Search

Purpose: Associations between systemic glucocorticoid (SGC) exposure and risk for adverse outcomes have spurred a move toward steroid-sparing treatment strategies. Real-world changes in SGC exposure over time, after the introduction of steroid-sparing treatment strategies, reveal areas of successful risk mitigation as well as unmet needs. Patients and Methods: A population-based ecological study was performed from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database to describe SGC prescribing trends of steroid-sparing treatment strategies in primary care practices before and after licensure of biologics in the United Kingdom from 1990 to 2019. Each analysis year included patients aged ≥ 5 years who were registered for ≥ 1 year with a participating primary care practice. The primary analysis was SGC exposure, defined as total cumulative SGC dose per patient per year, for asthma, severe asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), nasal polyps, Crohn's disease, rheumatoid arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and systemic lupus erythematosus. Secondary outcomes were percentages of patients prescribed SGCs and number of SGC prescriptions per patient per year. Results: The number of patients who met study inclusion criteria ranged from 219,862 (1990) to 1,261,550 (2019). At the population level, patients with asthma or COPD accounted for 67.7% to 73.2% of patients per year with an SGC prescription. Over three decades, decreases in SGC total yearly dose ≥ 1000 mg have been achieved in multiple conditions. Patients with COPD prescribed SGCs increased from 5.8% (1990) to 34.8% (2017). SGC prescribing trends for severe asthma, Crohn's disease, and ulcerative colitis show decreased prescribing trends after the introduction of biologics. Conclusion: Decreases in total yearly SGC doses have been shown in multiple conditions; however, for conditions such as severe asthma and COPD, an unmet need remains for increased awareness of SGC burden and the adoption or development of SGC-sparing alternatives to reduce overuse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Electronic medical records (EMRs) maintained in primary care in the UK and collected and stored in EMR databases offer a world-leading resource for observational clinical research. We aimed to profile one such database: the Optimum Patient Care Research Database (OPCRD).Methods and Participants: The OPCRD, incepted in 2010, is a growing primary care EMR database collecting data from 992 general practices within the UK. It covers over 16.6 million patients across all four countries within the UK, and is broadly representative of the UK population in terms of age, sex, ethnicity and socio-economic status. Patients have a mean duration of 11.7 years' follow-up (SD 17.50), with a majority having key summary data from birth to last data entry. Data for the OPCRD are collected incrementally monthly and extracted from all of the major clinical software systems used within the UK and across all four coding systems (Read version 2, Read CTV3, SNOMED DM+D and SNOMED CT codes). Via quality-improvement programmes provided to GP surgeries, the OPCRD also includes patient-reported outcomes from a range of disease-specific validated questionnaires, with over 66,000 patient responses on asthma, COPD, and COVID-19. Further, bespoke data collection is possible by working with GPs to collect new research via patient-reported questionnaires.Findings to Date: The OPCRD has contributed to over 96 peer-reviewed research publications since its inception encompassing a broad range of medical conditions, including COVID-19.Conclusion: The OPCRD represents a unique resource with great potential to support epidemiological research, from retrospective observational studies through to embedded cluster-randomised trials. Advantages of the OPCRD over other EMR databases are its large size, UK-wide geographical coverage, the availability of up-to-date patient data from all major GP software systems, and the unique collection of patient-reported information on respiratory health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Data to better understand and manage the COVID-19 pandemic is urgently needed. However, there are gaps in information stored within even the best routinely-collected electronic health records (EHR) including test results, remote consultations for suspected COVID-19, shielding, physical activity, mental health, and undiagnosed or untested COVID-19 patients. Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute (OPRI) Singapore and Optimum Patient Care (OPC) UK established Platform C19, a research database combining EHR data and bespoke patient questionnaire. We describe the demographics, clinical characteristics, patient behavior, and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic using data within Platform C19. Methods: EHR data from Platform C19 were extracted from 14 practices across UK participating in the OPC COVID-19 Quality Improvement program on a continuous, monthly basis. Starting 7th August 2020, consenting patients aged 18–85 years were invited in waves to fill an online questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were summarized using all data available up to 22nd January 2021. Findings: From 129,978 invitees, 31,033 responded. Respondents were predominantly female (59.6%), white (93.5%), and current or ex-smokers (52.6%). Testing for COVID-19 was received by 23.8% of respondents, of which 7.9% received positive results. COVID-19 symptoms lasted ≥4 weeks in 19.5% of COVID-19 positive respondents. Up to 39% respondents reported a negative impact on questions regarding their mental health. Most (67%-76%) respondents with asthma, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), diabetes, heart, or kidney disease reported no change in the condition of their diseases. Interpretation: Platform C19 will enable research on key questions relating to COVID-19 pandemic not possible using EHR data alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although