AZD1222 effectiveness against severe COVID-19 in individuals with comorbidity or frailty: The RAVEN cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Despite being prioritized during initial COVID-19 vaccine rollout, vulnerable individuals at high risk of severe COVID-19 (hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, or death) remain underrepresented in vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies. The RAVEN cohort study (NCT05047822) assessed AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCov-19) two-dose primary series VE in vulnerable populations. METHODS: Using the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital Hub, linked to secondary care, death registration, and COVID-19 datasets in England, COVID-19 outcomes in 2021 were compared in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals matched on age, sex, region, and multimorbidity. RESULTS: Over 4.5 million AZD1222 recipients were matched (mean follow-up ∼5 months); 68% were ≥50 years, 57% had high multimorbidity. Overall, high VE against severe COVID-19 was demonstrated, with lower VE observed in vulnerable populations. VE against hospitalization was higher in the lowest multimorbidity quartile (91.1%; 95% CI: 90.1, 92.0) than the highest quartile (80.4%; 79.7, 81.1), and among individuals ≥65 years, higher in the 'fit' (86.2%; 84.5, 87.6) than the frailest (71.8%; 69.3, 74.2). VE against hospitalization was lowest in immunosuppressed individuals (64.6%; 60.7, 68.1). CONCLUSIONS: Based on integrated and comprehensive UK health data, overall population-level VE with AZD1222 was high. VEs were notably lower in vulnerable groups, particularly the immunosuppressed.

COVID-19 vaccine booster doses provide increased protection against COVID-19 hospitalization compared with previously vaccinated individuals: Interim findings from the REFORCO-Brazil real-world effectiveness study during Delta and Omicron.

BACKGROUND: Although COVID-19 booster vaccination is widely recommended, there is limited long-term, population-level, real-world evidence on the magnitude of improved protection against severe COVID-19 conferred by boosting with monovalent COVID-19 vaccines developed against ancestral SARS-CoV-2, especially in low- or middle-income countries. We present interim results from the first large-scale assessment of the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of first and second booster doses against severe COVID-19 in a low-/middle-income country. METHODS: REFORCO-Brazil is an ongoing, test-negative case-control study (NCT05697705) utilizing Brazil national severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) surveillance and vaccination data. In SARS hospitalizations from August 1, 2021 to July 31, 2022, we matched test-positive (via SARS-CoV-2 antigen/reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction [RT-PCR]) cases and test-negative case-controls (via RT-PCR) based on admission date, preceding vaccinations, and age. We evaluated the rVEs of four monovalent COVID-19 vaccines (AZD1222, Ad26.COV2.S, CoronaVac, and BNT162b2) as second boosters compared with any first boosters received ≥4 months previously, and as first boosters compared with primary-series vaccinations completed ≥4 months previously. RESULTS: The overall rVE of second boosters, from 5668 (2238 test-positive) evaluated hospitalizations, was 24.7 % (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 12.6-35.1); the overall rVE of first boosters, from 30,272 (12,063 test-positive) hospitalizations, was 46.8 % (95 % CI: 43.3-50.0). The rVEs of AZD1222 and BNT162b2 were similar: 29.4 % (95 % CI: 8.6-45.5) and 25.5 % (95 % CI: 4.2-42.2), respectively, for second boosters; and 42.5 % (95 % CI: 28.0-54.0) and 50.8 % (95 % CI: 47.5-54.0), respectively, for first boosters. In general, rVEs were higher in elderly (≥80 years) and immunocompromised/high-risk individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the use of AZD1222 and other adenoviral/mRNA vaccine boosters to maintain protection against COVID-19 hospitalization from Omicron subvariants, including in elderly and immunocompromised individuals at increased risk of accelerated waning or severe outcomes.

Protection against COVID-19 hospitalisation conferred by primary-series vaccination with AZD1222 in non-boosted individuals: first vaccine effectiveness results of the European COVIDRIVE study and meta-regression analysis.

