/formoterol, tiotropium, other LAMA, LAMA/LABA, or LABA/ICS were similar to the risks among current users of LABA.

GOLD assessment of COPD severity in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD).

PURPOSE: To evaluate availability of spirometry and symptom data in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (United Kingdom) to assess COPD severity using the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2016 definition and comparing it with an algorithm used in other studies. METHODS: This was a descriptive, noninterventional, secondary database cohort study of patients with COPD aged 40 years or older, who initiated treatment with specific COPD medications. Patients were classified according to COPD severity (1) in GOLD 2016 "ABCD" categories based on symptoms (Medical Research Council dyspnea grade, COPD Assessment Test, breathlessness), percent predicted FEV1, and exacerbation history and (2) as mild, moderate, severe, or very severe based on treatment and exacerbation history. RESULTS: The study included 63 900 patients with COPD aged 40 years or older that were new users of 1 or more COPD medication of interest. Percent predicted FEV1 was available for 80.9% of patients; symptoms for 75.6% of patients. Classification into GOLD 2016 ABCD categories was possible for 75.6% of the patients. The GOLD 2016 ABCD definition classified more patients under the high-risk categories (22.1%, A; 18.8%, B; 21.3%, C; 37.9%, D) than did the adapted algorithm (7.9%, mild; 48.6%, moderate; 42.1%, severe; 1.4%, very severe). CONCLUSION: Using our adaptation of the GOLD 2016 COPD severity classification, the information in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink allowed us to ascertain COPD severity in approximately 75% of patients with COPD. Algorithms that include medication use tend to misclassify patients with the extreme COPD severity categories.