Views of healthcare professionals to linkage of routinely collected healthcare data : a systematic review

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Linked health data for pharmacovigilance in children : Perceived legal and ethical issues for stakeholders and data guardians

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Core requirements for successful data linkage: an example of a triangulation method

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to explore the views of professional stakeholders and healthcare professionals (HCPs) on the linkage of UK National Health Service (NHS) data for paediatric pharmacovigilance purposes and to make recommendations for such a system. METHODS: A mixed methods approach including a literature review, interviews, focus groups and a three-round Delphi survey with HCPs in Scotland was followed by a triangulation process using a systematic protocol. The survey was structured using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change. Items retained after applying the matrix-based triangulation process were thematically coded. Ethical approval was granted by the North of Scotland Research Ethics Service. RESULTS: Results from 18 papers, 23 interviewees, 23 participants of focus groups and 61 completed questionnaires in the Delphi survey contributed to the triangulation process. A total of 25 key findings from all four studies were identified during triangulation. There was good convergence; 21 key findings were agreed and remained to inform recommendations. The items were coded as practical/technical (eg, decision about the unique patient identifier to use), mandatory (eg, governed by statute), essential (consistently mentioned in all studies and therefore needed to ensure professional support) or preferable. CONCLUSIONS: The development of a paediatric linked database has support from professional stakeholders and HCPs in Scotland. The triangulation identified three sets of core requirements for a new system of data linkage. An additional fourth set of 'preferable' requirements might increase engagement of HCPs and their support for the new system

Comparison of serious inhaler technique errors made by device-naïve patients using three different dry powder inhalers: a randomised, crossover, open-label study

Background: Serious inhaler technique errors can impair drug delivery to the lungs. This randomised, crossover, open-label study evaluated the proportion of patients making predefined serious errors with Pulmojet compared with Diskus and Turbohaler dry powder inhalers. Methods: Patients ≥18 years old with asthma and/or COPD who were current users of an inhaler but naïve to the study devices were assigned to inhaler technique assessment on Pulmojet and either Diskus or Turbohaler in a randomised order. Patients inhaled through empty devices after reading the patient information leaflet. If serious errors potentially affecting dose delivery were recorded, they repeated the inhalations after watching a training video. Inhaler technique was assessed by a trained nurse observer and an electronic inhalation profile recorder. Results: Baseline patient characteristics were similar between randomisation arms for the Pulmojet-Diskus (n = 277) and Pulmojet-Turbohaler (n = 144) comparisons. Non-inferiority in the proportions of patients recording no nurse-observed serious errors was demonstrated for both Pulmojet versus Diskus, and Pulmojet versus Turbohaler; therefore, superiority was tested. Patients were significantly less likely to make ≥1 nurse-observed serious errors using Pulmojet compared with Diskus (odds ratio, 0.31; 95 % CI, 0.19–0.51) or Pulmojet compared with Turbohaler (0.23; 0.12–0.44) after reading the patient information leaflet with additional video instruction, if required. Conclusions These results suggest Pulmojet is easier to learn to use correctly than the Turbohaler or Diskus for current inhaler users switching to a new dry powder inhaler

The role of primary healthcare professionals in oral cancer prevention and detection

AIM: To investigate current knowledge, examination habits and preventive practices of primary healthcare professionals in Scotland, with respect to oral cancer, and to determine any relevant training needs. SETTING: Primary care. METHOD: Questionnaires were sent to a random sample of 357 general medical practitioners (GMPs) and 331 dental practitioners throughout Scotland. Additionally, focus group research and interviews were conducted amongst primary healthcare team members. RESULTS: Whilst 58% of dental respondents reported examining regularly for signs of oral cancer, GMPs examined patients' mouths usually in response to a complaint of soreness. The majority of GMPs (85%) and dentists (63%) indicated that they felt less than confident in detecting oral cancer, with over 70% of GMPs identifying lack of training as an important barrier. Many practitioners were unclear concerning the relative importance of the presence of potentially malignant lesions in the oral cavity. A high proportion of the GMPs indicated that they should have a major role to play in oral cancer detection (66%) but many felt strongly that this should be primarily the remit of the dental team. CONCLUSION: The study revealed a need for continuing education programmes for primary care practitioners in oral cancer-related activities. This should aim to improve diagnostic skills and seek to increase practitioners' participation in preventive activities

Characteristics of patients making serious inhaler errors with a dry powder inhaler and association with asthma-related events in a primary care setting

Acknowledgements The iHARP database was funded by unrestricted grants from Mundipharma International Ltd and Research in Real-Life Ltd; these analyses were funded by an unrestricted grant from Teva Pharmaceuticals. Mundipharma and Teva played no role in study conduct or analysis and did not modify or approve the manuscript. The authors wish to direct a special appreciation to all the participants of the iHARP group who contributed data to this study and to Mundipharma, sponsors of the iHARP group. In addition, we thank Julie von Ziegenweidt for assistance with data extraction and Anna Gilchrist and Valerie L. Ashton, PhD, for editorial assistance. Elizabeth V. Hillyer, DVM, provided editorial and writing support, funded by Research in Real-Life, Ltd.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

A randomized open-label trial on the use of budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort®) as an alternative reliever medication for mild to moderate asthmatic attacks

