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

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

Comparison of serious inhaler technique errors made by device-naïve patients using three different dry powder inhalers: a randomised, crossover, open-label study.

BACKGROUND: Serious inhaler technique errors can impair drug delivery to the lungs. This randomised, crossover, open-label study evaluated the proportion of patients making predefined serious errors with Pulmojet compared with Diskus and Turbohaler dry powder inhalers. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years old with asthma and/or COPD who were current users of an inhaler but naïve to the study devices were assigned to inhaler technique assessment on Pulmojet and either Diskus or Turbohaler in a randomised order. Patients inhaled through empty devices after reading the patient information leaflet. If serious errors potentially affecting dose delivery were recorded, they repeated the inhalations after watching a training video. Inhaler technique was assessed by a trained nurse observer and an electronic inhalation profile recorder. RESULTS: Baseline patient characteristics were similar between randomisation arms for the Pulmojet-Diskus (n = 277) and Pulmojet-Turbohaler (n = 144) comparisons. Non-inferiority in the proportions of patients recording no nurse-observed serious errors was demonstrated for both Pulmojet versus Diskus, and Pulmojet versus Turbohaler; therefore, superiority was tested. Patients were significantly less likely to make ≥1 nurse-observed serious errors using Pulmojet compared with Diskus (odds ratio, 0.31; 95 % CI, 0.19-0.51) or Pulmojet compared with Turbohaler (0.23; 0.12-0.44) after reading the patient information leaflet with additional video instruction, if required. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest Pulmojet is easier to learn to use correctly than the Turbohaler or Diskus for current inhaler users switching to a new dry powder inhaler. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01794390 (February 14, 2013).

Asthma outcomes and costs of therapy with extrafine beclomethasone and fluticasone.

BACKGROUND: Characteristics of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) differ, but data comparing the real-life effectiveness of various ICSs for asthma are lacking. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare real-life asthma outcomes and costs of extrafine hydrofluoroalkane (HFA)-beclomethasone and fluticasone administered through a pressurized metered-dose inhaler. METHODS: This retrospective matched cohort study examined database markers of asthma control from a large US longitudinal health care claims database over 1 baseline and 1 outcome year for 10,312 patients with asthma aged 12 to 80 years receiving their first ICS as HFA-beclomethasone or fluticasone and matched on baseline demographic characteristics and asthma severity. RESULTS: Patients started on HFA-beclomethasone had significantly higher odds (adjusted odds ratio, 1.19; 95% CI; 1.08-1.31) of achieving overall control (risk and impairment), which was defined as no hospital attendance for asthma, oral corticosteroids, or antibiotics for lower respiratory tract infection and less than 2 puffs per day of short-acting ß-agonist; they also experienced a lower rate of respiratory-related hospitalizations or referrals (adjusted rate ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.93) than patients started on fluticasone. Other database outcome measures were similar in the 2 cohorts. Prescribed HFA-beclomethasone doses were lower (P < .001) than fluticasone doses (median, 320 µg/d [interquartile range, 160-320 µg/d] vs 440 µg/d [interquartile range, 176-440 µg/d]). Adjusted respiratory-related health care costs were significantly lower for HFA-beclomethasone than fluticasone (mean, $1869 [95% CI, $1727-$2032] vs $2259 [95% CI, $2111-$2404]), representing a mean annual savings of $390 (95% CI, $165-$620) per patient prescribed HFA-beclomethasone rather than fluticasone. CONCLUSIONS: Asthma treatment outcomes were similar or better with HFA-beclomethasone prescribed at significantly lower doses and with lower costs than fluticasone.

Long-Acting ß-Agonist in Combination or Separate Inhaler as Step-Up Therapy for Children with Uncontrolled Asthma Receiving Inhaled Corticosteroids.

