The prevalence of long COVID in people with diabetes mellitus-evidence from a UK cohort.

Background: It was apparent from the early phase of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (COVID-19) pandemic that a multi-system syndrome can develop in the weeks following a COVID-19 infection, now referred to as Long COVID. Given that people living with diabetes are at increased risk of hospital admission/poor outcomes following COVID-19 infection we hypothesised that they may also be more susceptible to developing Long COVID. We describe here the prevalence of Long COVID in people living with diabetes when compared to matched controls in a Northwest UK population. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of people who had a recorded diagnosis of type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) who were alive on 1st January 2020 and who had a proven COVID-19 infection. We used electronic health record data from the Greater Manchester Care Record collected from 1st January 2020 to 16th September 2023, we determined the prevalence of Long COVID in people with T1D and T2D vs matched individuals without diabetes (non-DM). Findings: There were 3087 T1D individuals with 14,077 non-diabetes controls and 3087 T2D individuals with 14,077 non-diabetes controls and 29,700 T2D individuals vs 119,951 controls. For T1D, there was a lower proportion of Long COVID diagnosis and/or referral to a Long COVID service at 0.33% vs 0.48% for matched controls. The prevalence of Long COVID In T2D individuals was 0.53% vs 1:3 matched controls 0.54%. For T2D, there were differences by sex in the prevalence of Long COVID in comparison with 1:3 matched controls. For Long COVID between males with T2D and their matched controls, the prevalence was lower in matched controls at 0.46%.vs 0.54% (0.008). When considering the prevalence of LC between females with T2D and their matched controls, the prevalence was higher in matched controls at 0.61% vs 0.53% (0.007). The prevalence of Long COVID in males with T2D vs females was not different. T2D patients at older vs younger age were at reduced risk of developing Long COVID (OR 0.994 [95% CI) [0.989, 0.999]). For females there was a minor increase of risk (OR 1.179, 95% CI [1.002, 1.387]). Presence of a higher body mass index (BMI) was also associated an increased risk of developing Long COVID (OR 1.013, 95% CI [1.001, 1.026]). The estimated general population prevalence of Long COVID based on general practice coding (not self-reported) of this diagnosis was 0.5% of people with a prior acute COVID-19 diagnosis. Interpretation: Recorded Long COVID was more prevalent in men with T2D than in matched non-T2D controls with the opposite seen for T2D women, with recorded Long COVID rates being similar for T2D men and women. Younger age, female sex and higher BMI were all associated with a greater likelihood of developing Long COVID when taken as individual variables. There remains an imperative for continuing awareness of Long COVID as a differential diagnosis for multi-system symptomatic presentation in the context of a previous acute COVID-19 infection. Funding: The time of co-author RW was supported by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Greater Manchester (NIHR200174) and the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR203308).

Effect of a lower target oxygen saturation range on the risk of hypoxaemia and elevated NEWS2 scores at a university hospital: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: The optimal target oxygen saturation (SpO2) range for hospital inpatients not at risk of hypercapnia is unknown. The objective of this study was to assess the impact on oxygen usage and National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) of changing the standard SpO2 target range from 94-98% to 92-96%. METHODS: In a metropolitan UK hospital, a database of electronic bedside SpO2 measurements, oxygen prescriptions and NEWS2 records was reviewed. Logistic regression was used to compare the proportion of hypoxaemic SpO2 values (<90%) and NEWS2 records ≥5 in 2019, when the target SpO2 range was 94-98%; with 2022, when the target range was 92-96%. RESULTS: In 2019, 218 of 224 936 (0.10%) observations on room air and 162 of 11 328 (1.43%) on oxygen recorded an SpO2 <90%, and in 2022, 251 of 225 970 (0.11%) and 233 of 12 845 (1.81%), respectively (risk difference 0.04%, 95% CI 0.02% to 0.07%). NEWS2 ≥5 was observed in 3009 of 236 264 (1.27%) observations in 2019 and 4061 of 238 815 (1.70%) in 2022 (risk difference 0.43%, 0.36% to 0.50%; p<0.001). The proportion of patients using supplemental oxygen with hyperoxaemia (SpO2 100%) was 5.4% in 2019 and 3.9% in 2022 (OR 0.71, 0.63 to 0.81; p<0.001). DISCUSSION: The proportion of observations with SpO2 <90% or NEWS2 ≥5 was greater with the 92-96% range; however, absolute differences were very small and of doubtful clinical relevance, in contrast to hyperoxaemia for which the proportion was markedly less in 2022. These findings support proposals that the British Thoracic Society oxygen guidelines could recommend a lower target SpO2 range.