Background: Vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies with long-term follow-up are needed to understand durability of protection against severe COVID-19 outcomes conferred by primary-series vaccination in individuals not receiving boosters. COVIDRIVE is a European public-private partnership evaluating brand-specific vaccine effectiveness (VE). We report a prespecified interim analysis of primary-series AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) VE. Methods: Seven Study Contributors in Europe collected data on individuals aged ≥18 years who were hospitalised with severe acute respiratory infection (June 1st, 2021-September 5th, 2022) and eligible for COVID-19 vaccination prior to hospitalisation. In this test-negative case-control study, individuals were defined as test-positive cases or test-negative controls (SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR) and were either fully vaccinated (two AZD1222 doses, 4-12 weeks apart, completed ≥14 days prior to symptom onset; no booster doses) or unvaccinated (no COVID-19 vaccine prior to hospitalisation). The primary objective was to estimate AZD1222 VE against COVID-19 hospitalisation. A literature review and meta-regression were conducted to contextualise findings on durability of protection. Findings: 761 individuals were included during the 15-month analysis period. Overall AZD1222 VE estimate was 72.8% (95% CI, 53.4-84.1). VE was 93.8% (48.6-99.3) in participants who received second AZD1222 doses ≤8 weeks prior to hospitalisation, with spline-based VE estimates demonstrating protection (VE ≥ 50%) 30 weeks post-second dose. Meta-regression analysis (data from seven publications) showed consistent results, with ≥80% protection against COVID-19 hospitalisation through ∼43 weeks post-second dose, with some degree of waning. Interpretation: Primary-series AZD1222 vaccination confers protection against COVID-19 hospitalisation with enduring levels of VE through ≥6 months. Funding: AstraZeneca.

Suboptimally controlled asthma in patients treated with inhaled ICS/LABA: prevalence, risk factors, and outcomes.

This observational claims-linked survey study assessed the prevalence of and risk factors for suboptimal asthma control and healthcare utilization in adults with asthma receiving fixed-dose combination (FDC) inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist (ICS/LABA). Commercially insured adults from the Optum Research Database were invited to complete the Asthma Control Test (ACT) and Asthma Control Questionnaire-6 (ACQ-6). Among participants (N = 428), 36.4% (ACT-assessed) and 55.6% (ACQ-6-assessed) had inadequately controlled asthma. Asthma-related quality of life was worse and asthma-related healthcare resource utilization was higher in poorly controlled asthma. Factors associated with ACT-defined suboptimal asthma control in multivariate analysis included: frequent short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) use, asthma-related outpatient visits, lower treatment adherence, and lower education levels. During follow-up, factors associated with asthma exacerbations and/or high SABA use included: inadequately controlled asthma (ACT-assessed), body mass index ≥30 kg/m2, and high-dose ICS/LABA. Approximately 35-55% of adults with asthma were inadequately controlled despite FDC ICS/LABA; poor control was associated with worse disease outcomes.

Identification of an Optimal COVID-19 Booster Allocation Strategy to Minimize Hospital Bed-Days with a Fixed Healthcare Budget.

Healthcare decision-makers face difficult decisions regarding COVID-19 booster selection given limited budgets and the need to maximize healthcare gain. A constrained optimization (CO) model was developed to identify booster allocation strategies that minimize bed-days by varying the proportion of the eligible population receiving different boosters, stratified by age, and given limited healthcare expenditure. Three booster options were included: B1, costing US $1 per dose, B2, costing US $2, and no booster (NB), costing US $0. B1 and B2 were assumed to be 55%/75% effective against mild/moderate COVID-19, respectively, and 90% effective against severe/critical COVID-19. Healthcare expenditure was limited to US$2.10 per person; the minimum expected expense using B1, B2, or NB for all. Brazil was the base-case country. The model demonstrated that B1 for those aged <70 years and B2 for those ≥70 years were optimal for minimizing bed-days. Compared with NB, bed-days were reduced by 75%, hospital admissions by 68%, and intensive care unit admissions by 90%. Total costs were reduced by 60% with medical resource use reduced by 81%. This illustrates that the CO model can be used by healthcare decision-makers to implement vaccine booster allocation strategies that provide the best healthcare outcomes in a broad range of contexts.

Extending the data collection from a clinical trial: The Extended Salford Lung Study research cohort.