prevalence of co-existing type 2 inflammatory diseases (cT2) in asthma patients has been reported, limited data exist regarding their impact on asthma outcomes. Objective: To assess the impact of cT2 burden on asthma outcomes and to evaluate patterns of clustering of cT2 in a real-world setting. Methods: From medical records of 4.5 million enrollees in 650 primary care practices in the UK (January 2010–December 2017), patients with ≥ 1 diagnosis code for asthma at any time pre-index date (date of most recent asthma-related medical encounter) and ≥ 2 asthma-related prescriptions during the year before index date were categorized into the Global Initiative of Asthma (GINA) guideline severity steps. A cT2 burden score (range 0– 9) was assigned based on the total number of co-existing conditions (allergic conjunctivitis, allergic rhinitis, anaphylaxis, eczema/atopic dermatitis, chronic rhinosinusitis, eosinophilic esophagitis, food allergy, nasal polyps, or urticaria) for which patients received a medical diagnosis. Multivariate regression models evaluated associations between cT2 burden score and asthma exacerbations and asthma control. Factor analysis was performed to assess which cT2 comorbidities were correlated and exhibited patterns of clustering. Results: Overall, 245,893 patients with asthma were included (mean [SD] age 44.8 [22.1] years; 43.8% male). Between 55% (GINA step 1) and 60% (GINA step 5) of asthma patients had a medical diagnosis for ≥ 1 other type2dx. Patients with increased cT2 burden were significantly more likely to experience asthma exacerbations and less likely to achieve asthma control. Conclusion: Asthma patients with a higher cumulative cT2 burden score were more likely to experience worse asthma outcomes than those without any cT2 (burden score of 0). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Eosinophil count elevations are predictive of adverse outcomes in patients with asthma, yet little is known regarding longitudinal eosinophil patterns and their association with clinical outcomes. The goal of this study was to assess associations between longitudinal persistence of eosinophil elevations and both clinical outcomes and health care resource utilization (HCRU). Methods: Data were extracted from 2 databases in the United Kingdom. Patients included were aged ≥ 13 years, had active asthma, and had ≥ 3 blood eosinophil count (BEC) recordings. Patients were categorized by BEC as: never high (all BEC ≤ 300 cells/μL), intermittently high (≥ 1 BEC > 300 cells/μL but < 75% of BEC > 300 cells/μL), or persistently high (≥ 75% of BEC > 300 cells/μL). Asthma exacerbations, asthma control (risk domain, overall, and full), and HCRU were evaluated for 12 months after the last BEC. Results: The study population comprised 148,021 patients. Persistently high, intermittently high, and never high eosinophil patterns were detected in 13.6%, 40.5%, and 45.9% of patients, respectively. Patients with ≥ 1 elevated BEC were at greater risk for severe asthma exacerbations, regardless of whether the elevation was persistent (rate ratio [RR]: 1.28 [95% CI 1.24– 1.33]; P < 0.001) or intermittent (RR: 1.24 [95% CI 1.21– 1.27]; P < 0.001), compared with patients with no eosinophil elevations. Full asthma control was achieved by < 25% of patients across eosinophil pattern groups, and HCRU did not appreciably differ, although patients with persistently high BEC had the shortest hospital stay duration among the groups. Conclusion: These data suggest that elevated blood eosinophils, regardless of persistency, signify increased risk of severe asthma exacerbations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist (ICS/LABA) fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate (FP/FORM; Flutiform®) has been available as fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy for asthma patients aged ≥ 12 years in the UK since 2012. This post-authorisation safety study examined adverse outcomes and prescribing practices for FP/FORM and other FDC ICS/LABA therapies in a real-life clinical setting over 36 months. Methods: Historical, longitudinal cohort database study using UK primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) database, for patients initiated on or switched to an FDC ICS/LABA (ENCePP study number: EUPAS12330). The main cohort was adults aged ≥ 18 years with asthma. The primary outcome was incidence of new adverse outcomes after initiation of ICS/LABA; hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals were estimated for FP/FORM versus other FDC ICS/LABAs using Cox regression models. Results: A total of 241,007 patients with an FDC ICS/LABA prescription were identified. In the adult asthma cohort (N = 41,609), the incidence rate of new adverse outcomes [in 100 patient-years (py)] was significantly lower for FP/FORM (24.75) versus fluticasone/salmeterol metered-dose inhaler [8.86; HR 1.14 (1.04, 1.25)], fluticasone/salmeterol dry powder inhaler [31.19; HR 1.18 (1.08, 1.29)], budesonide/formoterol [25.16; HR: 1.13 (1.03, 1.25)] and beclometasone/formoterol [25.47; HR 1.14 (1.04, 1.25)]. The overall prescribing rate was lower for FP/FORM (13.85 per 1000/py) than licensed FDC ICS/LABA comparators (20.30–28.13 per 1000/py). Of those prescribed FP/FORM, 80.8% were adults with asthma and < 7% were prescribed FP/FORM "off-label". Conclusions: The results suggest that FP/FORM was associated with an overall lower adverse outcome rate than the licensed comparators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite the availability of guidance for the provision of good end-of-life care, there are significant variations across the UK in its delivery. This study sought to identify the influences on end-of-life treatment and care planning across several areas where deficiencies in evidence-based practice have been identified, and to develop consensus among healthcare providers and users for recommendations on how to address these deficits., Methods: An online survey (106 responses), qualitative interviews (55 participants) and a consensus-building exercise (475 participants in the initial round) were undertaken. Participants included people approaching the end of life, people important to them, and health and care practitioners who help people plan for the end of life or provide end-of-life care. Recruitment was via online methods, including social media and online newsletters of relevant charities and professional organisations. Thematic analysis using the framework method was used to analyse qualitative data. Synthesis of qualitative and quantitative data led to the development of statements regarding recommendations for advancing implementation of good practice. A two-stage consensus-building exercise asked respondents first to rate these statements and then to rate and rank further sub-recommendations in three areas., Results: Results from the consensus building exercise confirmed that end-of-life care planning conversations are to be welcomed and encouraged, and that the priority should be to have the conversation (which could be initiated by a range of professionals, or people planning end-of-life care themselves), rather than to wait for an ideal time to have it. Further rounds identified specific components of a standardised record of end-of-life treatment and care preferences that should be prioritised, specific health and care staff that should be empowered through training in advanced communication, and aspects of communication most important to include in training for healthcare professionals., Conclusions: Our study has identified opportunities for action to improve end-of-life treatment and care by combining multiple stakeholder perspectives and building consensus among them: the resulting recommendations have sufficient granularity to be implemented and evaluated. They are of relevance to policy makers, those who train healthcare professionals, and those looking after patients approaching the end of life., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Real-life research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol (BGF) in routine COPD primary care management. We assessed the frequency of medication success among patients with COPD who initiated BGF using real-world data., Patients and Methods: Patients with a recorded diagnostic COPD code who started BGF with ≥2 prescriptions within 90-days were identified in the UK Optimum Patient Care Research Database and followed from first prescription until censoring at the end of follow-up (180-days), death, leaving database or end of data at 24/10/2022. The primary outcome was medication success at 90-days post-BGF initiation, defined as no major cardiac or respiratory event (ie no complicated COPD exacerbation, hospitalization for any respiratory event, myocardial infarction, new/hospitalized heart failure, and death) and no incidence of pneumonia. Medication success was also assessed at 180-days post-BGF initiation. Overall real-life medication success was claimed if the lower 95% confidence interval (CI) for the proportion of patients meeting the primary outcome was ≥70% (defined a priori)., Results: Two hundred eighty-five patients were included. Prior to BGF initiation, these patients often had severe airflow obstruction (mean ppFEV 1 : 54.5%), were highly symptomatic (mMRC ≥2: 77.9% (n = 205/263); mean CAT score: 21.7 (SD 7.8)), with evidence of short-acting β 2 -agonist (SABA) over-use (≥3 inhalers/year: 62.1%, n=179/285), repeat OCS prescriptions (≥2 courses/year: 33.0%, n = 95/285) and multiple primary care consultations (≥2 visits/year: 61.1%, n = 174/285). Overall, 39.6% of patients (n = 113/285) switched from previous triple therapies. Real-life medication success was achieved by 96.5% of patients (n = 275/285 [95% CI: 93.6, 98.3]) during 90-days treatment with BGF and by 91.8% (n = 169/184 [95% CI: 86.9, 95.4]) of patients at 180-days. The prescribed daily dose of SABA remained stable over the study period., Conclusion: The majority of patients initiating BGF experienced real-life medication success reflecting the absence of severe cardiopulmonary events. These benefits were apparent after 90-days of treatment and sustained over 180-days., Competing Interests: Hana Müllerová, Stefan Franzén, Johann Castaneda, and Jonathan Marshall are employees of, and own stock in, AstraZeneca. Jeffrey Shi Kai Chan, Heath Heatley, Victoria Carter, John Townend, and Derek Skinner are employees of Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute. David Price has advisory board membership with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Viatris, Teva Pharmaceuticals; consultancy agreements with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Viatris, Teva Pharmaceuticals; consultancy and lecture fees from Medscape, Inside Practice paid to Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute; grants and unrestricted funding for investigator-initiated studies (conducted through Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd) from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Viatris, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, and UK National Health Service; payment for lectures/speaking engagements from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, GlaxoSmithKline, Viatris, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals; payment for travel/accommodation/meeting expenses from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Teva Pharmaceuticals; stock/stock options from AKL Research and Development Ltd which produces phytopharmaceuticals; owns 74% of the social enterprise Optimum Patient Care Ltd (Australia and UK) and 92.61% of Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd (Singapore); 5% shareholding in Timestamp which develops adherence monitoring technology; is peer reviewer for grant committees of the UK Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, and Health Technology Assessment; and was an expert witness for GlaxoSmithKline. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2024 Müllerová et al.)