BACKGROUND: Adding a long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) using a fixed-dose combination (FDC) inhaler is the UK guideline recommendation for children aged more than 4 years with uncontrolled asthma. The evidence of benefit of adding an FDC inhaler over a separate LABA inhaler is limited. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of a LABA added as an FDC inhaler, and as a separate inhaler, in children with uncontrolled asthma. METHODS: Two UK primary care databases were used to create a matched cohort study with a 2-year follow-up period. We included children prescribed their first step-up from ICS monotherapy. Two cohorts were formed for children receiving an add-on LABA as an FDC inhaler, or a separate LABA inhaler. Matching variables and confounders were identified by comparing characteristics during a baseline year of follow-up. Outcomes were examined during the subsequent year. The primary outcome was an adjusted odds ratio for overall asthma control (defined as follows: no asthma-related hospital admission or emergency room visit, prescription for oral corticosteroids or antibiotic with evidence of respiratory consultation, and ≤2 puffs of short-acting ß-agonist daily). RESULTS: The final study consisted of 1330 children in each cohort (mean age 9 years; 59% male). In the separate ICS+LABA cohort, the odds of achieving overall asthma control were lower (adjusted odds ratio, 0.77 [95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.91]; P = .001) compared with the FDC cohort. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates a small but significant benefit in achieving asthma control from an add-on LABA as an FDC, compared with a separate inhaler and this supports current guideline recommendations.

Cardiovascular risks in smokers treated with nicotine replacement therapy: a historical cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Previous research suggests exposure to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) may be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS: Using data from the United Kingdom's Clinical Practice Research Datalink, this study aimed to evaluate CVD events and survival among individuals who attempted smoking cessation with the support of NRT compared with those aided by smoking cessation advice only. We studied CVD outcomes over 4 and 52 weeks in 50,214 smokers attempting to quit - 33,476 supported by smoking cessation advice and 16,738 with the support of NRT prescribed by their primary care physician. Patients were matched (2 smoking cessation advice patients:1 NRT patient) on demographic and clinical characteristics during a baseline year preceding their quit attempt. Cox proportional hazard regression, conditional negative binomial regression model, and conditional logistic regression were used to analyze data. RESULTS: Mean (standard deviation) population age was 47 (11.2) years; 51% were females. Time to first diagnosis of ischemic heart disease (IHD) among NRT and smoking cessation advice patients was similar within the first 4 weeks, but shorter for NRT patients over 52 weeks (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03-1.77). A similar trend was observed for cerebrovascular disease (HR: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.08-2.19). NRT patients with a prior diagnosis of IHD or cerebrovascular disease had a higher rate of primary or secondary care consultations for IHD or cerebrovascular disease by 52 weeks (rate ratio: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.14-1.99). Patients prescribed NRT had a shorter survival time over 52 weeks, compared with those receiving advice only (HR: 1.39, 95% CI: 1.09-1.76). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that treatment with NRT over 4 weeks does not appear to have an impact on cardiovascular risks. However, a longer follow-up period of 52 weeks resulted in an increase in cardiovascular events for patients prescribed NRT, compared with those receiving smoking cessation advice only.

An evaluation of exact matching and propensity score methods as applied in a comparative effectiveness study of inhaled corticosteroids in asthma.

BACKGROUND: Cohort matching and regression modeling are used in observational studies to control for confounding factors when estimating treatment effects. Our objective was to evaluate exact matching and propensity score methods by applying them in a 1-year pre-post historical database study to investigate asthma-related outcomes by treatment. METHODS: We drew on longitudinal medical record data in the PHARMO database for asthma patients prescribed the treatments to be compared (ciclesonide and fine-particle inhaled corticosteroid [ICS]). Propensity score methods that we evaluated were propensity score matching (PSM) using two different algorithms, the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), covariate adjustment using the propensity score, and propensity score stratification. We defined balance, using standardized differences, as differences of <10% between cohorts. RESULTS: Of 4064 eligible patients, 1382 (34%) were prescribed ciclesonide and 2682 (66%) fine-particle ICS. The IPTW and propensity score-based methods retained more patients (96%-100%) than exact matching (90%); exact matching selected less severe patients. Standardized differences were >10% for four variables in the exact-matched dataset and <10% for both PSM algorithms and the weighted pseudo-dataset used in the IPTW method. With all methods, ciclesonide was associated with better 1-year asthma-related outcomes, at one-third the prescribed dose, than fine-particle ICS; results varied slightly by method, but direction and statistical significance remained the same. CONCLUSION: We found that each method has its particular strengths, and we recommend at least two methods be applied for each matched cohort study to evaluate the robustness of the findings. Balance diagnostics should be applied with all methods to check the balance of confounders between treatment cohorts. If exact matching is used, the calculation of a propensity score could be useful to identify variables that require balancing, thereby informing the choice of matching criteria together with clinical considerations.

