Efficacy and safety of gefapixant, a P2X3 receptor antagonist, in refractory chronic cough and unexplained chronic cough (COUGH-1 and COUGH-2): results from two double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials.

BACKGROUND: Gefapixant is an oral P2X3 receptor antagonist that has previously shown efficacy and safety in refractory chronic cough and unexplained chronic cough. We therefore aim to confirm the efficacy and safety of gefapixant in participants with refractory chronic cough and unexplained chronic cough. METHODS: COUGH-1 and COUGH-2 were both double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials. COUGH-1 was done in 156 sites in 17 countries and COUGH-2 in 175 sites in 20 countries. We enrolled participants who were 18 years or older with a diagnosis of refractory chronic cough or unexplained chronic cough of 1 year duration or more. Participants were also required to have a cough severity visual analogue scale score of 40 mm or more at screening and baseline. Eligible participants were randomly allocated (1:1:1), using a computer-generated allocation schedule, to one of three treatment groups: placebo, gefapixant 15 mg twice per day, or gefapixant 45 mg twice per day. All study treatments were given orally. Participants were treated over a 12-week main study period in COUGH-1 and a 24-week main study period in COUGH-2; followed by extension periods for a total of up to 52 weeks of treatment in both trials. The primary outcome was placebo-adjusted mean change in 24-h cough frequency at 12 weeks in COUGH-1 and 24 weeks in COUGH-2. Both studies were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03449134 (COUGH-1) and NCT03449147 (COUGH-2). FINDINGS: From March 14, 2018, (first participant screened) to July 26, 2019, (last participant screened) 732 patients were recruited in COUGH-1 and 1317 in COUGH-2. COUGH-1 randomly assigned and treated 730 participants (243 [33×3%] with placebo, 244 [33×4%] with gefapixant 15 mg twice per day, and 243 [33×3%] with gefapixant 45 mg twice per day); COUGH-2 randomly assigned and treated 1314 participants (435 [33×1%] with placebo, 440 [33×5%] with gefapixant 15 mg twice per day, and 439 [33×4%] with gefapixant 45 mg twice per day). Participants were mostly female (542 [74×2%] of 730 in COUGH-1 and 984 [74×9%] of 1314 in COUGH-2). The mean age was 59×0 years (SD 12×6) in COUGH-1 and 58×1 years (12×1) in COUGH-2, and the mean cough duration was 11·6 years (SD 9·5) in COUGH-1 and 11·2 years (9·8) in COUGH-2. Gefapixant 45 mg twice per day showed significant reductions in 24-h cough frequency compared with placebo at week 12 in COUGH-1 (18·5% [95% CI 32·9-0·9]; p=0·041) and at week 24 in COUGH-2 (14·6% [26·1-1·4]; p=0·031). Gefapixant 15 mg twice per day did not show a significant reduction in cough frequency versus placebo in both studies. The most common adverse events were related to taste disturbance: ageusia (36 [4·9%] of 730 in COUGH-1 and 86 [6·5%] of 1314 in COUGH-2), dysgeusia (118 [16·2%] in COUGH-1 and 277 [21·1%] in COUGH-2), hypergeusia (3 [0·4%] in COUGH-1 and 6 [0×5%] in COUGH-2), hypogeusia (19 [2·6%] in COUGH-1 and 80 [6·1%] in COUGH-2), and taste disorder (28 [3·8%] in COUGH-1 and 46 [3·5%] in COUGH-2). INTERPRETATION: Gefapixant 45 mg twice per day is the first treatment to show efficacy with an acceptable safety profile in phase 3 clinical trials for refractory chronic cough or unexplained chronic cough. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Evaluation of factors contributing to the response to fosaprepitant in a heterogeneous, moderately emetogenic chemotherapy population: an exploratory analysis of a randomized phase III trial.

