Search

Naomi Launders,1 Dermot Ryan,2 Christopher C Winchester,3 Derek Skinner,4 Priyanka Raju Konduru,4 David B Price4 1Respiratory Effectiveness Group, Cambridge, UK; 2Allergy and Respiratory Research Group, Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Medical School, Edinburgh EH8 9AG, Scotland; 3Oxford PharmaGenesis, Oxford, UK; 4Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd, Singapore, SingaporeCorrespondence: David B PriceObservational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd (OPRI), 60 Paya Lebar Road, Paya Lebar Square, Level 5, Unit 33 and 34, Singapore 409051, SingaporeTel +65 68029724Email dprice@opri.sgPurpose: In primary care, initial diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is made on clinical judgment without radiological confirmation or knowledge of the causative organism. Use of CRB65 score has been recommended for assessing the severity of CAP and thereby determining clinical management, but it is not known how frequently these scores are used in primary care.Patients and methods: Primary care consultations in adults with a diagnostic code for CAP between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2016 were extracted from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database, which at the time of data extraction had over 3.4 million patients in the UK. Episodes without antibiotic prescription on day of diagnosis were excluded, as were records describing past events. Patients admitted to hospital on day of diagnosis were excluded, but were included in exploratory analysis of CRB65 recording.Results: In total, 4734 episodes of CAP in adults managed in primary care between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2016 were included. A range of investigations/observations were recorded, including pulse rate (10.7%), chest examinations (9.1%) and blood tests (5.4%). CRB65 scores were recorded in 19 (0.4%) episodes of CAP, 17 of which were after the publication of the NICE guidelines in December 2014. CRB65 recording was no more freque

Background: Chronic non-specific respiratory symptoms are difficult to manage. This trial aimed to evaluate the association between baseline fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) and the response to inhaled corticosteroids in patients with non-specific respiratory symptoms. Methods: In this double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial, we enrolled undiagnosed patients, aged 18-80 years, with cough, wheeze, or dyspnoea and less than 20% bronchodilator reversibility across 26 primary care centres and hospitals in the UK and Singapore. Patients were assessed for 2 weeks before being randomly assigned (1: 1) to 4 weeks of treatment with extrafine inhaled corticosteroids (QVAR 80 mu g, two puffs twice per day, equivalent to 800 mu g per day beclomethasone dipropionate) or placebo. Randomisation was stratified by baseline FENO measurement: normal (<= 25 parts per billion [ppb]), intermediate (>25 tp <40 ppb), and high (>= 40 ppb). The primary endpoint was change in Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ7) mean score. We used generalised linear modelling to assess FENO as a predictor of response, estimating an interaction effect between FENO and treatment on change in ACQ7. We did our primary and secondary analyses in the per-protocol set, which excluded patients with non-completion of the primary endpoint, non-compliance to treatment (ascertained by patient report), and study visits made outside the predefined visit windows. This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02294279. Findings: Between Feb 4, 2015, and July 12, 2016, we randomly assigned 294 patients to extrafine inhaled corticosteroid treatment (n=148) or placebo (n=146). Following exclusions due to protocol violations, we analysed 214 patients (114 extrafine inhaled corticosteroids and 100 placebo). We observed a significant interaction between baseline FENO and treatment group for every 10 ppb increase in baseline FENO, with the change in ACQ7 greater in the extrafine inhaled cortico