Predicting frequent asthma exacerbations using blood eosinophil count and other patient data routinely available in clinical practice.

PURPOSE: Acute, severe asthma exacerbations can be difficult to predict and thus prevent. Patients who have frequent exacerbations are of particular concern. Practical exacerbation predictors are needed for these patients in the primary-care setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Medical records of 130,547 asthma patients aged 12-80 years from the UK Optimum Patient Care Research Database and Clinical Practice Research Datalink, 1990-2013, were examined for 1 year before (baseline) and 1 year after (outcome) their most recent blood eosinophil count. Baseline variables predictive (P<0.05) of exacerbation in the outcome year were compared between patients who had two or more exacerbations and those who had no exacerbation or only one exacerbation, using uni- and multivariable logistic regression models. Exacerbation was defined as asthma-related hospital attendance/admission (emergency or inpatient) or acute oral corticosteroid (OCS) course. RESULTS: Blood eosinophil count >400/µL (versus ≤400/µL) increased the likelihood of two or more exacerbations >1.4-fold (odds ratio [OR]: 1.48 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.39, 1.58); P<0.001). Variables that significantly increased the odds by up to 1.4-fold included increasing age (per year), female gender (versus male), being overweight or obese (versus normal body mass index), being a smoker (versus nonsmoker), having anxiety/depression, diabetes, eczema, gastroesophageal reflux disease, or rhinitis, and prescription for acetaminophen or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Compared with treatment at British Thoracic Society step 2 (daily controller ± reliever), treatment at step 0 (none) or 1 (as-needed reliever) increased the odds by 1.2- and 1.6-fold, respectively, and treatment at step 3, 4, or 5 increased the odds by 1.3-, 1.9-, or 3.1-fold, respectively (all P<0.05). Acute OCS use was the single best predictor of two or more exacerbations. Even one course increased the odds by more than threefold (OR: 3.75 [95% CI: 3.50, 4.01]; P<0.001), and three or more courses increased the odds by >25-fold (OR: 25.7 [95% CI: 23.9, 27.6]; P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Blood eosinophil count and several other variables routinely available in patient records may be used to predict frequent asthma exacerbations.

Metabolic Effects Associated with ICS in Patients with COPD and Comorbid Type 2 Diabetes: A Historical Matched Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Management guidelines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) recommend that inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are prescribed to patients with the most severe symptoms. However, these guidelines have not been widely implemented by physicians, leading to widespread use of ICS in patients with mild-to-moderate COPD. Of particular concern is the potential risk of worsening diabetic control associated with ICS use. Here we investigate whether ICS therapy in patients with COPD and comorbid type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has a negative impact on diabetic control, and whether these negative effects are dose-dependent. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This was a historical matched cohort study utilising primary care medical record data from two large UK databases. We selected patients aged ≥40 years with COPD and T2DM, prescribed ICS (n = 1360) or non-ICS therapy (n = 2642) between 2008 and 2012. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c between the baseline and outcome periods. After 1:1 matching, each cohort consisted of 682 patients. Over the 12-18-month outcome period, patients prescribed ICS had significantly greater increases in HbA1c values compared with those prescribed non-ICS therapies; adjusted difference 0.16% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.05-0.27%) in all COPD patients, and 0.25% (95% CI: 0.10-0.40%) in mild-to-moderate COPD patients. Patients in the ICS cohort also had significantly more diabetes-related general practice visits per year and received more frequent glucose strip prescriptions, compared with those prescribed non-ICS therapies. Patients prescribed higher cumulative doses of ICS (>250 mg) had greater odds of increased HbA1c and/or receiving additional antidiabetic medication, and increased odds of being above the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) target for HbA1c levels, compared with those prescribed lower cumulative doses (≤125 mg). CONCLUSION: For patients with COPD and comorbid T2DM, ICS therapy may have a negative impact on diabetes control. Patients prescribed higher cumulative doses of ICS may be at greater risk of diabetes progression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ENCePP ENCEPP/SDPP/6804.