Automated audit of hospital oxygen use devised during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The British Thoracic Society (BTS) has organised intermittent audits of hospital oxygen use in UK hospitals since 2008. Manual audits are time-consuming and subject to human errors. Oxygen prescribing and bedside observations including National Early Warning Scores (NEWS2 scores) are undertaken within an integrated electronic medical record (EMR) at this hospital. METHODS: The hospital's Business Information team were commissioned in late 2019 to devise a bespoke automated audit of oxygen prescribing and use. A summary report displays the oxygen saturation alongside the oxygen prescription status of every patient in the hospital except for critical care units which do not use NEWS2. The display has a 'traffic-light' colour scheme (green within target range, amber or red if below range or if above range on supplemental oxygen), with a graph showing oxygen use and saturation levels for patients with each prescribed target range. Clinicians can access raw data including oxygen saturation, oxygen device and flow rate for each individual patient. RESULTS: Over 51 audits involving 34 352 sets of observations, an average of 6.0% involved use of oxygen and 88.6% of these had a valid oxygen prescription. During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in spring 2020, the monthly percentage of observations involving oxygen use increased to a peak of 10.4% followed by a rise to 10.6% during the second wave and 7.4% during the third (Omicron) wave. Oxygen use returned to baseline after each wave. CONCLUSIONS: In hospitals with integrated EMRs, it is possible to automate all fundamental aspects of the BTS oxygen audits and to monitor oxygen use at individual patient level and a hospital-wide level. This could be particularly valuable during major events such as the COVID-19 pandemic. This methodology could be extended to other clinical audits where the audit questions relate to routinely collected EMR data.

Advancing Digital Solutions to Overcome Longstanding Barriers in Asthma and COPD Management.

Maintenance therapy delivered via inhaler is central to asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management. Poor adherence to inhaled medication and errors in inhalation technique have long represented major barriers to the optimal management of these chronic conditions. Technological innovations may provide a means of overcoming these barriers. This narrative review examines ongoing advances in digital technologies relevant to asthma and COPD with the potential to inform clinical decision-making and improve patient care. Digital inhaler devices linked to mobile apps can help bring about changes in patients' behaviors and attitudes towards disease management, particularly when they build in elements of interactivity and gamification. They can also support ongoing technique education, empowering patients and helping providers maximize the value of consultations and develop effective action plans informed by insights into the patient's inhaler use patterns and their respiratory health. When combined with innovative techniques such as machine learning, digital devices have the potential to predict exacerbations and prompt pre-emptive intervention. Finally, digital devices may support an advanced precision medicine approach to respiratory disease management and help support shared decision-making. Further work is needed to increase uptake of digital devices and integrate their use into care pathways before their full potential in personalized asthma and COPD management can be realized.

Pragmatic randomised controlled trials in COPD and asthma: how to guide clinical practice.

The use of real-world evidence (RWE) studies, including pragmatic randomised controlled trials (RCTs; randomised RWE studies), to aid the development of treatment guidelines, is gradually becoming a mainstay within clinical practice. RWE is an integral part of patient-driven decision-making and offers important value to add complimentary evidence to traditional RCTs; these provide a more well-rounded view of the benefits to patient-reported outcomes and improve the external validity of a given treatment versus findings from traditional RCTs alone. Discussions in recent scientific workshops explored the importance of pragmatic RCTs in optimising guideline development and patient care in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma. The Salford Lung Study in patients with COPD (NCT01551758) and asthma (NCT01706198) were the world's first prelicence pragmatic RCTs that compared novel investigational treatments with existing COPD and asthma treatments and, more recently (2021), RWE studies have been used by the American Thoracic Society and the US Food and Drug Administration to support the approval of an immunosuppressant drug in patients receiving lung transplants. This highlights the importance of RWE data in supporting clinical guideline development and emphasises the advantages for the use of pragmatic RCTs in guiding clinical practice.

