Pragmatic randomised controlled trials in COPD and asthma: how to guide clinical practice.

The use of real-world evidence (RWE) studies, including pragmatic randomised controlled trials (RCTs; randomised RWE studies), to aid the development of treatment guidelines, is gradually becoming a mainstay within clinical practice. RWE is an integral part of patient-driven decision-making and offers important value to add complimentary evidence to traditional RCTs; these provide a more well-rounded view of the benefits to patient-reported outcomes and improve the external validity of a given treatment versus findings from traditional RCTs alone. Discussions in recent scientific workshops explored the importance of pragmatic RCTs in optimising guideline development and patient care in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma. The Salford Lung Study in patients with COPD (NCT01551758) and asthma (NCT01706198) were the world's first prelicence pragmatic RCTs that compared novel investigational treatments with existing COPD and asthma treatments and, more recently (2021), RWE studies have been used by the American Thoracic Society and the US Food and Drug Administration to support the approval of an immunosuppressant drug in patients receiving lung transplants. This highlights the importance of RWE data in supporting clinical guideline development and emphasises the advantages for the use of pragmatic RCTs in guiding clinical practice.

The Importance of Self-Management in the Context of Personalized Care in COPD.

Despite current guidelines and decades of evidence on the benefits of a self-management approach, self-management of COPD remains relatively under-utilized in clinical care compared with other chronic diseases. However, self-management interventions can play a valuable role in supporting people with COPD to respond to changing symptoms, and thereby make appropriate decisions regarding the management of their own chronic condition. In this review, we discuss the history and evolution of the concept of self-management, assess current multidisciplinary support programs and clinical interactions designed to optimize self-management, and reflect on how effective these are in terms of clinical and humanistic outcomes. We also evaluate the mechanisms for encouraging change from protocol-based care towards a more personalized care approach, and discuss the role of digital self-management interventions and the importance of addressing health inequalities in COPD treatment, which have been accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Reflecting on the importance of self-management in the context of symptom monitoring and provision of educational support, including information from patient organizations and charities, we discuss the ideal components of a self-management plan for COPD and provide six key recommendations for its implementation: 1) better education for healthcare professionals on disease management and consultation skills; 2) new targets and priorities for patient-focused outcomes; 3) skills gap audits to identify barriers to self-management; 4) best practice sharing within primary care networks and ongoing professional development; 5) enhanced initial consultations to establish optimal self-management from the outset; and 6) negotiation and sharing of self-management plans at the point of diagnosis.

Evaluation of inhaler technique and achievement and maintenance of mastery of budesonide/formoterol Spiromax® compared with budesonide/formoterol Turbuhaler® in adult patients with asthma: the Easy Low Instruction Over Time (ELIOT) study.

BACKGROUND: Incorrect inhaler technique is a common cause of poor asthma control. This two-phase pragmatic study evaluated inhaler technique mastery and maintenance of mastery with DuoResp® (budesonide-formoterol [BF]) Spiromax® compared with Symbicort® (BF) Turbuhaler® in patients with asthma who were receiving inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting ß2-agonists. METHODS: In the initial cross-sectional phase, patients were randomized to a 6-step training protocol with empty Spiromax and Turbuhaler devices. Patients initially demonstrating ≥1 error with their current device, and then achieving mastery with both Spiromax and Turbuhaler (absence of healthcare professional [HCP]-observed errors), were eligible for the longitudinal phase. In the longitudinal phase, patients were randomized to BF Spiromax or BF Turbuhaler. Co-primary endpoints were the proportions of patients achieving device mastery after three training steps and maintaining device mastery (defined as the absence of HCP-observed errors after 12 weeks of use). Secondary endpoints included device preference, handling error frequency, asthma control, and safety. Exploratory endpoints included assessment of device mastery by an independent external expert reviewing video recordings of a subset of patients. RESULTS: Four hundred ninety-three patients participated in the cross-sectional phase, and 395 patients in the longitudinal phase. In the cross-sectional phase, more patients achieved device mastery after three training steps with Spiromax (94%) versus Turbuhaler (87%) (odds ratio [OR] 3.77 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.05-6.95], p < 0.001). Longitudinal phase data indicated that the odds of maintaining inhaler mastery at 12 weeks were not statistically significantly different (OR 1.26 [95% CI 0.80-1.98], p = 0.316). Asthma control improved in both groups with no significant difference between groups (OR 0.11 [95% CI -0.09-0.30]). An exploratory analysis indicated that the odds of maintaining independent expert-verified device mastery were significantly higher for patients using Spiromax versus Turbuhaler (OR 2.11 [95% CI 1.25-3.54]). CONCLUSIONS: In the cross-sectional phase, a significantly greater proportion of patients using Spiromax versus Turbuhaler achieved device mastery; in the longitudinal phase, the proportion of patients maintaining device mastery with Spiromax versus Turbuhaler was similar. An exploratory independent expert-verified analysis found Spiromax was associated with higher levels of device mastery after 12 weeks. Asthma control was improved by treatment with both BF Spiromax and BF Turbuhaler. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2013-004630-14 (registration date 23 January 2014); NCT02570425 .