Long-acting muscarinic antagonist use in adults with asthma: real-life prescribing and outcomes of add-on therapy with tiotropium bromide.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials indicate that addition of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) such as tiotropium may improve asthma control and reduce exacerbation risk in patients with poorly controlled asthma, but broader clinical studies are needed to investigate the effectiveness of LAMA in real-life asthma care. METHODS: Medical records of adults with asthma (aged ≥18 years) prescribed tiotropium were obtained from the UK Optimum Patient Care Research Database for the period 2001-2013. Patients diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were excluded, but no other clinical exclusions were applied. Two primary outcomes were compared in the year before (baseline) and the year after (outcome) addition of tiotropium: exacerbations (asthma-related hospital emergency department attendance or inpatient admission, or acute oral corticosteroid course) and acute respiratory events (exacerbation or antibiotic prescription with lower respiratory consultation). Secondary outcomes included lung function test results and short-acting ß2 agonist usage. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for variables measured on the interval scale, the marginal homogeneity test for categorized variables, and the paired t-test for lung function indices. RESULTS: Of the 2,042 study patients, 83% were prescribed an inhaled corticosteroid and 68% a long-acting ß2 agonist during the baseline year; 67% were prescribed both. Comparing baseline and outcome years, the percentage of patients having at least one exacerbation decreased from 37% to 27% (P<0.001) and the percentage having at least one acute respiratory event decreased from 58% to 47% (P<0.001). There were no significant changes in lung function, and usage of short-acting ß2 agonists (in salbutamol/albuterol equivalents) increased from a median (interquartile range) of 274 (110, 548) to 329 (110, 603) µg/day (P=0.01). CONCLUSION: In this real-life asthma population, addition of LAMA therapy was associated with significant decreases in the incidence of exacerbations and antibiotic prescriptions for lower respiratory tract infections in the following year.

Small-particle Inhaled Corticosteroid as First-line or Step-up Controller Therapy in Childhood Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Because randomized controlled trials of established pediatric asthma therapies are expensive and difficult to perform, observational studies may fill gaps in the evidence base. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of representative small-particle inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) with that of standard size-particle ICS for children initiating or stepping up ICS therapy for asthma (analysis 1) and to compare the effectiveness of ICS dose step-up using small-particle ICS with adding long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) to the ICS (analysis 2). METHODS: These historical matched cohort analyses drew on electronic medical records of children with asthma aged 5 to 11 years. Variables measured during 2 consecutive years (1 baseline year for confounder definition and 1 outcome year) included risk-domain asthma control (no hospital attendance for asthma, acute oral corticosteroids, or lower respiratory tract infection requiring antibiotics) and rate of severe exacerbations (asthma-related emergency, hospitalization, or oral corticosteroids). RESULTS: In the initiation population (n = 797 in each cohort), children prescribed small-particle ICS versus standard size-particle ICS experienced greater odds of asthma control (adjusted odds ratio, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.10-2.02) and lower severe exacerbation rate (adjusted rate ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.35-0.88). Step-up outcomes (n = 206 in each cohort) were also significantly better for small-particle ICS, with asthma control adjusted odds ratio of 2.22 (95% CI, 1.23-4.03) and exacerbations adjusted rate ratio of 0.49 (95% CI, 0.27-0.89). The number needed to treat with small-particle ICS to achieve 1 additional child with asthma control was 17 (95% CI, 9-107) for the initiation population and 5 (95% CI, 3-78) for the step-up population. Outcomes were not significantly different for stepped-up small-particle ICS dose versus ICS/LABA combination (n = 185 in each cohort). CONCLUSIONS: Initiating or stepping up the ICS dose with small-particle ICS rather than with standard size-particle ICS is more effective and shows similar effectiveness to add-on LABA in childhood asthma.