The Extended Salford Lung Study (Ext-SLS) is an extension of the Salford Lung Studies (SLS) in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) through retrospective and prospective collection of patient-level electronic health record (EHR) data. We compared the Ext-SLS cohort with the SLS intention-to-treat populations using descriptive analyses to determine if the strengths (e.g. randomization) of the clinical trial were maintained in the new cohort. Historical and patient-reported outcome data were captured from asthma-/COPD-specific questionnaires (e.g., Asthma Control Test [ACT]/COPD Assessment Test [CAT]). The Ext-SLS included 1147 participants (n = 798, SLS asthma; n = 349, SLS COPD). Of participants answering the ACT, 39% scored <20, suggesting poorly controlled asthma. For COPD, 61% of participants answering the CAT scored ≥21, demonstrating a high disease burden. Demographic/clinical characteristics of the cohorts were similar at SLS baseline. EHR data provided a long-term view of participants' disease, and questionnaires provided information not typically captured. The Ext-SLS cohort is a valuable resource for respiratory research, and ongoing prospective data collection will add further value and ensure the Ext-SLS is an important source of patient-level information on obstructive airways disease.

Patient experience of moderate asthma attacks: qualitative research in the USA and Germany.

BACKGROUND: There is limited information available on the impact of moderate asthma exacerbations, often called "asthma attacks" (i.e., those not requiring hospitalisation or treatment with systemic corticosteroids) on patients' lives. This multi-country qualitative study explored the patient experience of these events. METHODS: Semi-structured concept elicitation interviews were conducted in the USA and Germany with adult patients with asthma who had experienced a moderate asthma exacerbation in the prior 30 days. Physicians with experience in managing patients with asthma were also interviewed. Interviews explored patients' experience of symptoms and impact of moderate exacerbations and associated exacerbation triggers and treatment patterns. Physicians were also asked about their interpretation of a clinical definition and treatment of a moderate exacerbation. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patient (n = 20 in the USA, n = 8 in Germany) and six physician (n = 3 in the USA, n = 3 in Germany) interviews were conducted. During their moderate exacerbation, all patients reported experiencing shortness of breath, which many considered to be severe and the most bothersome symptom. Wheezing was also reported by all patients and considered severe by two thirds of patients. Most patients also reported coughing and chest tightness. All or almost all patients reported that moderate exacerbation caused fatigue/tiredness and impacted their physical functioning, emotional functioning, activities of daily living and work/school life. Most patients reported using rescue or maintenance inhalers to alleviate symptoms of the exacerbation. Conceptual saturation (i.e., the point at which no new concepts are likely to emerge with continued data collection) was achieved. Findings were used to develop a patient-focused conceptual model of the experience of moderate asthma exacerbations, outlining concepts related to triggers, symptoms, impact, and treatment from the patient perspective. Physician data was consistent with patient reports and complemented the conceptual model. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from concept elicitation interviews highlight the increased frequency, duration and severity of asthma symptoms and increased rescue medication use during moderate asthma exacerbations compared with the typical daily asthma experience, which have a substantial impact on patients' lives.

Key Learnings from Running an Extension Study to a Real-World Effectiveness Trial: The Extended Salford Lung Study.

INTRODUCTION: The Salford Lung Studies (SLS) were real-world randomised controlled trials set within UK primary care that assessed the effectiveness and safety of initiating once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol versus continuing usual care in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma. Data were collected for a relatively short period, limiting the study of long-term outcomes. To broaden the capture of SLS patients' data, we undertook the Extended SLS (Ext-SLS), aiming to better understand the patient disease journey and the effects of treatment in a real-world setting, through collection of patient-level data. Here, we present study design information and the challenges and learnings gathered in creating the Ext-SLS. METHODS: The Ext-SLS was intended to augment the SLS by collecting retrospective and prospective (up to 10 years from consent) primary and secondary care electronic health record (EHR) data and patient questionnaires. After ethics approval, general practitioners (GPs) obtained consent from SLS patients remotely (mean 3.2 years post-SLS completion). To facilitate GPs identifying eligible patients, a novel EHR-based approach flagged SLS patients who were alive and registered with their original GP. An automated system sent consent forms/questionnaires to patients. Medical data were collected via EHRs; primary care data were extracted from GPs' systems whilst secondary care data were sourced from the UK NHS. RESULTS: Of the 75 GP sites from the SLS, 35 (47%) declined Ext-SLS participation leaving 4158 potentially eligible patients; 1169 (28%) patients were excluded as GPs could not confirm them as SLS participants or due to incapacity. Of 2989 patients invited, 1189 (40%) consented. CONCLUSIONS: Developing an EHR-based trial extension was achieved, with reasonable consent rates amongst invited patients. The resulting Ext-SLS is a unique and valuable research resource. Leveraging EHRs and technology reduced GP burden, facilitating participation. Initiation of extension studies prior to study close-out may help increase GP and patient participation.