Introduction: Oral corticosteroids (OCS) for asthma are associated with increased risks of developing adverse outcomes (adverse outcomes); no previous study has focused exclusively on intermittent OCS use., Methods: This historical (2008-2019) UK cohort study using primary care medical records from two anonymised, real-life databases (OPCRD and CPRD) included patients aged≥4 years with asthma receiving only intermittent OCS. Patients were indexed on their first recorded intermittent OCS prescription for asthma and categorised by OCS prescribing patterns: one-off (single), less frequent (≥90 day gap) and frequent (<90 day gap). Non-OCS patients matched 1:1 on gender, age and index date served as controls. The association of OCS prescribing patterns with OCS-related AO risk was studied, stratified by age, Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 2020 treatment step, and pre index inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and short-acting β 2 -agonist (SABA) prescriptions using a multivariable Cox-proportional hazard model., Findings: Of 476 167 eligible patients, 41.7%, 26.8% and 31.6% had one-off, less frequent and frequent intermittent OCS prescribing patterns, respectively. Risk of any AO increased with increasingly frequent patterns of intermittent OCS versus non-OCS (HR; 95% CI: one-off 1.19 (1.18 to 1.20), less frequent 1.35 (1.34 to 1.36), frequent 1.42 (1.42 to 1.43)), and was consistent across age, GINA treatment step and ICS and SABA subgroups. The highest risks of individual OCS-related adverse outcomes with increasingly frequent OCS were for pneumonia and sleep apnoea., Conclusion: A considerable proportion of patients with asthma receiving intermittent OCS experienced a frequent prescribing pattern. Increasingly frequent OCS prescribing patterns were associated with higher risk of OCS-related adverse outcomes. Mitigation strategies are needed to minimise intermittent OCS prescription in primary care., Competing Interests: Competing interests: HH, DS, JSKC, CA and VC are employees of Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Singapore who conducted this study, funded by AstraZeneca. JC, EM and TNT are employees of, and own stock in, AstraZeneca. AB has received consultancy fees and speakers’ fees from of AstraZeneca, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Regeneron and Chiesi, and research grants from GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim and AstraZeneca. AM-G has received grants, advisory board fees, lecture fees and consulting fees from AstraZeneca; advisory board fees from GlaxoSmithKline; advisory board fees and lecture fees from Novartis; advisory board fees, lecture fees and travel expenses from Teva; advisory board fees from Regeneron; advisory board fees, lecture fees and consulting fees from Sanofi. DJJ has received consultancy fees and speakers’ fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Regeneron and Chiesi, and research grants from AstraZeneca. JH reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, Circassia and Teva unrelated to the conduct of the study. DP has advisory board membership with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Mylan, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, Thermofisher; consultancy agreements with Airway Vista Secretariat, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, EPG Communication Holdings Ltd, FIECON Ltd, Fieldwork International, GlaxoSmithKline, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, OM Pharma SA, PeerVoice, Phadia AB, Spirosure Inc, Strategic North Limited, Synapse Research Management Partners S.L., Talos Health Solutions, Theravance and WebMD Global LLC; grants and unrestricted funding for investigator-initiated studies (conducted through Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd) from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Mylan, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Respiratory Effectiveness Group, Sanofi Genzyme, Theravance and UK National Health Service; payment for lectures/speaking engagements from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, GlaxoSmithKline, Kyorin, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi Genzyme; payment for travel/accommodation/meeting expenses from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mundipharma, Mylan, Novartis, Thermofisher; stock/stock options from AKL Research and Development Ltd which produces phytopharmaceuticals; owns 74% of the social enterprise Optimum Patient Care Ltd (Australia and UK) and 92.61% of Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd (Singapore); 5% shareholding in Timestamp which develops adherence monitoring technology; is peer reviewer for grant committees of the UK Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, and Health Technology Assessment; and was an expert witness for GlaxoSmithKline., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: It is unclear whether patients with asthma benefit from stepping up to high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs)., Objective: To determine the effectiveness of stepping up to high-dose ICSs., Methods: A historic cohort study of patients with asthma (≥13 years old), identified from 2 large UK electronic medical record databases, was conducted. Patients who remained on medium-dose ICSs were compared with those who stepped up from medium- to high-dose ICSs, whereas patients who stepped up from low- to medium-dose ICSs were compared with those who stepped up from low- to high-dose ICSs. Time to first severe exacerbation (primary outcome) between treatment groups was compared using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, and the number of exacerbations and antibiotics courses was analyzed using negative binomial regression. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to handle confounding., Results: The mean follow-up time to first exacerbation was 2.7 ± 2.7 years for those who remained on stable medium-dose ICSs and 2.0 ± 2.2 years for those who stepped up from medium- to high-dose ICSs. A similar pattern was noted for those who stepped up from low- to medium-dose ICSs (2.6 ± 2.5 years) and from low- to high-dose ICSs (2.3 ± 2.5 years). Patients who stepped up from medium- to high-dose ICSs (n = 6879) had a higher risk of exacerbations during follow-up compared with those who remained on medium-dose ICSs (n = 51,737; hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.12-1.22). This was similar in patients stepping up from low- to high-dose (n = 3232) compared with low- to medium-dose (n = 12,659) ICSs (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.04-1.17). A step-up to high-dose ICSs was also associated with a higher number of asthma exacerbations and antibiotics courses. No significant difference in associations was found across subgroups of patients with different blood eosinophil counts., Conclusions: We found no evidence that a step-up to high-dose ICSs is effective in preventing future asthma exacerbations., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Severe asthma may be underrecognized in primary care., Objective: Identify and quantify patients with potential severe asthma (PSA) in UK primary care, the proportion not referred, and compare primary care patients with PSA with patients with confirmed severe asthma from UK tertiary care., Methods: This was a historical cohort study including patients from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database (aged ≥16 years, active asthma diagnosis pre-2014) and UK patients in the International Severe Asthma Registry (UK-ISAR aged ≥18 years, confirmed severe asthma in tertiary care). In the OPCRD, PSA was defined as Global INitiative for Asthma 2018 step 4 treatment and 2 or more exacerbations/y or at Global INitiative for Asthma step 5. The proportion of these patients and their referral status in the last year were quantified. Demographic and clinical characteristics of groups were compared., Results: Of 207,557 Optimum Patient Care Research Database patients with asthma, 16,409 (8%) had PSA. Of these, 72% had no referral/specialist review in the past year. Referred patients with PSA tended to have greater prevalence of inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β 2 -agonist add-ons (54.1 vs 39.8%), and experienced significantly (P < .001) more exacerbations per year (median, 3 vs 2/y), worse asthma control, and worse lung function (% predicted postbronchodilator FEV 1 /forced vital capacity, 0.69 vs 0.72) versus nonreferred patients. Confirmed patients with severe asthma (ie, UK patients in the International Severe Asthma Registry) were younger (51 vs 65 years; P < .001), and significantly (P < .001) more likely to have uncontrolled asthma (91.4% vs 62.5%), a higher exacerbation rate (4/y [initial assessment] vs 3/y), use inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β 2 -agonist add-ons (67.7% vs 54.1%), and have nasal polyposis (24.2% vs 6.8) than referred patients with PSA., Conclusions: Large numbers of patients with PSA in the United Kingdom are underrecognized in primary care. These patients would benefit from a more systematic assessment in primary care and possible specialist referral., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To explore the clinical pathways, including signs and symptoms, and symptom progression patterns preceding idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) diagnosis., Design and Setting: A historical cohort study was conducted using primary care patient records from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database., Participants: Patients included were at least 30 years, had IPF diagnosis, identified via clinical-coding and free-text records and had a consultation with a chest specialist prior to IPF diagnosis., Outcome Measures: The signs and symptoms in the year prior to IPF diagnosis from clinical codes and free-text in primary care electronic records included: cough, dyspnoea, dry cough, weight loss, fatigue/malaise, loss of appetite, crackles and clubbed fingers. The time course of presentations of clinical features and investigations in the years prior to IPF diagnosis were mapped., Results: Within 462 patients identified, the majority (77.9%) had a respiratory consultation within 365 days prior to the chest specialist visit preceding the IPF diagnosis recorded in their primary care records. The most common symptoms recorded in the 1 year prior to IPF diagnosis were dyspnoea (48.7%) and cough (40.9%); other signs and symptoms were rarely recorded (<5%). The majority of patients with cough (58.0%) and dyspnoea (55.0%) in the 1 year before IPF diagnosis had multiple recordings of the respective symptoms. Both cough and dyspnoea were recorded in 23.4% of patients in the year prior to diagnosis. Consultation rates for cough, dyspnoea and both, but not other signs or