Adherence and usage patterns of inhaled corticosteroids-long-acting beta-agonists by using inhaler-monitoring technology.

Background: Results of previous research indicate that adherence to prescribed inhaled corticosteroid-long-acting beta2-agonist (ICS-LABA) asthma controller medications is suboptimal, yet actual daily-use patterns are unclear and may be influenced by regimen complexity or dosing frequency. Objective: To investigate real-world use of asthma medications by using inhaler sensors for the ICS-LABA controllers: twice-daily fluticasone propionate (FP) plus salmeterol (SAL) and once-daily fluticasone furoate (FF) plus vilanterol (VI); and albuterol rescue medication. Methods: This longitudinal, two-phase, observational study included adults with asthma-prescribed FP-SAL (phase I) or FF-VI (phase II), and albuterol metered-dose inhalers. The participants completed baseline and follow-up surveys, and used clip-on inhaler sensors to monitor real-time inhaler use over the 6-month study period. Pharmacy claims data for the 6-month follow-up period were used to assess refills of ICS-LABA and albuterol inhalers. Results: Patients who used twice-daily FP-SAL received a sufficient dose (≥2 actuations/day) approximately one third of the time, those on once-daily FF-VI received a sufficient dose (≥1 actuation/day) ∼60% of the time. Patients who used once-daily FF-VI were more likely to take their medication as prescribed versus those who used twice-daily FP-SAL. There were no significant differences in the percentage of albuterol-free days (FP-SAL, 68.06% [n = 241]; FF-VI, 72.67% [n = 127]; p = 0.230). Exploratory outcomes are reported in this article's Online Supplemental Material. Claims-based measures of adherence were higher than sensor-based measures, hence claims data may have overestimated adherence, whereas sensors may have more accurately measured patients' medication use. Conclusion: These data supported the use of inhaler sensors as tools to directly and accurately measure ICS-LABA adherence and rescue medication use, and the adherence benefits of once-daily versus twice-daily ICS-LABA regimens.

Intermediate- and Long-Term Cognitive Outcomes After Cardiovascular Procedures in Older Adults: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Risks for intermediate- and long-term cognitive impairment after cardiovascular procedures in older adults are poorly understood. PURPOSE: To summarize evidence about cognitive outcomes in adults aged 65 years or older at least 3 months after coronary or carotid revascularization, cardiac valve procedures, or ablation for atrial fibrillation. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Scopus databases from 1990 to January 2015; ClinicalTrials.gov; and bibliographies of reviews and eligible studies. STUDY SELECTION: English-language trials and prospective cohort studies. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer extracted data, a second checked accuracy, and 2 independently rated quality and strength of evidence (SOE). DATA SYNTHESIS: 17 trials and 4 cohort studies were included; 80% of patients were men, and mean age was 68 years. Cognitive function did not differ after the procedure between on- and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (n = 6; low SOE), hypothermic and normothermic CABG (n = 3; moderate to low SOE), or CABG and medical management (n = 1; insufficient SOE). One trial reported lower risk for incident cognitive impairment with minimal versus conventional extracorporeal CABG (risk ratio, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.16 to 0.73]; low SOE). Two trials found no difference between surgical carotid revascularization and carotid stenting or angioplasty (low and insufficient SOE, respectively). One cohort study reported increased cognitive decline after transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement but had large selection and outcome measurement biases (insufficient SOE). LIMITATIONS: Mostly low to insufficient SOE; no pertinent data for ablation; limited generalizability to the most elderly patients, women, and persons with substantial baseline cognitive impairment; and possible selective reporting and publication bias. CONCLUSION: Intermediate- and long-term cognitive impairment in older adults attributable to the studied cardiovascular procedures may be uncommon. Nevertheless, clinicians counseling patients before these procedures should discuss the uncertainty in their risk for adverse cognitive outcomes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Ascertaining cause of death among men in the prostate cancer intervention versus observation trial.

BACKGROUND: The Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) randomized 731 men with localized prostate cancer to radical prostatectomy or observation. PURPOSE: We describe the methods and results for cause-of-death assignments in PIVOT, and compare them to alternative strategies for ascertaining prostate cancer-specific mortality, as well as to the methods and results in the similar Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study 4 (SPCG-4) trial. METHODS: Three PIVOT Endpoints Committee members, blinded to randomized treatment assignments, reviewed medical records and death certificates when available to assign a cause of death using a primary and a secondary adjudication question. Initial disagreements were resolved through discussion. The level of initial agreement among committee members was examined, as well as guesses at randomized treatment assignments for a convenience sample of cases. Final cause of death determinations were compared to death certificates. RESULTS: Complete agreement on cause of death by all three committee members before any discussion was achieved in 200/354 (56%) cases on the primary and 209/354 (59%) cases on the secondary. However, complete agreement on the primary rose to 306/354 (86%) when 'definite' and 'probably' categories were collapsed, as planned a priori. The three committee members' proportions of correct guesses of randomized treatment assignment were 82/121 (68%), 113/148 (76%), and 99/134 (74%). Using the committee's final adjudications as a gold standard, death certificates had suboptimal sensitivities, specificities, or predictive values depending on how they were used to determine cause of death. LIMITATIONS: There was no separate 'gold standard' by which to judge the accuracy of the final endpoints committee adjudications, and useful death certificates could not be obtained on about a third of PIVOT participants who died. CONCLUSIONS: The low level of initial agreement on cause of death among endpoint committee members and the potential for biased determinations due to partial unblinding to treatment assignment raise methodologic concerns about using prostate cancer mortality as an endpoint in clinical trials like PIVOT.