Blood eosinophil count and prospective annual asthma disease burden: a UK cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Elevated sputum eosinophil counts predict asthma exacerbations and responsiveness to inhaled corticosteroids but are impractical to measure in primary care. We investigated the relation between blood eosinophil count and prospective annual asthma outcomes for a large UK cohort. METHODS: This historical cohort study used anonymised medical record data to identify primary care patients with asthma aged 12-80 years with 2 years of continuous records, including 1 year before (baseline) and 1 year after (outcome) their most recent eosinophil count. Negative binomial regression was used to compare outcome exacerbation rates and logistic regression to compare odds of asthma control for patients with blood eosinophil counts of 400 cells per µL or less versus greater than 400 cells per µL, adjusting for age, sex, body-mass index, smoking status, and Charlson comorbidity index. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02140541. FINDINGS: Overall, 20 929 (16%) of 130 248 patients had blood eosinophil counts greater than 400 cells per µL. During the outcome year, these patients experienced significantly more severe exacerbations (adjusted rate ratio [RR] 1·42, 95% CI 1·36-1·47) and acute respiratory events (RR 1·28, 1·24-1·33) than those with counts of 400 cells per µL or less. They also had significantly lower odds of achieving overall asthma control (OR 0·74, 95% CI 0·72-0·77), defined as limited reliever use and no asthma-related hospital attendance or admission, acute course of oral corticosteroids, or prescription for antibiotics. Exacerbation rates increased progressively with nine ascending categories of blood eosinophil count as compared with a reference category of 200 cells per µL or less. INTERPRETATION: Patients with asthma and blood eosinophil counts greater than 400 cells per µL experience more severe exacerbations and have poorer asthma control. Furthermore, a count-response relation exists between blood eosinophil counts and asthma-related outcomes. Blood eosinophil counts could add predictive value to Global Initiative for Asthma control-based risk assessment. FUNDING: Teva Pharmaceuticals.

Increased Dose of Inhaled Corticosteroid versus Add-On Long-acting ß-Agonist for Step-Up Therapy in Asthma.

RATIONALE: Guidelines advocate adding long-acting ß-agonist (LABA) to inhaled corticosteroid as the preferred step-up therapy to increasing inhaled corticosteroid dose for patients with uncontrolled asthma on inhaled corticosteroid monotherapy. However, less than 5% of patients with asthma qualify for the randomized controlled trials on which guidelines are based. Thus, real-world data are needed to complement the results of randomized trials with narrow entry criteria. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of stepping up asthma therapy with an increased dose of various types of inhaled corticosteroid as compared with add-on LABA. METHODS: We performed a historical matched cohort study using large primary care databases to compare asthma step-up therapy with small- and standard size-particle inhaled corticosteroid versus added LABA for patients 12-80 years old. As outcomes, we examined a composite of asthma control and rates of severe exacerbations. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The odds of asthma control and rates of severe exacerbations over one outcome year were comparable with increased inhaled corticosteroid dose versus added LABA. The adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for achieving asthma control with increased inhaled corticosteroid dose versus inhaled corticosteroid/LABA were 0.99 (0.88-1.12) for small-particle inhaled corticosteroid (n = 3,036 per cohort) and 0.85 (0.67-1.07) for standard size-particle inhaled corticosteroid (n = 809 per cohort). The adjusted rate ratios (95% confidence interval) for severe exacerbations, compared with inhaled corticosteroid/LABA combination inhaler, were 1.04 (0.91-1.20) and 1.18 (0.92-1.54), respectively. The results were not affected by smoking status. CONCLUSIONS: When applied to a broad primary care population, antiinflammatory therapy using increased doses of small- or standard size-particle inhaled corticosteroid is as effective as adding LABA, as measured by outcomes important to both patients and providers. Real-world populations and outcomes need to be taken into consideration when formulating treatment recommendations.