symptoms, began to increase 4 to 5 years prior diagnosis, with the sharpest increase in the last year. Cough and dyspnoea were often preceded by a reduction in measured weight over 5 years leading to IPF diagnosis., Conclusion: Prolonged cough and/or progressive dyspnoea, especially if accompanied with weight loss, should signal for a referral to specialist assessment at the earliest opportunity., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DT has research contracts with GlaxoSmithKline, Roche and Boehringer Ingelheim.RJ declares grants from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; and personal fees for consultancy, speakers fees or travel support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Nutricia, OPRI and Pfizer.DP has board membership with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Circassia, Mylan, Mundipharma, Napp, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals; consultancy agreements with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Mylan, Mundipharma, Napp, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theravance; grants and unrestricted funding for investigator-initiated studies (conducted through Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd) from AKL Research and Development Ltd, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, British Lung Foundation, Chiesi, Circassia, Mylan, Mundipharma, Napp, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Respiratory Effectiveness Group, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theravance, UK National Health Service, Zentiva (Sanofi Generics); payment for lectures/speaking engagements from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, GlaxoSmithKline, Kyorin, Mylan, Merck, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals; payment for manuscript preparation from Mundipharma, Teva Pharmaceuticals; payment for the development of educational materials from Mundipharma, Novartis; payment for travel/accommodation/meeting expenses from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Circassia, Mundipharma, Napp, Novartis, Teva Pharmaceuticals; funding for patient enrolment or completion of research from Chiesi, Novartis, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Zentiva (Sanofi Generics); stock/stock options from AKL Research and Development Ltd which produces phytopharmaceuticals; owns 74% of the social enterprise Optimum Patient Care Ltd (Australia and UK) and 74% of Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd (Singapore) and is peer reviewer for grant committees of the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme and Health Technology Assessment.AMW reports investigator-initiated research grant funding from Roche.JV, RR, SY, MO, PR, IC, VC and AJ are employees of Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd, which has conducted paid research in respiratory disease on behalf of the following organisations in the past 5 years: Anaxys, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, British Lung Foundation, Chiesi, Circassia (formerly Aerocrine), GlaxoSmithKline, Harvey Walsh, Mapi, Morningside Healthcare, Mundipharma, Mylan (formerly Meda), Napp, Novartis, Orion, Plymouth University, Regeneron, Respiratory Effectiveness Group, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, Teva, University of East Anglia, Zentiva (a Sanofi company)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Factors related to the discrepancy between patient-perceived and actual disease control remain unclear. Identifying patients at risk of overestimation of asthma control remains elusive. This study aimed to (i) investigate the relationship between patient-reported and actual level of asthma control (ii), compare the characteristics between patients who believe their asthma is well controlled that accurately report 'well-controlled' asthma with those that do not, and (iii) identify factors associated with inaccurately reported 'well-controlled' asthma. A historical, multinational, cross-sectional study using data from the iHARP (initiative Helping Asthma in Real-life Patients) review service for adults with asthma prescribed fixed-dose combination therapy. Data from 4274 patients were analysed. A major discrepancy between patient-reported and Global Initiative for Asthma defined asthma control was detected; 71.1% of patients who reported 'well-controlled' asthma were inaccurate in their perception despite receiving regular maintenance therapy. Significant differences were noted in age, gender, body mass index, education level, medication use, side effects, attitudes to preventer inhaler use, inhaler technique review and respiratory specialist review between patients who accurately reported 'well-controlled' asthma and those who did not. Independent risk factors associated with inaccurately reported 'well-controlled' asthma were: having taken a maximum of 5-12 puffs or more of reliever inhaler on at least one day within the previous 4 weeks; being female; having seen a respiratory specialist more than a year ago (rather than in the previous year); and having required oral corticosteroids for worsening asthma in the previous year. The study highlighted the significant hidden burden associated with under-recognition of poor asthma control, on the part of the patient and the need for targeted interventions designed to address the continuing discrepancy between perceived and actual disease control.