Safety data in randomised real-world evidence studies: Salford Lung Study learnings.

Evidence to support clinical decision making must be based on safety data that have been captured, analysed and interpreted in a robust and reliable way. Randomised real-world evidence (RRWE) studies provide the opportunity to evaluate the use of medicines in patients and settings representative of routine clinical practice. However, elements that underpin the design of RRWE studies can have a significant impact upon the analysis, interpretation and implications of safety data. In this narrative review, we use data from the Salford Lung Study; two prospective, 12-month, open-label, parallel-group, phase III randomised controlled trials conducted in primary care in the UK; to highlight the importance of capturing treatment modifications when attempting to evaluate safety events according to actual treatment exposure. We demonstrate that analysing safety data by actual treatment received (i.e. accounting for the treatment modifications that occur routinely in the primary care setting) provides additional insight beyond analysing according to randomised treatment strategy only. It is therefore proposed that understanding of safety data from RRWE trials can be optimised by analysing both by randomised group and by actual treatment received.

Self-Reported Real-World Safety and Reactogenicity of COVID-19 Vaccines: A Vaccine Recipient Survey.

An online survey was conducted to compare the safety, tolerability and reactogenicity of available COVID-19 vaccines in different recipient groups. This survey was launched in February 2021 and ran for 11 days. Recipients of a first COVID-19 vaccine dose ≥7 days prior to survey completion were eligible. The incidence and severity of vaccination side effects were assessed. The survey was completed by 2002 respondents of whom 26.6% had a prior COVID-19 infection. A prior COVID-19 infection was associated with an increased risk of any side effect (risk ratio 1.08, 95% confidence intervals (1.05-1.11)), fever (2.24 (1.86-2.70)), breathlessness (2.05 (1.28-3.29)), flu-like illness (1.78 (1.51-2.10)), fatigue (1.34 (1.20-1.49)) and local reactions (1.10 (1.06-1.15)). It was also associated with an increased risk of severe side effects leading to hospital care (1.56 (1.14-2.12)). While mRNA vaccines were associated with a higher incidence of any side effect (1.06 (1.01-1.11)) compared with viral vector-based vaccines, these were generally milder (p < 0.001), mostly local reactions. Importantly, mRNA vaccine recipients reported a considerably lower incidence of systemic reactions (RR < 0.6) including anaphylaxis, swelling, flu-like illness, breathlessness and fatigue and of side effects requiring hospital care (0.42 (0.31-0.58)). Our study confirms the findings of recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating that COVID-19 vaccines are generally safe with limited severe side effects. For the first time, our study links prior COVID-19 illness with an increased incidence of vaccination side effects and demonstrates that mRNA vaccines cause milder, less frequent systemic side effects but more local reactions.

Alterations in T and B cell function persist in convalescent COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Emerging studies indicate that some coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients suffer from persistent symptoms, including breathlessness and chronic fatigue; however, the long-term immune response in these patients presently remains ill-defined. METHODS: Here, we describe the phenotypic and functional characteristics of B and T cells in hospitalized COVID-19 patients during acute disease and at 3-6 months of convalescence. FINDINGS: We report that the alterations in B cell subsets observed in acute COVID-19 patients were largely recovered in convalescent patients. In contrast, T cells from convalescent patients displayed continued alterations with persistence of a cytotoxic program evident in CD8+ T cells as well as elevated production of type 1 cytokines and interleukin-17 (IL-17). Interestingly, B cells from patients with acute COVID-19 displayed an IL-6/IL-10 cytokine imbalance in response to Toll-like receptor activation, skewed toward a pro-inflammatory phenotype. Whereas the frequency of IL-6+ B cells was restored in convalescent patients irrespective of clinical outcome, the recovery of IL-10+ B cells was associated with the resolution of lung pathology. CONCLUSIONS: Our data detail lymphocyte alterations in previously hospitalized COVID-19 patients up to 6 months following hospital discharge and identify 3 subgroups of convalescent patients based on distinct lymphocyte phenotypes, with 1 subgroup associated with poorer clinical outcome. We propose that alterations in B and T cell function following hospitalization with COVID-19 could affect longer-term immunity and contribute to some persistent symptoms observed in convalescent COVID-19 patients. FUNDING: Provided by UKRI, Lister Institute of Preventative Medicine, the Wellcome Trust, The Kennedy Trust for Rheumatology Research, and 3M Global Giving.

