Search

Background and Objectives: Aclidinium bromide was approved in the European Union for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in adult patients in 2012 and in a fixed-dose combination with formoterol in 2014. We characterised new users of aclidinium, aclidinium/formoterol and other COPD medications and evaluated off-label prescribing of these medications in three European populations., Methods: We described demographic characteristics, comorbidities, comedications, COPD severity and off-label prescribing of new users of aclidinium, aclidinium/formoterol and other COPD medications in patients with COPD aged ≥ 40 years in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD, UK), Danish National Health Databases, and German Pharmacoepidemiological Research Database (GePaRD) between 2015 and 2017., Results: We included 17,668 new users of aclidinium (CPRD, 4871; Denmark, 2836; GePaRD, 9961) and 14,808 new users of aclidinium/formoterol (CPRD, 2153; Denmark, 2586; GePaRD, 10,069). Study patients were of similar age, except in GePaRD, where users of long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA)/inhaled corticosteroids were younger. Patients had multiple comorbidities and used multiple comedications-most frequently hypertension (50-79%) and short-acting beta2-agonists (26-84%). Aclidinium users in CPRD and long-acting anticholinergics/LABA users in Denmark and GePaRD had the highest frequency of severe/very severe COPD. Off-label prescribing of aclidinium (5.0% [CPRD]-8.9% [Denmark]) and aclidinium/formoterol (2.6% [GePaRD]-3.2% [CPRD]) was low, and the main reason was asthma without a COPD diagnosis., Conclusions: Aclidinium and aclidinium/formoterol were mostly prescribed according to label, with preference given to older patients with more severe COPD and to patients with a high prevalence of comorbidities and comedication use., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: The long-acting anticholinergic (LAMA) aclidinium was approved in Europe in 2012 to relieve symptoms in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A Post-Authorisation Safety Study (PASS) was initiated to assess potential cardiovascular safety concerns for aclidinium., Objective: To estimate the adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) for hospitalisation for heart failure in patients with COPD who were new users of aclidinium, tiotropium, other LAMA, long-acting beta-agonists/inhaled corticosteroids (LABA/ICS), and LAMA/LABA were compared with initiators of LABA., Methods: This population-based cohort study included patients with COPD aged ≥40 years initiating COPD medications in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD in the United Kingdom from 2012 to 2017. Medications were identified via general practice prescriptions. The first-ever hospitalisations for heart failure were identified in the Hospital Episode Statistics, and general practitioner records from the CPRD. Poisson regression models were used to estimate the IRR for hospitalisation for heart failure in users of COPD medications versus LABA, adjusting for clinically relevant covariates., Results: The study included 4350 new users of aclidinium, 23,405 of tiotropium, 6977 of other LAMAs, 3122 of LAMA/LABA, 26,093 of LABA/ICS, and 5678 of LABA. Mean age was 69-70 years across medication groups. Aclidinium users had the highest proportion of severe COPD, and LABA users had the lowest (35% vs 19%, respectively). Crude incidence rates per 1000 person-years for the first-ever hospitalisation for heart failure ranged from 6.9 in LABA to 9.5 in aclidinium. Using LABA as reference, adjusted IRRs (95% confidence interval) for first-ever hospitalisation for heart failure were 0.90 (0.53-1.53) for aclidinium, 1.02 (0.69-1.51) for tiotropium, 0.86 (0.50-1.47) for other LAMAs, 1.09 (0.41-2.92) for LAMA/LABA, and 1.01 (0.69, 1.48) for LABA/ICS., Conclusion: The study did not find increased risks of hospitalisations for heart failure in new users of aclidinium, tiotropium, other LAMAs, LAMA/LABA, and LABA/ICS compared with LABA., Competing Interests: CR, EP, JA, NSM, SPG, and ERF are salaried employees of RTI Health Solutions, a nonprofit research organisation that conducts research with multiple pharmaceutical companies and has an independent right to publish the results of this study. AR is an employee of BioPharmaceuticals R&D, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, United Kingdom. AL is an employee of BioPharmaceuticals R&D, AstraZeneca, Barcelona, Spain. SD is an employee of BioPharmaceuticals R&D, AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, Maryland, United States. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2021 Rebordosa et al.)