Nemiralisib in Patients with an Acute Exacerbation of COPD: Placebo-Controlled, Dose-Ranging Study.

Background: Management of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is sometimes inadequate leading to either prolonged duration and/or an increased risk of recurrent exacerbations in the period following the initial event. Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of inhaled nemiralisib, a phosphoinositide 3-kinase δ inhibitor, in patients experiencing an acute exacerbation of COPD. Patients and Methods: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, COPD patients (40-80 years, ≥10 pack-year smoking history, current moderate/severe acute exacerbation of COPD requiring standard-of-care treatment) were randomized to placebo or nemiralisib 12.5 µg, 50 µg, 100 µg, 250 µg, 500 µg, or 750 µg (ratio of 3:1:1:1:1:1:3; N=938) for 12 weeks with an exploratory 12-week follow-up period. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in post-bronchodilator FEV1 at week 12. Key secondary endpoints were rate of re-exacerbations, patient-reported outcomes (Exacerbations of Chronic Pulmonary Disease Tool, COPD Assessment Test, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire-COPD), plasma pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety/tolerability. Results: There was no difference in change from baseline FEV1 at week 12 between the nemiralisib and placebo treatment groups (posterior adjusted median difference, nemiralisib 750 µg and placebo: -0.004L (95% CrI: -0.051L to 0.042L)). Overall, there were also no differences between nemiralisib and placebo in secondary endpoints, including re-exacerbations. Plasma PK increased in a dose proportional manner. The most common adverse event for nemiralisib was post-inhalation cough which appeared to be dose-related. Conclusion: The addition of nemiralisib to standard-of-care treatment for 12 weeks did not improve lung function or re-exacerbations in patients with, and following an acute exacerbation of COPD. However, this study demonstrated that large clinical trials recruiting acutely exacerbating patients can successfully be conducted.

Predicting Re-Exacerbation Timing and Understanding Prolonged Exacerbations: An Analysis of Patients with COPD in the ECLIPSE Cohort.

PURPOSE: Understanding risk factors for an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) is important for optimizing patient care. We re-analyzed data from the Evaluation of COPD Longitudinally to Identify Predictive Surrogate Endpoints (ECLIPSE) study (NCT00292552) to identify factors predictive of re-exacerbations and associated with prolonged AECOPDs. METHODS: Patients with COPD from ECLIPSE with moderate/severe AECOPDs were included. The end of the first exacerbation was the index date. Timing of re-exacerbation risk was assessed in patients with 180 days' post-index-date follow-up data. Factors predictive of early (1-90 days) vs late (91-180 days) vs no re-exacerbation were identified using a multivariable partial-proportional-odds-predictive model. Explanatory logistic-regression modeling identified factors associated with prolonged AECOPDs. RESULTS: Of the 1,554 eligible patients from ECLIPSE, 1,420 had 180 days' follow-up data: more patients experienced early (30.9%) than late (18.7%) re-exacerbations; 50.4% had no re-exacerbation within 180 days. Lower post-bronchodilator FEV1 (P=0.0019), a higher number of moderate/severe exacerbations on/before index date (P<0.0001), higher St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score (P=0.0036), and season of index exacerbation (autumn vs winter, P=0.00164) were identified as predictors of early (vs late/none) re-exacerbation risk within 180 days. Similarly, these were all predictors of any (vs none) re-exacerbation risk within 180 days. Median moderate/severe AECOPD duration was 12 days; 22.7% of patients experienced a prolonged AECOPD. The odds of experiencing a prolonged AECOPD were greater for severe vs moderate AECOPDs (adjusted odds ratio=1.917, P=0.002) and lower for spring vs winter AECOPDs (adjusted odds ratio=0.578, P=0.017). CONCLUSION: Prior exacerbation history, reduced lung function, poorer respiratory-related quality-of-life (greater disease burden), and season may help identify patients who will re-exacerbate within 90 days of an AECOPD. Severe AECOPDs and winter AECOPDs are likely to be prolonged and may require close monitoring.