PURPOSE: Fosaprepitant improved prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in a randomized, double-blind phase III trial (PN031). This post hoc analysis explored factors that may have influenced response. METHODS: Adult subjects (N = 1000) scheduled to receive non-anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC) moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) on day 1 were randomly assigned 1:1 to a single-dose, 150-mg intravenous fosaprepitant regimen or a control regimen. Both regimens included dexamethasone and ondansetron on day 1, with ondansetron continuing through day 3 in the control arm only. Complete response (CR; no vomiting and no rescue medication) rates in the acute, delayed, and overall phases (0-25, 25-120, and 0-120 h, respectively) were analyzed by chemotherapy type (carboplatin-based vs non-carboplatin-based), chemotherapy duration (single-day vs multiple-day), and baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Most subjects received single-day chemotherapeutic regimens (70.6%), which were mainly carboplatin-based (67.6%). CR with fosaprepitant was consistent (76-80%) during the delayed and overall phases in carboplatin-based and non-carboplatin-based subgroups and in subgroups receiving single-day or multiple-day MEC regimens. Treatment effects favored fosaprepitant for the carboplatin-based versus the non-carboplatin-based group during the delayed phase (14.1 vs 6.5%; p = 0.06), and for the single-day versus the multiple-day subgroup during the delayed (13.2 vs 3.2%; p = 0.02) and overall phases (12.8 vs 4.0%; p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory analysis confirms that single-dose fosaprepitant is effective for the prevention of CINV in subjects receiving carboplatin or non-carboplatin in both single- and multiple-day non-AC MEC chemotherapy regimens. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01594749.

Identification of factors that support successful implementation of care bundles in the acute medical setting: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines offer an accessible synthesis of the best evidence of effectiveness of interventions, providing recommendations and standards for clinical practice. Many guidelines are relevant to the diagnosis and management of the acutely unwell patient during the first 24-48 h of admission. Care bundles are comprised of a small number of evidence-based interventions that when implemented together aim to achieve better outcomes than when implemented individually. Care bundles that are explicitly developed from guidelines to provide a set of related evidence-based actions have been shown to improve the care of many conditions in emergency, acute and critical care settings. This study aimed to review the implementation of two distinct care bundles in the acute medical setting and identify the factors that supported successful implementation. METHODS: Two initiatives that had used a systematic approach to quality improvement to successfully implement care bundles within the acute medical setting were selected as case studies. Contemporaneous data generated during the initiatives included the review reports, review minutes and audio recordings of the review meetings at different time points. Data were subject to deductive analysis using three domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to identify factors that were important in the implementation of the care bundles. RESULTS: Several factors were identified that directly influenced the implementation of the care bundles. Firstly, the availability of resources to support initiatives, which included training to develop quality improvement skills within the team and building capacity within the organisation more generally. Secondly, the perceived sustainability of changes by stakeholders influenced the embedding new care processes into existing clinical systems, maximising their chance of being sustained. Thirdly, senior leadership support was seen as critical not just in supporting implementation but also in sustaining longer-term changes brought about by the initiative. Lastly, practitioner incentives were identified as potential levers to engage junior doctors, a crucial part of the acute medical work force and essential to the initiatives, as there is currently little recognition or reward for involvement CONCLUSIONS: The factors identified have been shown to be supportive in the successful implementation of care bundles as a mechanism for implementing clinical guidelines. Addressing these factors at a practitioner and organisational level, alongside the use of a systematic quality improvement approach, should increase the likelihood that care bundles will be implemented successfully to deliver evidence based changes in the acute medical setting.

A qualitative evaluation to explore the suitability, feasibility and acceptability of using a 'celebration card' intervention in primary care to improve the uptake of childhood vaccinations.

BACKGROUND: Childhood vaccination remains a primary mechanism for reducing the burden of infectious disease. In the United Kingdom, as in many countries, a sustained effort is required to ensure that vaccination targets are met to afford protection to the whole population from vaccine preventable disease. The Celebrate and Protect programme is a collaborative partnership developed to improve the uptake of childhood vaccination across a number of boroughs within London through the use of a celebration card to encourage attendance for vaccination and enhance relationships between general practices and the parents/carers of children. METHODS: This study was undertaken to assess the suitability, feasibility and acceptability of the Celebrate and Protect programme across nine boroughs in London. Data were collected either from telephone interviews (n = 24) or from focus groups (n = 31). A total of 55 key informants were included in the study, representing strategic, commissioning or policy leads, healthcare professionals and primary care teams delivering vaccinations and parents/carers of children under five. RESULTS: The analysis of data identified that whilst parents/carers saw the celebration card positively this raised the issue of 'vaccine hesitancy' and the lack of information that parents/carers have to make informed decisions about vaccination. Similarly, healthcare professionals viewed the programme positively and felt that it was deliverable within existing resources although they raised wider questions about on-going sustainability and about quantitative data collection. In relation to the collaboration between primary care and a pharmaceutical company in developing the Celebrate and Protect programme, it was generally felt that, provided appropriate governance is in place, it was a pragmatic approach in which the benefits outweighed any perceived disadvantages. DISCUSSION: The Celebrate and Protect programme was seen as an innovative collaborative programme to engage with parents and carers of children in order to improve relationships between service users and providers and subsequently increase vaccination uptake. The analysis demonstrates that that the celebration card is suitable for its purpose, acceptable to both healthcare professionals and to parents/carers of children and the Celebrate and Protect programme has been able to deliver its aims. CONCLUSION: Whilst the delivery of the 'celebration card' intervention in primary met its objectives there are some outstanding issues in terms of the sustainability of the initiative and the ability to demonstrate quantitative improvements in vaccination uptake rates.