Fractional exhaled nitric oxide as a predictor of response to inhaled corticosteroids in patients with non-specific respiratory symptoms and insignificant bronchodilator reversibility: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic non-specific respiratory symptoms are difficult to manage. This trial aimed to evaluate the association between baseline fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) and the response to inhaled corticosteroids in patients with non-specific respiratory symptoms. METHODS: In this double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial, we enrolled undiagnosed patients, aged 18-80 years, with cough, wheeze, or dyspnoea and less than 20% bronchodilator reversibility across 26 primary care centres and hospitals in the UK and Singapore. Patients were assessed for 2 weeks before being randomly assigned (1:1) to 4 weeks of treatment with extrafine inhaled corticosteroids (QVAR 80 µg, two puffs twice per day, equivalent to 800 µg per day beclomethasone dipropionate) or placebo. Randomisation was stratified by baseline FeNO measurement: normal (≤25 parts per billion [ppb]), intermediate (>25 tp <40 ppb), and high (≥40 ppb). The primary endpoint was change in Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ7) mean score. We used generalised linear modelling to assess FeNO as a predictor of response, estimating an interaction effect between FeNO and treatment on change in ACQ7. We did our primary and secondary analyses in the per-protocol set, which excluded patients with non-completion of the primary endpoint, non-compliance to treatment (ascertained by patient report), and study visits made outside the predefined visit windows. This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02294279. FINDINGS: Between Feb 4, 2015, and July 12, 2016, we randomly assigned 294 patients to extrafine inhaled corticosteroid treatment (n=148) or placebo (n=146). Following exclusions due to protocol violations, we analysed 214 patients (114 extrafine inhaled corticosteroids and 100 placebo). We observed a significant interaction between baseline FeNO and treatment group for every 10 ppb increase in baseline FeNO, with the change in ACQ7 greater in the extrafine inhaled corticosteroids group than in the placebo group (difference between groups 0·071, 95% CI 0·002 to 0·139; p=0·044). The most common adverse events were nasopharyngitis (18 [12%] patients in the treatment group vs 13 [9%] in the placebo group), infections and infestations (25 [17%] vs 21 [14%]), and respiratory, thoracic, and mediastinal disorders (13 [9%] vs 17 [12%]). INTERPRETATION: FeNO measurement is an easy and non-invasive tool to use in clinical practice in patients with non-specific respiratory symptoms to predict response to inhaled corticosteroids. Further research is needed to examine its role in patients with evidence of other airway diseases, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. FUNDING: Sponsored by OPRI with partial funding by Circassia and study drugs provided by TEVA.

British Thoracic Society quality standards for home oxygen use in adults.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of the quality standards document is to provide healthcare professionals, commissioners, service providers and patients with a guide to standards of care that should be met for home oxygen provision in the UK, together with measurable markers of good practice. Quality statements are based on the British Thoracic Society (BTS) Guideline for Home Oxygen Use in Adults. METHODS: Development of BTS Quality Standards follows the BTS process of quality standard production based on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence process manual for the development of quality standards. RESULTS: 10 quality statements have been developed, each describing a key marker of high-quality, cost-effective care for home oxygen use, and each statement is supported by quality measures that aim to improve the structure, process and outcomes of healthcare. DISCUSSION: BTS Quality Standards for home oxygen use in adults form a key part of the range of supporting materials that the society produces to assist in the dissemination and implementation of a guideline's recommendations.