The impact of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol on healthcare resource utilisation in the Salford Lung Study in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

AIM: The Salford Lung Study (SLS) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was a randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness and safety of initiating fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) 100/25 µg versus continuing usual care (UC) in patients with COPD and a history of exacerbations. Here, we investigate the impact of initiating FF/VI on healthcare resource utilisation (HRU) in SLS COPD. METHODS: HRU and interventions were determined from patients' electronic health records. Annual rates of on-treatment all-cause and COPD-related secondary care contacts (SCCs) and primary care contacts (PCCs) for FF/VI versus UC were analysed using a general linear model. Costs were derived from national data sources. RESULTS: Least-squares (LS) mean annual rates of all-cause (9.81 versus 9.36) and COPD-related (1.57 versus 1.48) SCCs were similar for FF/VI and UC, as were rates of all-cause hospitalisations (0.87 versus 0.82). Mean duration of hospital stay/patient was 4.5 and 4.2 days, respectively. COPD-related SCC mean total cost/patient was £484 FF/VI and £475 UC. LS mean annual rates of all-cause PCCs were significantly higher for FF/VI (21.20 versus 18.88 UC; p < 0.001). LS mean annual rates of COPD-related PCCs were similar for FF/VI and UC (2.42 versus 2.46). All-cause PCC mean total cost/patient was £900 FF/VI versus £811 UC, but COPD-related PCC costs were similar (£116 versus £114). Direct COPD-related total medical costs/patient were significantly lower for FF/VI (LS geometric mean £806 versus £963 UC; p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: In patients with COPD and exacerbation history, FF/VI may represent a less costly alternative to current therapies.GlaxoSmithKline plc. study HZC115151; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01551758.The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Outcomes Evaluated in Controlled Clinical Trials on the Management of COVID-19: A Methodological Systematic Review.

It is crucial that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) evaluate the outcomes that are critical to patients and clinicians, to facilitate relevance, interpretability, and comparability. This methodological systematic review describes the outcomes evaluated in 415 RCTs on the management of COVID-19, that were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, by 5 May 2020, and the instruments used to measure these outcomes. Significant heterogeneity was observed in the selection of outcomes and instruments. Mortality, adverse events and treatment success or failure are only evaluated in 64.4%, 48.4% and 43% of the included studies, respectively, while other outcomes are selected less often. Studies focusing on more severe presentations (hospitalized patients or requiring intensive care) most frequently evaluate mortality (72.5%) and adverse events (55.6%), while hospital admission (50.8%) and viral detection/load (55.6%) are most frequently assessed in the community setting. Outcome measurement instruments are poorly reported and heterogeneous. Follow-up does not exceed one month in 64.3% of these earlier trials, and long-term COVID-19 burden is rarely assessed. The methodological issues identified could delay the introduction of potentially life-saving treatments in clinical practice. Our findings demonstrate the need for greater consistency, to enable decision makers to compare and contrast studies.

Longitudinal immune profiling reveals key myeloid signatures associated with COVID-19.