Terms and Definitions Used to Describe Recurrence, Treatment Failure and Recovery of Acute Exacerbations of COPD: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies.

INTRODUCTION: Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPDs) are important clinical events, with many patients experiencing multiple AECOPDs annually. The terms used in the literature to define recurring AECOPD events are inconsistent and may impact the ability to describe the true burden of these events. We undertook a systematic review to identify and summarize terms and definitions used in observational studies to describe AECOPD-related events occurring after an initial AECOPD (hereafter "subsequent AECOPD"). METHODS: PubMed was searched (2000-2019) for observational studies on subsequent AECOPD events using broad search strings for "COPD", "exacerbation", and "subsequent exacerbation events". Only English-language studies were included. Small studies (n<50) and studies focusing on hospital re-admission only were excluded. Extracted data were analyzed descriptively to generate a narrative summary, using a thematic approach to group studies utilizing similar terms for subsequent AECOPD. RESULTS: Forty-seven studies were included. No single, distinct terms or definitions were used to define and identify multiple occurrences of AECOPDs, though most (46) studies used one or more of four clustered terms and definitions: reapse (n = 13), recurrence/re-exacerbation (n = 11), treatment failure (n = 12) and non-recovery/time to recovery (n = 16). Heterogeneity was observed within and between the four clusters with respect to study setting, starting point for observing subsequent AECOPDs, time frame to identify a subsequent AECOPD (except for studies using "time to recovery"), and basis for identifying a subsequent exacerbation. CONCLUSION: Our review demonstrates that subsequent AECOPDs (including events such as relapse, recurrence/re-exacerbation, treatment failure, non-recovery/time to recovery) are ill-defined in the observational study literature, emphasizing the need to reach consensus on precise and objective definitions (for example, when one AECOPD ends and another begins). Use of standardized terminology and definitions may aid comparability between, and synthesis of, studies, thus improving the understanding of the natural history and burden of exacerbations in COPD patients.

Methods to generate and validate a Pregnancy Register in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink primary care database.

PURPOSE: Primary care databases are increasingly used for researching pregnancy, eg, the effects of maternal drug exposures. However, ascertaining pregnancies, their timing, and outcomes in these data is challenging. While individual studies have adopted different methods, no systematic approach to characterise all pregnancies in a primary care database has yet been published. Therefore, we developed a new algorithm to establish a Pregnancy Register in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD primary care database. METHODS: We compiled over 4000 read and entity codes to identify pregnancy-related records among women aged 11 to 49 years in CPRD GOLD. Codes were categorised by the stage or outcome of pregnancy to facilitate delineation of pregnancy episodes. We constructed hierarchical rule systems to handle information from multiple sources. We assessed the validity of the Register to identify pregnancy outcomes by comparing our results to linked hospitalisation records and Office for National Statistics population rates. RESULTS: Our algorithm identified 5.8 million pregnancies among 2.4 million women (January 1987-February 2018). We observed close agreement with hospitalisation data regarding completeness of pregnancy outcomes (91% sensitivity for deliveries and 77% for pregnancy losses) and their timing (median 0 days difference, interquartile range 0-2 days). Miscarriage and prematurity rates were consistent with population figures, although termination and, to a lesser extent, live birth rates were underestimated in the Register. CONCLUSIONS: The Pregnancy Register offers huge research potential because of its large size, high completeness, and availability. Further validation work is underway to enhance this data resource and identify optimal approaches for its use.

Clinical burden of illness among patients with severe eosinophilic COPD.