When should I be considering home oxygen for my patients?

The ability to provide oxygen in a patient's home can offer enormous benefits, including improvements in life expectancy when given in the appropriate setting. Confusingly, however, home oxygen is available in many forms, including long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT), ambulatory oxygen therapy (AOT), palliative oxygen therapy (POT) and short-burst oxygen therapy (SBOT)-each with varying degrees of supporting evidence. The British Thoracic Society (BTS) has recently published new guidance on home oxygen therapy, after collating the available evidence. This article aims to summarise those guidelines, focusing on who should and should not be considered for oxygen therapy. Although the BTS guidelines target a UK audience, many of the principles covered below are applicable internationally, even if the availability of certain oxygen modalities and supporting service arrangements may vary between different healthcare systems.

Predicting frequent COPD exacerbations using primary care data.

PURPOSE: Acute COPD exacerbations account for much of the rising disability and costs associated with COPD, but data on predictive risk factors are limited. The goal of the current study was to develop a robust, clinically based model to predict frequent exacerbation risk. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients identified from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database (OPCRD) with a diagnostic code for COPD and a forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity ratio <0.7 were included in this historical follow-up study if they were ≥40 years old and had data encompassing the year before (predictor year) and year after (outcome year) study index date. The data set contained potential risk factors including demographic, clinical, and comorbid variables. Following univariable analysis, predictors of two or more exacerbations were fed into a stepwise multivariable logistic regression. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for subpopulations of patients without any asthma diagnosis ever and those with questionnaire data on symptoms and smoking pack-years. The full predictive model was validated against 1 year of prospective OPCRD data. RESULTS: The full data set contained 16,565 patients (53% male, median age 70 years), including 9,393 patients without any recorded asthma and 3,713 patients with questionnaire data. The full model retained eleven variables that significantly predicted two or more exacerbations, of which the number of exacerbations in the preceding year had the strongest association; others included height, age, forced expiratory volume in 1 second, and several comorbid conditions. Significant predictors not previously identified included eosinophilia and COPD Assessment Test score. The predictive ability of the full model (C statistic 0.751) changed little when applied to the validation data set (n=2,713; C statistic 0.735). Results of the sensitivity analyses supported the main findings. CONCLUSION: Patients at risk of exacerbation can be identified from routinely available, computerized primary care data. Further study is needed to validate the model in other patient populations.

Real-world research and its importance in respiratory medicine.

EDUCATIONAL AIMS: To improve understanding of: The relative benefits and limitations of evidence derived from different study designs and the role that real-life asthma studies can play in addressing limitations in the classical randomised controlled trial (cRCT) evidence base.The importance of guideline recommendations being modified to fit the populations studied and the model of care provided in their reference studies. KEY POINTS: Classical randomised controlled trials (cRCTs) show results from a narrow patient group with a constrained ecology of care.Patients with "real-life" co-morbidities and lifestyle factors receiving usual care often have different responses to medication which will not be captured by cRCTs if they are excluded by strict selection criteria.Meta-analyses, used to direct guidelines, contain an inherent meta-bias based on patient selection and artificial patient care.Guideline recommendations should clarify where they related to cRCT ideals (in terms of patient populations, medical resources and care received) and could be enhanced through inclusion of evidence from studies designed to better model the populations and care approaches present in routine care. SUMMARY: Clinical practice requires a complex interplay between experience and training, research, guidelines and judgement, and must not only draw on data from traditional or classical randomised controlled trials (cRCTs), but also from pragmatically designed studies that better reflect real-life clinical practice. To minimise extraneous variables and to optimise their internal validity, cRCTs exclude patients, clinical characteristics and variations in care that could potentially confound outcomes. The result is that respiratory cRCTs often enrol a small, non-representative subset of patients and overlook the important interplay and interactions between patients and the real world, which can effect treatment outcomes. Evidence from real-life studies (e.g. naturalistic or pragmatic clinical trials and observational studies encompassing healthcare database studies and cohort studies) can be combined with cRCT evidence to provide a fuller picture of intervention effectiveness and realistic treatment outcomes, and can provide useful insights into alternative management approaches in more challenging asthma patients. The Respiratory Effectiveness Group (REG), in collaboration with the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) and the European Respiratory Society (ERS), is developing quality appraisal tools and methods for integrating different sources of evidence. A REG/EAACI taskforce aims to help support future guideline developers to avoid a one-size-fits-all approach to recommendations and to tailor the conclusions of their meta-analyses to the populations under consideration.