COVID-19 pathogenesis is associated with an exaggerated immune response. However, the specific cellular mediators and inflammatory components driving diverse clinical disease outcomes remain poorly understood. We undertook longitudinal immune profiling on both whole blood and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) of hospitalized patients during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Here, we report key immune signatures present shortly after hospital admission that were associated with the severity of COVID-19. Immune signatures were related to shifts in neutrophil to T cell ratio, elevated serum IL-6, MCP-1 and IP-10, and most strikingly, modulation of CD14+ monocyte phenotype and function. Modified features of CD14+ monocytes included poor induction of the prostaglandin-producing enzyme, COX-2, as well as enhanced expression of the cell cycle marker Ki-67. Longitudinal analysis revealed reversion of some immune features back to the healthy median level in patients with a good eventual outcome. These findings identify previously unappreciated alterations in the innate immune compartment of COVID-19 patients and lend support to the idea that therapeutic strategies targeting release of myeloid cells from bone marrow should be considered in this disease. Moreover, they demonstrate that features of an exaggerated immune response are present early after hospital admission suggesting immune-modulating therapies would be most beneficial at early timepoints.

Benefit and safety of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol in the Salford Lung Study in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (SLS COPD) according to baseline patient characteristics and treatment subgroups.

BACKGROUND: SLS COPD was the first open-label randomised controlled trial demonstrating a reduction in moderate/severe COPD exacerbations with once-daily inhaled fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) in everyday clinical practice. Here we report FF/VI effectiveness and safety in predefined patient subgroups. METHODS: Patients with COPD, exacerbation history, and receiving maintenance inhaler therapy, were randomised to initiate FF/VI 100/25 µg or continue usual care (UC) with 12 months' follow-up. Annual rates of moderate/severe exacerbations (primary outcome), selected secondary outcomes, and incidence of pneumonia serious adverse events of special interest (SAESI) were compared between randomisation groups across various patient subgroups/baseline treatment strata. SAESI rates by actual treatment were also assessed. RESULTS: Lower exacerbation rates were observed for FF/VI versus UC across all subgroups/strata, including ICS + LABA therapy subset (8.0% [0.1, 15.4]), except in patients without baseline airflow limitation (-0.5% [-29.8, 22.1]). Larger reductions compared to the overall analysis were observed for patients on ICS-containing regimens (excluding LAMA) before the study (15.6% [3.4, 26.3]), and with baseline CAT score <10 (25.3% [-0.4, 44.4]). Pneumonia SAESI rates were similar for FF/VI versus UC across all subgroups/strata, except the LABA, LAMA or LABA + LAMA stratum (incidence ratio 2.8 [0.9, 8.5]). SAESI rates were not increased for FF/VI versus other ICS + LABA. CONCLUSIONS: Initiating FF/VI versus continuing UC reduced exacerbation rates without increased pneumonia SAESI risk compared to other ICS-containing regimens and in various patient subgroups, consistent with primary study findings. FF/VI may be a therapeutic option for a broad population of COPD patients, including those with more severe disease.

Annotating and detecting phenotypic information for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

OBJECTIVES: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) phenotypes cover a range of lung abnormalities. To allow text mining methods to identify pertinent and potentially complex information about these phenotypes from textual data, we have developed a novel annotated corpus, which we use to train a neural network-based named entity recognizer to detect fine-grained COPD phenotypic information. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Since COPD phenotype descriptions often mention other concepts within them (proteins, treatments, etc.), our corpus annotations include both outermost phenotype descriptions and concepts nested within them. Our neural layered bidirectional long short-term memory conditional random field (BiLSTM-CRF) network firstly recognizes nested mentions, which are fed into subsequent BiLSTM-CRF layers, to help to recognize enclosing phenotype mentions. RESULTS: Our corpus of 30 full papers (available at: http://www.nactem.ac.uk/COPD) is annotated by experts with 27 030 phenotype-related concept mentions, most of which are automatically linked to UMLS Metathesaurus concepts. When trained using the corpus, our BiLSTM-CRF network outperforms other popular approaches in recognizing detailed phenotypic information. DISCUSSION: Information extracted by our method can facilitate efficient location and exploration of detailed information about phenotypes, for example, those specifically concerning reactions to treatments. CONCLUSION: The importance of our corpus for developing methods to extract fine-grained information about COPD phenotypes is demonstrated through its successful use to train a layered BiLSTM-CRF network to extract phenotypic information at various levels of granularity. The minimal human intervention needed for training should permit ready adaption to extracting phenotypic information about other diseases.