Background: There are currently limited real-world data on the clinical burden of illness in patients with COPD who continue to exacerbate despite receiving triple therapy. The aim of this study was to compare the burden of COPD in patients with and without a phenotype characterized by a high blood eosinophil count and high risk of exacerbations while receiving triple therapy. Methods: This retrospective cohort study (GSK ID: 207323/PRJ2647) used UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink records linked with Hospital Episode Statistics. Eligible patients had a COPD medical diagnosis code recorded between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2014, and a blood eosinophil count recorded on/after that date. Patients were followed from index date (first qualifying blood eosinophil count) until December 31, 2015. The study phenotype was defined as ≥2 moderate/≥1 severe acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD) in the year prior to the index date, current use of multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT), and blood eosinophil count ≥150 cells/µL on the index date. Outcomes measured during follow-up included moderate/severe AECOPDs, severe AECOPDs, all-cause mortality, primary care (GP) clinical consultations, and non-AECOPD-related unscheduled hospitalizations. Results: Of 46,814 patients eligible for inclusion, 2512 (5.4%) met the definition of the study phenotype. Adjusted rate ratios (95% CI) of moderate/severe AECOPDs and all-cause mortality in patients with the study phenotype versus those without were 2.32 (2.22, 2.43) and 1.26 (1.16, 1.37), respectively. For GP visits and non-AECOPD-related unscheduled hospitalizations, adjusted rate ratios (95% CI), in patients with the study phenotype versus those without, were 1.09 (1.05, 1.12) and 1.31 (1.18, 1.46), respectively. Conclusion: Patients with COPD and raised blood eosinophil counts who continue to exacerbate despite MITT represent a distinct subgroup who experience substantial clinical burden and account for high healthcare expenditure. There is a need for more effective management and therapeutic options for these patients.

Limitations for health research with restricted data collection from UK primary care.

PURPOSE: UK primary care provides a rich data source for research. The impact of proposed data collection restrictions is unknown. This study aimed to assess the impact of restricting the scope of electronic health record (EHR) data collection on the ability to conduct research. The study estimated the consequences of restricted data collection on published Clinical Practice Research Datalink studies from high impact journals or referenced in clinical guidelines. METHODS: A structured form was used to systematically analyse the extent to which individual studies would have been possible using a database with data collection restrictions in place: (1) retrospective collection of specified diseases only; (2) retrospective collection restricted to a 6- or 12-year period; (3) prospective and retrospective collection restricted to non-sensitive data. Outcomes were categorised as unfeasible (not reproducible without major bias); compromised (feasible with design modification); or unaffected. RESULTS: Overall, 91% studies were compromised with all restrictions in place; 56% studies were unfeasible even with design modification. With restrictions on diseases alone, 74% studies were compromised; 51% were unfeasible. Restricting collection to 6/12 years had a major impact, with 67 and 22% of studies compromised, respectively. Restricting collection of sensitive data had a lesser but marked impact with 10% studies compromised. CONCLUSION: EHR data collection restrictions can profoundly reduce the capacity for public health research that underpins evidence-based medicine and clinical guidance. National initiatives seeking to collect EHRs should consider the implications of restricting data collection on the ability to address vital public health questions.

Treatment Patterns of New Users of Fluticasone Furoate/Vilanterol in Asthma and COPD in UK Primary Care: Retrospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: This retrospective database study explored treatment patterns and potential off-label prescribing among patients newly prescribed fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) in a UK primary care setting. METHODS: In Europe, FF/VI is approved in two strengths: 100/25 µg for adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and 100/25 µg or 200/25 µg for treatment of asthma in patients aged 12 or older. Using electronic health records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, new users of FF/VI or other inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta-agonist fixed-dose combination products were identified and classified into one of three groups: COPD diagnosis, asthma diagnosis, and other diagnosis (not COPD or asthma). RESULTS: During 2014-2015, 4373 patients initiated FF/VI: 3380 on FF/VI 100/25 (65% in the COPD diagnosis group) and 993 on FF/VI 200/25 (51% in the asthma diagnosis group). During up to 12 months of follow-up, the median number (interquartile range) of prescriptions of the index strength issued per patient was 7 (2-8) for FF/VI 100/25 and 5 (2-8) for FF/VI 200/25; most new users did not change from the index strength prescribed (93.0% COPD; 89.7% asthma, of all patients initiating treatment with FF/VI). Potential off-label FF/VI prescribing in children < 12 years old was rare (< 0.29% in the combined asthma and other diagnosis groups), and up to one in five new users of FF/VI with COPD were potentially prescribed FF/VI 200/25 off-label during the study period. Much of the potential off-label prescribing in COPD occurred in patients with a history of asthma, those presenting with greater disease severity, and/or prior treatment with high-dose steroids. CONCLUSIONS: The prescription of FF/VI is rare in children under 12 years of age in the UK, according to our findings, but up to one in five COPD patients in the UK may have been prescribed FF/VI 200/25, some of which may have been off-label. FUNDING: This study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline plc (study 205052). STUDY REGISTRATION: GlaxoSmithKline plc Clinical Trial Registry study number 205052.