British Thoracic Society guidelines for home oxygen use in adults.

The British Thoracic Society (BTS) Home Oxygen Guideline provides detailed evidence-based guidance for the use of home oxygen for patients out of hospital. Although the majority of evidence comes from the use of oxygen in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, the scope of the guidance includes patients with a variety of long-term respiratory illnesses and other groups in whom oxygen is currently ordered, such as those with cardiac failure, cancer and end-stage cardiorespiratory disease, terminal illness or cluster headache. It explores the evidence base for the use of different modalities of oxygen therapy and patient-related outcomes such as mortality, symptoms and quality of life. The guideline also makes recommendations for assessment and follow-up protocols, and risk assessments, particularly in the clinically challenging area of home oxygen users who smoke. The guideline development group is aware of the potential for confusion sometimes caused by the current nomenclature for different types of home oxygen, and rather than renaming them, has adopted the approach of clarifying those definitions, and in particular emphasising what is meant by long-term oxygen therapy and palliative oxygen therapy. The home oxygen guideline provides expert consensus opinion in areas where clinical evidence is lacking, and seeks to deliver improved prescribing practice, leading to improved compliance and improved patient outcomes, with consequent increased value to the health service.

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.

Adjunctive treatment with oral AKL1, a botanical nutraceutical, in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

PURPOSE: The objective of this pilot trial was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of AKL1, a patented botanical formulation containing extracts of Picrorhiza kurroa, Ginkgo biloba, and Zingiber officinale, as add-on therapy for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and chronic cough. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial enrolled male and female patients >18 years old with COPD and Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) score of <18. The 10-week study period comprised a 2-week single-blind placebo run-in period followed by add-on treatment with AKL1 or placebo twice daily for 8 weeks. The primary study endpoint was the change from week 0 to week 8 in cough-related health status, as assessed by the LCQ. RESULTS: Of 33 patients enrolled, 20 were randomized to AKL1 and 13 to placebo. Patients included 19 (58%) men and 14 (42%) women of mean (standard deviation [SD]) age of 67 (9.4) years; 15 (45%) patients were smokers and 16 (49%) were ex-smokers. The mean (SD) change from baseline in LCQ score at 8 weeks was 2.3 (4.9) in the AKL1 group and 0.6 (3.7) in the placebo group, with mean difference in change of 1.8 (95% confidence interval: -1.5 to 5.1; P=0.28). The St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score improved substantially in the AKL1 treatment group by a mean (SD) of -7.7 (11.7) versus worsening in the placebo group (+1.5 [9.3]), with mean difference in change of -9.2 (95% confidence interval: -19.0 to 0.6; P=0.064). There were no significant differences between treatment groups in change from baseline to week 8 in other patient-reported measures, lung function, or the 6-minute walk distance. CONCLUSION: Further study is needed with a larger patient population and over a longer duration to better assess the effects of add-on therapy with AKL1 in COPD.

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.

Using fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) to diagnose steroid-responsive disease and guide asthma management in routine care.