Purpose: Strategies to identify and validate acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and stroke in primary-care electronic records may impact effect measures, but to an unknown extent. Additionally, the validity of cardiovascular risk factors that could act as confounders in studies on those endpoints has not been thoroughly assessed in the United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink's (CPRD's) GOLD database. We explored the validity of algorithms to identify cardiovascular outcomes and risk factors and evaluated different outcome-identification strategies using these algorithms for estimation of adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs)., Methods: First, we identified AMI, stroke, smoking, obesity, and menopausal status in a cohort treated for overactive bladder by applying computerized algorithms to primary care medical records (2004-2012). We validated these cardiovascular outcomes and risk factors with physician questionnaires (gold standard for this analysis). Second, we estimated IRRs for AMI and stroke using algorithm-identified and questionnaire-confirmed cases, comparing these with IRRs from cases identified through linkage with hospitalization/mortality data (best estimate)., Results: For AMI, the algorithm's positive predictive value (PPV) was >90%. Initial algorithms for stroke performed less well because of inclusion of codes for prevalent stroke; algorithm refinement increased PPV to 80% but decreased sensitivity by 20%. Algorithms for smoking and obesity were considered valid. IRRs based on questionnaire-confirmed cases only were closer to IRRs estimated from hospitalization/mortality data than IRRs from algorithm-identified cases., Conclusions: AMI, stroke, smoking, obesity, and postmenopausal status can be accurately identified in CPRD. Physician questionnaire-validated AMI and stroke cases yield IRRs closest to the best estimate., (© 2020 The Authors. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Aclidinium bromide is an inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA). Although the initial potential increased cardiovascular and mortality risk among users of tiotropium has been ruled out by several observational studies, and clinical trials, there are still concerns related to the use of newer LAMA medications. The current study aimed to evaluate the risk of death among users of aclidinium and other LAMAs., Methods: We conducted a cohort and nested case-control study among patients with COPD aged 40 years or older to compare the risk of all-cause mortality among users of aclidinium and other COPD medications with the risk among users of long-acting β2 agonists (LABA), in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) in the United Kingdom (2012-2017)., Results: Mortality rates per 1,000 person-years were 32.9 for aclidinium, 43.8 for tiotropium, 38.0 for other LAMA, 47.1 for LABA/ICS, and 38.1 for LABA. The RR of death compared with current use of LABA was 0.54 (confidence interval [95% CI], 0.40-0.72) for aclidinium, 0.96 (95% CI, 0.76-1.21) for tiotropium, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.58-0.99) for other LAMA, and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.90-1.31) for LABA/ICS. Decreased risk for death observed among users of aclidinium was driven by overall current single use (RR = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22-0.79), which corresponded to 26% of the aclidinium users (<15 cases) and not by multiple use (RR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.71-1.48)., Conclusion: Use of aclidinium, tiotropium, other LAMA, or LABA/ICS was not associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality as compared with the use of LABAs., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To evaluate availability of spirometry and symptom data in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (United Kingdom) to assess COPD severity using the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2016 definition and comparing it with an algorithm used in other studies., Methods: This was a descriptive, noninterventional, secondary database cohort study of patients with COPD aged 40 years or older, who initiated treatment with specific COPD medications. Patients were classified according to COPD severity (1) in GOLD 2016 "ABCD" categories based on symptoms (Medical Research Council dyspnea grade, COPD Assessment Test, breathlessness), percent predicted FEV1, and exacerbation history and (2) as mild, moderate, severe, or very severe based on treatment and exacerbation history., Results: The study included 63 900 patients with COPD aged 40 years or older that were new users of 1 or more COPD medication of interest. Percent predicted FEV1 was available for 80.9% of patients; symptoms for 75.6% of patients. Classification into GOLD 2016 ABCD categories was possible for 75.6% of the patients. The GOLD 2016 ABCD definition classified more patients under the high-risk categories (22.1%, A; 18.8%, B; 21.3%, C; 37.9%, D) than did the adapted algorithm (7.9%, mild; 48.6%, moderate; 42.1%, severe; 1.4%, very severe)., Conclusion: Using our adaptation of the GOLD 2016 COPD severity classification, the information in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink allowed us to ascertain COPD severity in approximately 75% of patients with COPD. Algorithms that include medication use tend to misclassify patients with the extreme COPD severity categories., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)