Effectiveness of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol versus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol on asthma control in the Salford Lung Study.

OBJECTIVE: The Asthma Salford Lung Study demonstrated the effectiveness of initiating once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) versus continuing usual care in asthma patients in UK primary care [ 1 ]. Here, we report a secondary analysis in a subset of patients with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/Salm) as their baseline intended maintenance therapy, to evaluate the relative effectiveness of initiating FF/VI versus continuing FP/Salm. METHODS: Adults with symptomatic asthma were randomised to initiate FF/VI 100[200]/25 µg or continue FP/Salm. The Asthma Control Test (ACT), Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Asthma questionnaire, severe exacerbations, salbutamol inhaler prescriptions and serious adverse events (SAEs) were recorded throughout the 12-month treatment period. RESULTS: One thousand two hundred and sixty-four patients (FF/VI 646; FP/Salm 618) were included in this subset analysis; 978 had baseline ACT score <20 and were included in the primary effectiveness analysis (PEA) population. At week 24, odds of patients being ACT responders (total score ≥20 and/or improvement from baseline ≥3) were significantly higher with FF/VI versus FP/Salm (71% vs. 56%; odds ratio 2.03 [95% CI: 1.53, 2.68]; p < 0.001 [PEA]). Significant benefit with FF/VI versus FP/Salm was also observed for AQLQ responders, activity impairment due to asthma, exacerbation rates, and salbutamol inhalers prescribed. No significant between-group differences were observed for impairment while working or work absenteeism due to asthma. CONCLUSIONS: For patients in primary care, initiating FF/VI was significantly better than continuing with FP/Salm for improving asthma control and quality of life, and reducing asthma exacerbations, with no notable difference in SAEs. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01706198.

Effectiveness versus efficacy trials in COPD: how study design influences outcomes and applicability.

Guidelines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management are based largely on results from double-blind randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of efficacy. These trials have high internal validity and test whether a drug is efficacious, but they are conducted in highly selected populations that may differ significantly from patients with COPD seen in routine practice.We compared the baseline characteristics, healthcare use and outcomes between the Salford Lung Study (SLS), an open-label effectiveness RCT, with six recent large-scale efficacy RCTs. We also calculated the proportion of SLS patients who would have been eligible for inclusion in an efficacy RCT by applying the inclusion criteria used in efficacy trials of combination treatments.SLS patients were older, included more females and more current smokers, had more comorbidities (including asthma), and had more often experienced exacerbations prior to inclusion. In the SLS, rates of moderate or severe exacerbations, incidence of overall serious adverse events (SAEs), and SAEs of pneumonia were more frequent. A maximum of 30% of patients enrolled in the SLS would have been eligible for a phase IIIa regulatory exacerbation study.Patients in large COPD efficacy RCTs have limited representativeness compared with an effectiveness trial. This should be considered when interpreting efficacy RCT outcomes and their inclusion into guidelines.