BACKGROUND: Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) is a surrogate marker of eosinophilic airway inflammation and good predictor of corticosteroid response. AIM: To evaluate how FeNO is being used to guide primary care asthma management in the United Kingdom (UK) with a view to devising practical algorithms for the use of FeNO in the diagnosis of steroid-responsive disease and to guide on-going asthma management. METHODS: Eligible patients (n = 678) were those in the Optimum Patient Care Research Database (OPCRD) aged 4-80 years who, at an index date, had their first FeNO assessment via NIOX MINO® or Flex®. Eligible practices were those using FeNO measurement in at least ten patients during the study period. Patients were characterized over a one-year baseline period immediately before the index date. Outcomes were evaluated in the year immediately following index date for two patient cohorts: (i) those in whom FeNO measurement was being used to identify steroid-responsive disease and (ii) those in whom FeNO monitoring was being used to guide on-going asthma management. Outcomes for cohort (i) were incidence of new ICS initiation at, or within the one-month following, their first FeNO measurement, and ICS dose during the outcome year. Outcomes for cohort (ii) were adherence, change in adherence (from baseline) and ICS dose. OUTCOMES: In cohort (i) (n = 304) the higher the FeNO category, the higher the percentage of patients that initiated ICS at, or in the one month immediately following, their first FeNO measurement: 82%, 46% and 26% of patients with high, intermediate and low FeNO, respectively. In cohort (ii) (n = 374) high FeNO levels were associated with poorer baseline adherence (p = 0.005) but greater improvement in adherence in the outcome year (p = 0.017). Across both cohorts, patients with high FeNO levels were associated with significantly higher ICS dosing (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the UK, FeNO is being used in primary practice to guide ICS initiation and dosing decisions and to identify poor ICS adherence. Simple algorithms to guide clinicians in the practical use of FeNO could improved diagnostic accuracy and better tailored asthma regimens.

Leukotriene antagonists as first-line or add-on asthma-controller therapy.

BACKGROUND: Most randomized trials of treatment for asthma study highly selected patients under idealized conditions. METHODS: We conducted two parallel, multicenter, pragmatic trials to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of a leukotriene-receptor antagonist (LTRA) as compared with either an inhaled glucocorticoid for first-line asthma-controller therapy or a long-acting beta(2)-agonist (LABA) as add-on therapy in patients already receiving inhaled glucocorticoid therapy. Eligible primary care patients 12 to 80 years of age had impaired asthma-related quality of life (Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire [MiniAQLQ] score ≤6) or inadequate asthma control (Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ] score ≥1). We randomly assigned patients to 2 years of open-label therapy, under the care of their usual physician, with LTRA (148 patients) or an inhaled glucocorticoid (158 patients) in the first-line controller therapy trial and LTRA (170 patients) or LABA (182 patients) added to an inhaled glucocorticoid in the add-on therapy trial. RESULTS: Mean MiniAQLQ scores increased by 0.8 to 1.0 point over a period of 2 years in both trials. At 2 months, differences in the MiniAQLQ scores between the two treatment groups met our definition of equivalence (95% confidence interval [CI] for an adjusted mean difference, -0.3 to 0.3). At 2 years, mean MiniAQLQ scores approached equivalence, with an adjusted mean difference between treatment groups of -0.11 (95% CI, -0.35 to 0.13) in the first-line controller therapy trial and of -0.11 (95% CI, -0.32 to 0.11) in the add-on therapy trial. Exacerbation rates and ACQ scores did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Study results at 2 months suggest that LTRA was equivalent to an inhaled glucocorticoid as first-line controller therapy and to LABA as add-on therapy for diverse primary care patients. Equivalence was not proved at 2 years. The interpretation of results of pragmatic research may be limited by the crossover between treatment groups and lack of a placebo group. (Funded by the National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment U.K. and others; Controlled Clinical Trials number, ISRCTN99132811.).

Earlier diagnosis and earlier treatment of COPD in primary care.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive disease that begins many years before a diagnosis is usually made. The need for an early and confirmed diagnosis of COPD is increasingly appreciated by primary care physicians in whose hands the ability to make improvements in early diagnosis largely rests. Case-finding of patients with symptoms of lifestyle limitation is probably the most practical way to achieve early diagnosis. Evidence suggests a burden of early COPD on afflicted people and their families. Early encouragement of smoking cessation, in conjunction with management of symptoms and treating activity limitation and exacerbations by appropriate non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic management at the earliest possible stage, could positively affect the impact and progression of the disease.