Rationale: Adults may exhibit characteristics of both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a situation recently described as asthma-COPD overlap (ACO). There is a paucity of information about ACO in primary care. Objectives: To estimate the prevalence and describe characteristics of individuals with ACO in primary care practices among patients currently diagnosed with asthma, COPD, or both; and to compare the prevalence and characteristics of ACO among the three source populations. Methods: The Respiratory Effectiveness Group conducted a cross-sectional study of individuals ≥40 years old and with ≥2 outpatient primary care visits over a 2-year period in the UK Optimum Patient Care Research Database. Patients were classified into one of three source populations based on diagnostic codes: 1 ) COPD only, 2 ) both asthma and COPD, or 3 ) asthma only. ACO was defined as the presence of all of the following 1 ) age ≥40 years, 2 ) current or former smoking, 3) post-bronchodilator airflow limitation (forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity <0.7), and 4 ) ≥12% and ≥200 ml reversibility in post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second. Results: Among 2,165 individuals (1,015 COPD only, 395 with both asthma and COPD, and 755 asthma only), the overall prevalence of ACO was 20% (95% confidence interval, 18-23%). Patients with ACO had a mean age of 70 years (standard deviation, 11 yr), 60% were men, 73% were former smokers (the rest were current smokers), and 66% were overweight or obese. Comorbid conditions were common in patients with ACO, including diabetes (53%), cardiovascular disease (36%), hypertension (30%), eczema (23%), and rhinitis (21%). The prevalence of ACO was higher in patients with a diagnosis of both asthma and COPD (32%) compared with a diagnosis of COPD only (20%; P  < 0.001) or asthma only (14%; P  < 0.001). Demographic and clinical characteristics of ACO varied across these three source populations. Conclusions: One in five individuals with a diagnosis of COPD, asthma, or both asthma and COPD in primary care settings have ACO based on the Respiratory Effectiveness Group ACO Working group criteria. The prevalence and characteristics of patients with ACO varies across the three source populations.

Objectives: Budesonide/formoterol (BF) Spiromax ® is an inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β 2 -agonist fixed-dose combination (FDC) inhaler, designed to minimise common inhaler errors and provide reliable and consistent dose delivery in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We evaluated non-inferiority of BF Spiromax after changing from another FDC inhaler, compared with continuing the original inhaler., Methods: Patients with asthma and/or COPD who switched to BF Spiromax were matched (1:3) with non-switchers. Data were obtained from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database and Clinical Practice Research Datalink in the UK. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving disease control (using the risk domain control (RDC) algorithm); secondary end points were: exacerbation rate, short-acting β 2 -agonist (SABA) use and treatment stability (achieved RDC; no maintenance treatment change). Non-inferiority was defined as having 95% CI lower bound above -10%, using conditional logistic regression and adjusted for relevant confounders., Results: Comparing 385 matched patients (asthma 253; COPD 132) who switched to BF Spiromax with 1091 (asthma 743; COPD 348) non-switchers, non-inferiority of BF Spiromax in RDC was demonstrated (adjusted difference: +6.6%; 95% CI -0.3 to 13.5). Among patients with asthma, switchers to BF Spiromax versus BF Turbuhaler ® reported fewer exacerbations (adjusted rate ratio (RR) 0.76;95% CI 0.60 to 0.99; p=0.044); were less likely to use high daily doses of SABA (adjusted OR 0.71;95% CI 0.52 to 0.98; p=0.034); used fewer SABA inhalers (adjusted RR 0.92;95% CI 0.86 to 0.99; p=0.019); and were more likely to achieve treatment stability (adjusted OR 1.44;95% CI 1.02 to 2.04; p=0.037). No significant differences in these end points were seen among patients with COPD., Conclusions: Among UK patients with asthma and COPD, real-world use of BF Spiromax was non-inferior to BF Turbuhaler in terms of disease control. Among patients with asthma, switching to BF Spiromax was associated with reduced exacerbations, reduced SABA use and improved treatment stability versus continuing on BF Turbuhaler., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JV and VC are employees of OPRI, which has conducted paid research in respiratory disease on behalf of the following organisations in the past 5 years: Aerocrine, AKL Research and Development Ltd, Almirall, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Meda, Mundipharma, Napp, Novartis, Orion, Takeda, Teva, Zentiva (a Sanofi company). NR reports grants and personal fees from BoehringerIngelheim, Novartis, and personal fees from Teva, GSK, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Mundipharma, Cipla, Sanofi, Sandoz, 3M, Pfizer, Zambon, outside the presented work. HB is an employee of Teva Pharmaceuticals. MvdT was an employee of Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV at the time the study was conducted. JFMvB has received consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, speaker fees from Menarini, research support from GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astrazeneca and Chiesi and travel support from the European COPD Coalition and the Respiratory Effectiveness Group. LB has during the last 3 years received honoraria to participate or to give lectures for the following companies: ALK, AstraZeneca, Boehringer, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithklein, Novartis and Teva. MM declares no relevant competing interests. DBP has board membership with Aerocrine, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Mylan, Mundipharma, Napp, Novartis, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; consultancy agreements with Almirall, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Mylan, Mundipharma, Napp, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva Pharmaceuticals and Theravance; grants and unrestricted funding for investigator initiated studies (conducted through Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd) from Aerocrine, AKL Research and Development Ltd, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, British