Pulmonary rehabilitation following hospitalisation for acute exacerbation of COPD: referrals, uptake and adherence.

RATIONALE: Several randomised controlled trials support the provision of early pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) following hospitalisation for acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). However, there is little real-world data regarding uptake, adherence and completion rates. METHODS: An audit was conducted to prospectively document referral, uptake, adherence and completion rates for early post-hospitalisation outpatient PR in Northwest London over a 12-month period. RESULTS: Out of 448 hospital discharges for AECOPD, 90 referrals for post-hospitalisation PR were received. Only 43 patients received and completed PR (9.6% of all hospital discharges) despite a fully commissioned PR service. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the strong evidence base, there are poor referral and uptake rates for early outpatient PR following hospitalisation for AECOPD, with only a small proportion of the intended target population receiving this intervention.

Improving mental health outcomes: achieving equity through quality improvement.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate equity of patient outcomes in a psychological therapy service, following increased access achieved by a quality improvement (QI) initiative. DESIGN: Retrospective service evaluation of health outcomes; data analysed by ANOVA, chi-squared and Statistical Process Control. SETTING: A psychological therapy service in Westminster, London, UK. PARTICIPANTS: People living in the Borough of Westminster, London, attending the service (from either healthcare professional or self-referral) between February 2009 and May 2012. INTERVENTION: s) Social marketing interventions were used to increase referrals, including the promotion of the service through local media and through existing social networks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: s) (i) Severity of depression on entry using Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ9). (ii) Changes to severity of depression following treatment (ΔPHQ9). (iii) Changes in attainment of a meaningful improvement in condition assessed by a key performance indicator. RESULTS: Patients from areas of high deprivation entered the service with more severe depression (M = 15.47, SD = 6.75), compared with patients from areas of low (M = 13.20, SD = 6.75) and medium (M = 14.44, SD = 6.64) deprivation. Patients in low, medium and high deprivation areas attained similar changes in depression score (ΔPHQ9: M = -6.60, SD = 6.41). Similar proportions of patients achieved the key performance indicator across initiative phase and deprivation categories. CONCLUSIONS: QI methods improved access to mental health services; this paper finds no evidence for differences in clinical outcomes in patients, regardless of level of deprivation, interpreted as no evidence of inequity in the service with respect to this outcome.

Socio-economic deprivation and risk of emergency readmission and inpatient mortality in people with sickle cell disease in England: observational study.

BACKGROUND: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a cause of frequent emergency readmissions. We examined trends in SCD emergency readmissions and inpatient mortality in England in relation to socio-economic status. METHODS: Data from Hospital Episode Statistics were extracted for all SCD patients admitted in 2005/06. The financial year 2005/06 was taken as the index year for analysis. We calculated readmission rates and inpatient mortality for patients admitted with a primary or secondary diagnosis of sickle cell anaemia with crisis and without crisis in the index year during the subsequent 5 years (2006/07-2010/11). Charlson Score was used to measure comorbidity. Using Cox proportional hazards models, we also examined the relationship between patient characteristics and both emergency readmissions and inpatient mortality. RESULTS: In 2005/06, there were 7679 SCD index admissions. Over the subsequent 5-year period, patients living in the most socio-economically deprived areas were at highest risk of readmission (54.2% readmitted over the study period compared with 28% of the least deprived group). Inpatient mortality amongst readmissions was highest in patients living in the most deprived areas [hazard ratio (HR) 2.34, 95% CI 1.41-3.90]. CONCLUSION: SCD patients from the most socio-economically deprived areas and with comorbidities are at highest risk of both SCD readmissions and in-hospital mortality, suggesting that there are inequalities in healthcare access and health outcomes amongst people with SCD.