Cost effectiveness of leukotriene receptor antagonists versus inhaled corticosteroids for initial asthma controller therapy: a pragmatic trial.

BACKGROUND: Information is lacking on the relative effectiveness and cost effectiveness--in a primary-care setting--of leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) as an alternative to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for initial asthma controller therapy. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost effectiveness of LTRAs versus ICS for patients initiating asthma controller therapy. METHODS: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a 2-year, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial set in 53 primary-care practices in the UK. Patients aged 12-80 years with asthma and symptoms requiring regular anti-inflammatory therapy (n = 326) were randomly assigned to LTRAs (n = 162) or ICS (n = 164). The main outcome measures were the incremental costs per point improvement in the Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, per point improvement in the Asthma Control Questionnaire and per QALY gained from the UK NHS and societal perspectives. RESULTS: Over 2 years, resource use was similar between the two treatment groups, but the cost to society per patient was significantly higher for the LTRA group, at pounds sterling 711 versus pounds sterling 433 for the ICS group (adjusted difference pounds sterling 204; 95% CI 74, 308) [year 2005 values]. Cost differences were driven primarily by differences in prescription drug costs, particularly study drug costs. There was a nonsignificant (imputed, adjusted) difference between treatment groups, favouring ICS, in QALYs gained at 2 years of -0.073 (95% CI -0.143, 0.010). Therapy with LTRAs was, on average, a dominated strategy, and, at a threshold for willingness to pay of pounds sterling 30,000 per QALY gained, the probability of LTRAs being cost effective compared with ICS was approximately 3% from both societal and NHS perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: There is a very low probability of LTRAs being cost effective in the UK, at 2005 values, compared with ICS for initial asthma controller therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UK National Research Register N0547145240; Controlled Clinical Trials ISRCTN99132811.

Cost effectiveness of leukotriene receptor antagonists versus long-acting beta-2 agonists as add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids for asthma: a pragmatic trial.

BACKGROUND: Information is lacking on the relative effectiveness and cost effectiveness--in a real-life primary-care setting--of leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) and long-acting beta2 adrenergic receptor agonists (beta2 agonists) as add-on therapy for patients whose asthma symptoms are not controlled on low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost effectiveness of LTRAs compared with long-acting beta2 agonists as add-on therapy for patients whose asthma symptoms are not controlled on low-dose ICS. METHODS: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a 2-year, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial set in 53 primary-care practices in the UK. Patients aged 12-80 years with asthma insufficiently controlled with ICS (n = 361) were randomly assigned to add-on LTRAs (n = 176) or long-acting beta2 agonists (n = 185). The main outcome measures were the incremental cost per point improvement in the Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (MiniAQLQ), per point improvement in the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) and per QALY gained from perspectives of the UK NHS and society. RESULTS: Over 2 years, the societal cost per patient receiving LTRAs was pounds sterling 1157 versus pounds sterling 952 for long-acting beta2 agonists, a (significant, adjusted) increase of pounds sterling 214 (95% CI 2, 411) [year 2005 values]. Patients receiving LTRAs experienced a non-significant incremental gain of 0.009 QALYs (95% CI -0.077, 0.103). The incremental cost per QALY gained from the societal (NHS) perspective was pounds sterling 22,589 (pounds sterling 11,919). Uncertainty around this point estimate suggested that, given a maximum willingness to pay of pounds sterling 30,000 per QALY gained, the probability that LTRAs are a cost-effective alternative to long-acting beta2 agonists as add-on therapy was approximately 52% from both societal and NHS perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: On balance, these results marginally favour the repositioning of LTRAs as a cost-effective alternative to long-acting beta2 agonists as add-on therapy to ICS for asthma. However, there is much uncertainty surrounding the incremental cost effectiveness because of similarity of clinical benefit and broad confidence intervals for differences in healthcare costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UK National Research Register N0547145240; Controlled Clinical Trials ISRCTN99132811.