Lung Foundation, Chiesi, Mylan, Mundipharma, Napp, Novartis, Pfizer, Respiratory Effectiveness Group, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theravance, UK National Health Service, Zentiva; payment for lectures/speaking engagements from Almirall, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, GlaxoSmithKline, Kyorin, Mylan, Merck, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Skyepharma, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; payment for manuscript preparation from Mundipharma and Teva Pharmaceuticals; payment for the development of educational materials from Mundipharma and Novartis; payment for travel/accommodation/meeting expenses from Aerocrine, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mundipharma, Napp, Novartis, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; funding for patient enrolment or completion of research from Chiesi, Novartis, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Zentiva; stock/stock options from AKL Research and Development Ltd which produces phytopharmaceuticals; owns 74% of the social enterprise Optimum Patient Care Ltd (Australia, Singapore and UK) and 74% of Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd (Singapore); and is peer reviewer for grant committees of the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, and Health Technology Assessment., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

α 1 -antitrypsin deficiency (AATD) significantly increases the risk of developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and testing of all COPD patients for AATD is recommended by the World Health Organization, European Respiratory Society and Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD). We aimed to determine trends for testing and diagnosing AATD from 1990 to 2014.This study analysed all patients diagnosed with COPD from about 550 UK Optimum Patient Care Research Database general practices, including a subgroup of those diagnosed before the age of 60 years.We identified 107 024 COPD individuals, of whom 29 596 (27.6%) were diagnosed before 60 years of age. Of them, only 2.2% (95% CI 2.09-2.43%) had any record of being tested for AATD. Of those tested, 23.7% (95% CI 20.5-27.1%) were diagnosed with AATD. Between 1994 and 2013 the incidence of AATD diagnosis generally increased. A diagnosis of AATD was associated with being male, being an ex-smoker, more severe COPD with a lower forced expiratory volume in 1 s % pred and higher GOLD 2017 stages (all p<0.05).Despite an increase in the frequency of AATD testing since 1990, only 2.2% of patients diagnosed with COPD before the age of 60 years were tested. AATD prevalence was 23.7% in those tested. Thus, it appears that AATD remains markedly underdiagnosed in COPD patients., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: J.B. Soriano declares having received grants from GSK in 2011 and Chiesi in 2012 via CIMERA, his former home institution, and from 2014 to date from Linde via Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, and has participated in speaking activities, advisory committees and consultancies during the period 2011−2017 sponsored by Almirall, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, CHEST, Chiesi, ERS, GEBRO, Grifols, GSK, Linde, Lipopharma, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, RiRL, Rovi, Sandoz, SEPAR and Takeda, outside the submitted work. R. Jones has received fees for consultancy from Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute (OPRI), grants from AstraZeneca, and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Novartis and Pfizer, outside the submitted work.  M. Miravitlles has received fees for board membership, consultancy and lecturing, grants from Grifols, and fees for board membership and consultancy from CSL Behring, outside the submitted work. V. Carter was employed by OPRI, which has conducted paid research in respiratory disease on behalf of the following organisations in the past 5 years: Aerocrine, AKL Research and Development Ltd, Almirall, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Mylan, Mundipharma, Napp, Novartis, Orion, Takeda, Teva and Zentiva (a Sanofi company). D. Price has board membership with Aerocrine, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Mylan, Mundipharma, Napp, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme and Teva Pharmaceuticals; consultancy agreements with Almirall, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Mylan, Mundipharma, Napp, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva Pharmaceuticals and Theravance; grants and unrestricted funding for investigator-initiated studies (conducted through OPRI) from Aerocrine, AKL Research and Development Ltd, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, British Lung Foundation, Chiesi, Mylan, Mundipharma, Napp, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Respiratory Effectiveness Group, Sanofi Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theravance, UK National Health Service and Zentiva (Sanofi Generics); payment for lectures/speaking from Almirall, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, GlaxoSmithKline, Kyorin, Mylan, Merck, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, Skyepharma and Teva Pharmaceuticals; payment for manuscript preparation from Mundipharma and Teva Pharmaceuticals; payment for the development of educational materials from Mundipharma and Novartis; payment for travel/accommodation/meeting expenses from Aerocrine, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mundipharma, Napp, Novartis and Teva Pharmaceuticals; funding for patient enrolment or completion of research from Chiesi, Novartis, Teva Pharmaceuticals and Zentiva (Sanofi Generics); stock/stock options from AKL Research and Development Ltd which produces phytopharmaceuticals; owns 74% of the social enterprise Optimum Patient Care Ltd (Australia and UK) and 74% of Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute (OPRI) Pte Ltd (Singapore); and is peer reviewer for grant committees of the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme and Health Technology Assessment.  R. Mahadeva has received fees for consultancy from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants from Pfizer and Open Air, and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Pfizer and Pulmonx, outside the submitted work., (Copyright ©ERS 2018.)