BACKGROUND Conventionally, a nebulized short-acting β-2 agonist like salbutamol is often used as the reliever in acute exacerbations of asthma. However, recent worldwide respiratory outbreaks discourage routine use of nebulization. Previous studies have shown that combined budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort®, AstraZeneca) is effective as both a maintenance and reliever anti-asthmatic medication. METHODS We performed a randomized, open-label study from March until August 2011 to compare the bronchodilatory effects of Symbicort® vs. nebulized salbutamol in acute exacerbation of mild to moderate asthmatic attack in an emergency department. Initial objective parameters measured include the oxygen saturation, peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) and respiratory rate. During clinical reassessment, subjective parameters [i.e., Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and 5-point Likert scale of breathlessness] and the second reading of the objective parameters were measured. For the 5-point Likert scale, the patients were asked to describe their symptom relief as 1, much worse; 2, a little worse; 3, no change; 4, a little better; 5, much better. RESULTS Out of the total of 32 patients enrolled, 17 patients (53%) were randomized to receive nebulized salbutamol and 15 (47%) to receive Symbicort®. For both treatment arms, by using paired t- and Wilcoxon signed rank tests, it was shown that there were statistically significant improvements in oxygen saturation, PEFR and respiratory rate within the individual treatment groups (pre- vs. post-treatment). Comparing the effects of Symbicort® vs. nebulized salbutamol, the average improvement of oxygen saturation was 1% in both treatment arms (p = 0.464), PEFR 78.67 l/min vs. 89.41 l/min, respectively (p = 0.507), and respiratory rate 2/min vs. 2/min (p = 0.890). For subjective evaluation, all patients reported improvement in the VAS (average 2.45 cm vs. 2.20 cm), respectively (p = 0.765). All patients in both treatment arms reported either "a little better" or "much better" on the 5-point Likert scale, with none reporting "no change" or getting worse. CONCLUSION This study suggests that there is no statistical difference between using Symbicort® vs. nebulized salbutamol as the reliever for the first 15 min post-intervention

InternationaL cross-sectIonAl and longItudinal assessment on aSthma cONtrol in European adult patients : the LIAISON study protocol

The study is funded by Chiesi Farmaceutici S.p.A., Parma, ItalyPeer reviewedPublisher PD

Fluticasone furoate: once-daily evening treatment versus twice-daily treatment in moderate asthma

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Inhaled corticosteroids are the recommended first-line treatment for asthma but adherence to therapy is suboptimal. The objectives of this study were to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily (OD) evening and twice-daily (BD) regimens of the novel inhaled corticosteroid fluticasone furoate (FF) in asthma patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patients with moderate asthma (age ≥ 12 years; pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) 40-85% predicted; FEV₁reversibility of ≥ 12% and ≥ 200 ml) were randomized to FF or fluticasone propionate (FP) regimens in a double-blind, crossover study. Patients were not permitted to have used any ICS for ≥ 8 weeks prior to enrolment and subsequently received doses of FF or FP 200 μg OD, FF or FP 100 μg BD and matching placebo by inhalation for 28 days each. Primary endpoint was Day 28 evening pre-dose (trough) FEV₁; non-inferiority of FF 200 μg OD and FF 100 μg BD was assessed, as was superiority of all active treatment relative to placebo. Adverse events (AEs) and 24-hour urinary cortisol excretion were assessed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The intent-to-treat population comprised 147 (FF) and 43 (FP) patients. On Day 28, pre-dose FEV₁showed FF 200 μg OD to be non-inferior (pre-defined limit -110 ml) to FF 100 μg BD (mean treatment difference 11 ml; 95% CI: -35 to +56 ml); all FF and FP regimens were significantly superior to placebo (p ≤ 0.02). AEs were similar to placebo; no serious AEs were reported. Urinary cortisol excretion at Day 28 for FF was lower than placebo (ratios: 200 μg OD, 0.75; 100 μg BD, 0.84; p ≤ 0.02).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>FF 200 μg OD in the evening is an efficacious and well tolerated treatment for asthma patients and is not inferior to the same total BD dose.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Clinicaltrials.gov; <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00766090">NCT00766090</a>.</p

Use of low-dose oral theophylline as an adjunct to inhaled corticosteroids in preventing exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with high morbidity, mortality, and health-care costs. An incomplete response to the anti-inflammatory effects of inhaled corticosteroids is present in COPD. Preclinical work indicates that 'low dose' theophylline improves steroid responsiveness. The Theophylline With Inhaled Corticosteroids (TWICS) trial investigates whether the addition of 'low dose' theophylline to inhaled corticosteroids has clinical and cost-effective benefits in COPD. METHOD/DESIGN: TWICS is a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial conducted in primary and secondary care sites in the UK. The inclusion criteria are the following: an established predominant respiratory diagnosis of COPD (post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in first second/forced vital capacity [FEV1/FVC] of less than 0.7), age of at least 40 years, smoking history of at least 10 pack-years, current inhaled corticosteroid use, and history of at least two exacerbations requiring treatment with antibiotics or oral corticosteroids in the previous year. A computerised randomisation system will stratify 1424 participants by region and recruitment setting (primary and secondary) and then randomly assign with equal probability to intervention or control arms. Participants will receive either 'low dose' theophylline (Uniphyllin MR 200 mg tablets) or placebo for 52 weeks. Dosing is based on pharmacokinetic modelling to achieve a steady-state serum theophylline of 1-5 mg/l. A dose of theophylline MR 200 mg once daily (or placebo once daily) will be taken by participants who do not smoke or participants who smoke but have an ideal body weight (IBW) of not more than 60 kg. A dose of theophylline MR 200 mg twice daily (or placebo twice daily) will be taken by participants who smoke and have an IBW of more than 60 kg. Participants will be reviewed at recruitment and after 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome is the total number of participant-reported COPD exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids or antibiotics during the 52-week treatment period. DISCUSSION: The demonstration that 'low dose' theophylline increases the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids in COPD by reducing the incidence of exacerbations is relevant not only to patients and clinicians but also to health-care providers, both in the UK and globally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27066620 was registered on Sept. 19, 2013, and the first subject was randomly assigned on Feb. 6, 2014