Effectiveness of fluticasone furoate plus vilanterol on asthma control in clinical practice: an open-label, parallel group, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence for management of asthma comes from closely monitored efficacy trials done in highly selected patient groups. There is a need for randomised trials that are closer to usual clinical practice. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised, controlled, two-arm effectiveness trial at 74 general practice clinics in Salford and South Manchester, UK. Patients aged 18 years or older with a general practitioner's diagnosis of symptomatic asthma and on maintenance inhaler therapy were randomly assigned to initiate treatment with a once-daily inhaled combination of either 100 µg or 200 µg fluticasone furoate with 25 µg vilanterol or optimised usual care and followed up for 12 months. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients who achieved an asthma control test (ACT) score of 20 or greater or an increase in ACT score from baseline of 3 or greater at 24 weeks (termed responders), in patients with a baseline ACT score less than 20 (the primary effectiveness analysis population). All effectiveness analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01706198. FINDINGS: Between Nov 12, 2012, and Dec 16, 2016, 4725 patients were enrolled and 4233 randomly assigned to initiate treatment with fluticasone furoate and vilanterol (n=2114) or usual care (n=2119). 1207 patients (605 assigned to usual care, 602 to fluticasone furoate and vilanterol) had a baseline ACT score greater than or equal to 20 and were thus excluded from the primary effectiveness analysis population. At week 24, the odds of being a responder were higher for patients who initiated treatment with fluticasone furoate and vilanterol than for those on usual care (977 [71%] of 1373 in the fluticasone furoate and vilanterol group vs 784 [56%] of 1399 in the usual care group; odds ratio [OR] 2·00 [95% CI 1·70-2·34], p<0·0001). At week 24, the adjusted mean ACT score increased by 4·4 points from baseline in patients initiated with fluticasone furoate and vilanterol, compared with 2·8 points in the usual care group (difference 1·6 [95% CI 1·3-2·0], p<0·0001). This result was consistent for the duration of the study. Pneumonia was uncommon, with no differences between groups; there was no difference in other serious adverse events between the groups. INTERPRETATION: In patients with a general practitioner's diagnosis of symptomatic asthma and on maintenance inhaler therapy, initiation of a once-daily treatment regimen of combined fluticasone furoate and vilanterol improved asthma control without increasing the risk of serious adverse events when compared with optimised usual care. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

Monitoring safety in a phase III real-world effectiveness trial: use of novel methodology in the Salford Lung Study.

BACKGROUND: The Salford Lung Study (SLS) programme, encompassing two phase III pragmatic randomised controlled trials, was designed to generate evidence on the effectiveness of a once-daily treatment for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in routine primary care using electronic health records. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe and discuss the safety monitoring methodology and the challenges associated with ensuring patient safety in the SLS. Refinements to safety monitoring processes and infrastructure are also discussed. The study results are outside the remit of this paper. The results of the COPD study were published recently and a more in-depth exploration of the safety results will be the subject of future publications. ACHIEVEMENTS: The SLS used a linked database system to capture relevant data from primary care practices in Salford and South Manchester, two university hospitals and other national databases. Patient data were collated and analysed to create daily summaries that were used to alert a specialist safety team to potential safety events. Clinical research teams at participating general practitioner sites and pharmacies also captured safety events during routine consultations. Confidence in the safety monitoring processes over time allowed the methodology to be refined and streamlined without compromising patient safety or the timely collection of data. The information technology infrastructure also allowed additional details of safety information to be collected. CONCLUSION: Integration of multiple data sources in the SLS may provide more comprehensive safety information than usually collected in standard randomised controlled trials. Application of the principles of safety monitoring methodology from the SLS could facilitate safety monitoring processes for future pragmatic randomised controlled trials and yield important complementary safety and effectiveness data. © 2016 The Authors Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

A study of attitudes, beliefs and organisational barriers related to safe emergency oxygen therapy for patients with COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) in clinical practice and research.

BACKGROUND: Patients can be harmed by receiving too little or too much oxygen. There is ongoing disagreement about the use of oxygen in medical emergencies. METHODS: This was a mixed methods study (survey, telephone interviews and focus groups) involving patients, the public and healthcare professionals (HCPs). RESULTS: 62 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), 65 members of the public, 68 ambulance crew members, 22 doctors, 22 nurses and 10 hospital managers took part. For five factual questions about oxygen therapy, the average score for correct answers was 28% for patients with COPD, 33% for the general public and 75% for HCPs. The HCPs had an average score of 66% for five technical questions. Patients (79%) and members of the public (68%) were more likely than HCPs (36%) to believe that oxygen was beneficial in most medical emergencies and less likely to have concerns that it might harm some people (35%, 25% and 68%). All groups had complex attitudes about research into oxygen use in medical emergencies. Many participants would not wish for themselves or their loved ones to have their oxygen therapy determined by a randomised protocol, especially if informed consent was not possible in an emergency situation. CONCLUSIONS: We have found low levels of factual knowledge about oxygen use among patients with COPD and the general public and many false beliefs about the potential benefits and harms of using oxygen. HCPs had a higher level of factual knowledge. All groups had complex attitudes towards research into emergency oxygen use.