COPD treatment pathways in France: a retrospective analysis of electronic medical record data from general practitioners.

BACKGROUND: Increasing availability of therapeutic options for COPD may drive new treatment pathways. This study describes COPD treatment in France, focusing on identifying initial treatment modifications in patients with COPD who either initiated long-acting bronchodilator (LABD)-based therapy or escalated to triple therapy (long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA] + long-acting ß2-agonist [LABA] + inhaled corticosteroid [ICS]). METHODS: This retrospective analysis of patients with COPD in a large general practitioner database (IQVIA Longitudinal Patient Database) in France included two cohorts: Cohort 1 - new initiators of LABD-based therapy (LAMA, LABA, LAMA + LABA, LAMA + ICS, LABA + ICS or LAMA + LABA + ICS); Cohort 2 - patients escalating to triple therapy from mono- or dual-bronchodilator-based maintenance treatment. Both cohorts were indexed on the date of initiation/escalation (January 2008-December 2013), and the first treatment modification (at class level) within the 18-month post-index observational period was described. Five mutually exclusive outcomes were defined: continuous use (no modification), discontinuation (permanent [≥91 days with no restart] or temporary [≥91 days with subsequent restart]), switch, and augmentation (Cohort 1 only). Exploratory analysis of Cohort 1 explored potential drivers of treatment initiation. RESULTS: Overall, 5,065 patients initiated LABD-based therapy (Cohort 1), and 501 escalated to triple therapy (Cohort 2). In Cohort 1, 7.0% of patients were continuous users, 46.5% discontinued permanently, 28.5% discontinued temporarily, 2.8% augmented (added LAMA and/or LABA and/or ICS), and 15.2% switched therapy. In Cohort 2, 18.2% of patients were continuous users, 7.2% discontinued permanently, 27.9% discontinued temporarily, and 46.7% switched therapy. Exploratory analyses showed that time since COPD diagnosis was first recorded, pre-index exacerbation events, and concomitant medical conditions were potential drivers of initial maintenance treatment choices. CONCLUSION: Discontinuation among new initiators of LABD-based therapy was high in France, whereas few switched or augmented treatment. In comparison, permanent discontinuation within 18 months was low in patients escalating to triple therapy.

Primary data, claims data, and linked data in observational research: the case of COPD in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Real-world evidence (RWE) can inform patient management decisions, but RWE studies are associated with limitations. Linkage of different RWE data types could address such limitations by enriching data and improving scientific quality. Using the example of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in Germany, this study assessed the value of data linkage between primary and secondary data sources for RWE. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of data from an observational RWE study, which used prospectively collected data and data from an insurance claims database to assess treatment adherence and persistence in patients with COPD in Germany. Patient-level primary data were collected from the prospective observational study (primary dataset, N = 636), and claims data from the sickness fund AOK Nordost (claims dataset, N = 74,916). Primary and claims data were linked at a patient level using insurance numbers (linked dataset). Patients in the linked dataset were indexed at date of study inclusion for primary data and matched calendar date for claims data. Agreement between primary and claims data was examined for patients in the linked dataset based on comparisons between recorded sociodemographic data at index, comorbidities (primary: any recorded; claims: pre-index), prescriptions for COPD therapies (type and date) and exacerbations in the 12-month post-index period. RESULTS: The linked dataset included primary and claims data for 536 patients. Fewer comorbid patients were reported in primary data compared with claims data (p < 0.001), with overall agreement between 63.6% (hypertension) and 90.5% (osteoporosis). Number of prescriptions for COPD therapies per patient was lower in primary versus claims data (3.7 vs 10.3 prescriptions, respectively), with only 24.5% of prescriptions recorded in both datasets. Only 11.5% of exacerbations (moderate or severe) were recorded in both datasets, with 15.5% recorded only in primary data and 73.0% recorded only in claims data. CONCLUSION: Our study highlighted discrepancies between primary and claims data capture for this population of German patients with COPD, with lower reporting of comorbidities, COPD therapy prescriptions and exacerbations in primary versus claims data. Study findings suggest that data linkage of primary and claims data could provide enrichment and be useful in fully describing COPD endpoints.