Comparing the effectiveness of small-particle versus large-particle inhaled corticosteroid in COPD.

PURPOSE: Small airway changes and dysfunction contribute importantly to airway obstruction in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which is currently treated with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting bronchodilators at Global initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) grades 2-4. This retrospective matched cohort analysis compared effectiveness of a representative small-particle ICS (extrafine beclomethasone) and larger-particle ICS (fluticasone) in primary care patients with COPD. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Smokers and ex-smokers with COPD ≥ 40 years old initiating or stepping-up their dose of extrafine beclomethasone or fluticasone were matched 1:1 for demographic characteristics, index prescription year, concomitant therapies, and disease severity during 1 baseline year. During 2 subsequent years, we evaluated treatment change and COPD exacerbations, defined as emergency care/hospitalization for COPD, acute oral corticosteroids, or antibiotics for lower respiratory tract infection. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 67 years, 57%-60% being male. For both initiation (n=334:334) and step-up (n=189:189) patients, exacerbation rates were comparable between extrafine beclomethasone and fluticasone cohorts during the 2 year outcome period. Odds of treatment stability (no exacerbation or treatment change) were significantly greater for patients initiating extrafine beclomethasone compared with fluticasone (adjusted odds ratio 2.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-4.73). Median ICS dose exposure during 2 outcome years was significantly lower (P<0.001) for extrafine beclomethasone than fluticasone cohorts (315 µg/day versus 436 µg/day for initiation, 438 µg/day versus 534 µg/day for step-up patients). CONCLUSION: We observed that small-particle ICS at significantly lower doses had comparable effects on exacerbation rates as larger-particle ICS at higher doses, whereas initiation of small-particle ICS was associated with better odds of treatment stability during 2-years' follow-up.

Cost-effectiveness of initiating extrafine- or standard size-particle inhaled corticosteroid for asthma in two health-care systems: a retrospective matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Real-life studies are needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of asthma therapies in clinical practice. AIM: To compare the cost-effectiveness of extrafine-particle inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) with standard size-particle ICS in the United Kingdom (UK) and United States (US). METHODS: These retrospective matched cohort analyses used large electronic databases to study asthma-related outcomes for patients in the UK (12-60 years old; n=1730) and US (12-80 years; n=10,312) prescribed extrafine beclomethasone or fluticasone as their first ICS therapy for asthma. Patients were matched on demographic characteristics and asthma severity during 1 baseline year, and asthma control and asthma-related costs were compared during 1 outcome year. RESULTS: In both the UK and US, adjusted odds of risk-domain asthma control were similar, whereas the odds of overall control (no hospitalisation or oral steroids for asthma, no antibiotics for lower respiratory infection, limited reliever use) were greater for extrafine ICS in both countries (UK odds ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01-1.50). Asthma-related annual costs, adjusted for baseline, were significantly lower for extrafine-particle ICS cohorts in both countries (UK difference, -£66 (95% CI,-93 to -37)). Cost-effectiveness analyses using the two measures of asthma control found 92 and 98% probabilities of extrafine-particle ICS being the preferred treatment strategy (less costly and more effective than standard size-particle ICS) in the UK, and 84 and 100% probabilities in the US. CONCLUSIONS: Initiating ICS therapy for asthma as extrafine-particle ICS seems the dominant treatment option (less costly and more effective) compared with standard size-particle ICS in both the UK and the US.

Opportunities to diagnose chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in routine care in the UK: a retrospective study of a clinical cohort.