Mapping mental health service access: achieving equity through quality improvement.

BACKGROUND: Improving access to psychological therapies (IAPTs) services deliver evidence-based care to people with depression and anxiety. A quality improvement (QI) initiative was undertaken by an IAPT service to improve referrals providing an opportunity to evaluate equitable access. METHODS: QI methodologies were used by the clinical team to improve referrals to the service. The collection of geo-coded data allowed referrals to be mapped to small geographical areas according to deprivation. RESULTS: A total of 6078 patients were referred to the IAPT service during the period of analysis and mapped to 120 unique lower super output areas (LSOAs). The average weekly referral rate rose from 17 during the baseline phase to 43 during the QI implementation phase. Spatial analysis demonstrated all 15 of the high deprivation/low referral LSOAs were converted to high deprivation/high or medium referral LSOAs following the QI initiative. CONCLUSION: This work highlights the importance of QI in developing clinical services aligned to the needs of the population through the analysis of routine data matched to health needs. Mapping can be utilized to communicate complex information to inform the planning and organization of clinical service delivery and evaluate the progress and sustainability of QI initiatives.

Trends in hospital admissions for sickle cell disease in England, 2001/02-2009/10.

BACKGROUND: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a rising cause of mortality and morbidity in England and consequently an important policy issue for the National Health Service. There has been no previous study that has examined SCD admission rates in England. METHODS: Data from Hospital Episode Statistics were analysed for all hospital episodes (2001/10) in England with a primary diagnosis of sickle cell anaemia with crisis (D57.0) or without crisis (D57.1). Secondary and tertiary diagnoses were examined among those patients admitted with either of these codes as their primary diagnosis. RESULTS: The overall SCD admission rate per 100 000 has risen from 21.2 in 2001/02 to 33.5 in 2009/10, a rise of over 50%. London accounts for 74.9% of all SCD admissions in England. 57.9% of patients admitted are discharged within 24 h. The largest rise in admission rates was seen among males aged 40-49 years where admission rates per 100 000 increased from 7.6 to 26.8 over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that SCD admissions are rising in England, particularly in London. Over half of patients admitted with SCD were discharged within 24 h, suggesting that some of these admissions could be prevented through better ambulatory care of patients.

A randomized placebo-controlled study of intravenous montelukast for the treatment of acute asthma.

BACKGROUND: Current treatments for acute asthma provide inadequate benefit for some patients. Intravenous montelukast may complement existent therapies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate efficacy of intravenous montelukast as adjunctive therapy for acute asthma. METHODS: A total of 583 adults with acute asthma were treated with standard care during a < or = 60-minute screening period. Patients with FEV(1) < or =50% predicted were randomly allocated to intravenous montelukast 7 mg (n = 291) or placebo (n = 292) in addition to standard care. This double-blind treatment period lasted until a decision for discharge, hospital admission, or discontinuation from the study. The primary efficacy endpoint was the time-weighted average change in FEV(1) during 60 minutes after drug administration. Secondary endpoints included the time-weighted average change in FEV(1) at various intervals (10-120 minutes) and percentage of patients with treatment failure (defined as hospitalization or lack of decision to discharge by 3 hours postadministration). RESULTS: Montelukast significantly increased FEV(1) at 60 minutes postdose; the difference between change from baseline for placebo (least-squares mean of 0.22 L; 95% CI, 0.17, 0.27) and montelukast (0.32 L; 95% CI, 0.27, 0.37) was 0.10 L (95% CI, 0.04, 0.16). Similar improvements in FEV(1)-related variables were seen at all time points (all P <.05). Although treatment failure did not differ between groups (OR 0.92; 95% CI, 0.63, 1.34), a prespecified subgroup analysis suggests likely benefit for intravenous montelukast at US sites. CONCLUSION: Intravenous montelukast added to standard care in adults with acute asthma produced significant relief of airway obstruction throughout the 2 hours after administration, with an onset of action as early as 10 minutes.