Risk of skin cancer among patients with myotonic dystrophy type 1 based on primary care physician data from the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

Myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) is an inherited multisystem neuromuscular disorder caused by a CTG trinucleotide repeat expansion in the DMPK gene. Recent evidence documents that DM1 patients have an increased risk of certain cancers, but whether skin cancer risks are elevated is unclear. Using the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), we identified 1,061 DM1 patients and 15,119 DM1-free individuals matched on gender, birth year (±2 years), attending practice and registration year (±1 year). We calculated the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association of DM1 diagnosis with skin cancer risk using Cox proportional hazards models, for all skin cancers combined and by histological subtype. Follow-up started at the latest of the age at practice registration, DM1 diagnosis/control selection or January 1st 1988, and ended at the earliest of the age at first skin cancer diagnosis, death, transfer out of the practice, last date of data collection or the end of the CPRD record (October 31, 2016). During a median follow-up of 3.6 years, 35 DM1 patients and 108 matched DM1-free individuals developed a skin cancer. DM1 patients had an increased risk of skin cancer overall (HR = 5.44, 95% CI = 3.33-8.89, p < 0.0001), and basal cell carcinoma (BCC) (HR = 5.78, 95% CI = 3.36-9.92, p < 0.0001). Risks did not differ by gender, or age at DM1 diagnosis (p-heterogeneity > 0.5). Our data confirm suggested associations between DM1 and skin neoplasms with the highest risk seen for BCC. Patients are advised to minimize ultraviolet light exposure and seek medical advice for suspicious lesions.

Association between antibiotic prescribing in pregnancy and cerebral palsy or epilepsy in children born at term: a cohort study using the health improvement network.

BACKGROUND: Between 19%-44% pregnant women are prescribed antibiotics during pregnancy. A single, large randomised-controlled-trial (ORACLE Childhood Study II) found an increased risk of childhood cerebral palsy and possibly epilepsy following prophylactic antibiotic use in pregnant women with spontaneous preterm labour. We ascertained whether this outcome could be reproduced across the population of babies delivered at term and prospectively followed in primary-care using data from The Health Improvement Network. METHODS: We determined the risk of cerebral palsy or epilepsy in children whose mothers were prescribed antibiotics during pregnancy using a cohort of 195,909 women linked to their live, term-born, singleton children. We compared the effect of antibiotic class, number of courses and timing of prescribing in pregnancy. Analyses were adjusted for maternal risk factors (e.g. recorded infection, age, chronic conditions, social deprivation, smoking status). Children were followed until age seven years or cessation of registration with the primary-care practitioner. RESULTS: In total, 64,623 (33.0%) women were prescribed antibiotics in pregnancy and 1,170 (0.60%) children had records indicating cerebral palsy or epilepsy. Adjusted analyses showed no association between prescribing of any antibiotic and cerebral palsy or epilepsy (adj.HR 1.04, 95%CI 0.91-1.19). However, compared with penicillins, macrolides were associated with an increased risk of cerebral palsy or epilepsy (adj.HR 1.78, 95%CI 1.18-2.69; number needed to harm 153, 95%CI 71-671). CONCLUSIONS: We found no overall association between antibiotic prescribing in pregnancy and cerebral palsy and/or epilepsy in childhood. However, our finding of an increased risk of cerebral palsy or epilepsy associated with macrolide prescribing in pregnancy adds to evidence that macrolide use is associated with serious harm.

Monitoring and Evaluating the Effect of Regulatory Action: Some Recent Case Studies.

Large electronic health care databases can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of regulatory action. Designing and interpreting such studies can be challenging. We demonstrate using case studies on modafinil, benzodiazepines, dosulepin, and piroxicam that measuring the impact of regulatory action is possible and can be beneficial, particularly in determining the need for further action or communication. For each case study, we discuss difficulties that may arise when measuring the effectiveness of regulatory action, which include but are not limited to: the choice of denominator, changes in the patient population, the availability and selection of comparators, and the fact that the regulatory voice may be but one voice among many. The evaluation of regulatory action is possible, but not without its challenges, and a routine, one-size-fits all approach is unlikely to be possible.