BACKGROUND: Patterns of health-care use and comorbidities present in patients in the period before diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are unknown. We investigated these factors to inform future case-finding strategies. METHODS: We did a retrospective analysis of a clinical cohort in the UK with data from Jan 1, 1990 to Dec 31, 2009 (General Practice Research Database and Optimum Patient Care Research Database). We assessed patients aged 40 years or older who had an electronically coded diagnosis of COPD in their primary care records and had a minimum of 3 years of continuous practice data for COPD (2 years before diagnosis up to a maximum of 20 years, and 1 year after diagnosis) and at least two prescriptions for COPD since diagnosis. We identified missed opportunites to diagnose COPD from routinely collected patient data by reviewing patterns of health-care use and comorbidities present before diagnosis. We assessed patterns of health-care use in terms of lower respiratory consultations (infective and non-infective), lower respiratory consultations with a course of antibiotics or oral steroids, and chest radiography. If these events did not lead to a diagnosis of COPD, they were deemed to be missed opportunities. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01655667. FINDINGS: We assessed data for 38,859 patients. Opportunities for diagnosis were missed in 32,900 (85%) of 38,859 patients in the 5 years immediately preceding diagnosis of COPD; in 12,856 (58%) of 22,286 in the 6-10 years before diagnosis, in 3943 (42%) of 9351 in the 11-15 years before diagnosis; and in 95 (8%) of 1167 in the 16-20 years before diagnosis. Between 1990 and 2009, we noted decreases in the age at diagnosis (0·05 years of age per year, 95% CI 0·03-0·07) and yearly frequency of lower respiratory prescribing consultations (rate ratio 0·982 opportunities per year, 95% CI 0·979-0·985). Prevalence of all comorbidities present at COPD diagnosis increased except for asthma and bronchiectasis, which decreased between 1990 and 2007, from 281 (33·4%) of 842 patients to 451 of 1465 (30·8%) for asthma, and from 53 of 842 (6·3%) to 53 of 1465 (3·6%) for bronchiectasis. In the 2 years before diagnosis, of 6897 patients who had had a chest radiography, only 2296 (33%) also had spirometry. INTERPRETATION: Opportunities to diagnose COPD at an earlier stage are being missed, and could be improved by case-finding in patients with lower respiratory tract symptoms and concordant long-term comorbidities. FUNDING: UK Department of Health, Research in Real Life.

Real-life comparison of beclometasone dipropionate as an extrafine- or larger-particle formulation for asthma.

BACKGROUND: Beclometasone dipropionate is an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) available in both extrafine and larger-particle hydrofluoroalkane formulations. Extrafine beclometasone has greater small airway distribution and inhalation technique tolerance than larger-particle beclometasone; therefore, its use may be associated with improved asthma outcomes at population levels. The study objective was to compare real-life effectiveness of extrafine and larger-particle beclometasone. METHODS: Retrospective matched cohort study including primary care patients with asthma (ages 12-60 and non-smokers 61-80 years) prescribed extrafine or larger-particle beclometasone by metered-dose inhaler. We studied patients receiving their first ICS (initiation population, n = 11,289) or switched from another ICS without dose change (switch population, n = 19,065). The extrafine and larger-particle beclometasone cohorts were matched in each population for demographic and database measures of asthma control during a baseline year; and endpoints assessed during 1 outcome year were adjusted for residual confounding factors. RESULTS: The odds of no loss of asthma control (no asthma-related hospital attendance, consultation for lower respiratory tract infection, or oral corticosteroids) were significantly higher in the extrafine beclometasone cohorts of both initiation population (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.12; 95% CI 1.02-1.23) and switch population (aOR 1.10; 95% CI 1.01-1.19). The odds of better adherence to ICS therapy were also significantly higher in both extrafine beclometasone cohorts (initiation population, aOR 1.64; 95% CI 1.52-1.75 and switch population, aOR 1.35; 95% CI 1.27-1.43). CONCLUSIONS: These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that delivery of beclometasone in extrafine particle size produces real-life asthma treatment benefits. Clinical trials no. NCT01400217.