Management Of Community-Acquired Pneumonia: An Observational Study In UK Primary Care.

PURPOSE: 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 frequent in 3819 episodes referred to hospital (12, 0.3%; p=0.63), but where recorded, CRB65 scores were higher (Median: 1.0 [interquartile range: 0.5-1.0] vs 2.0 [interquartile range: 1.0-2.0], p=0.04). The most commonly prescribed antibiotic was amoxicillin (40.3%), and 85.9% of episodes had a prescription length of seven days. CONCLUSION: CRB65 scores are seldom recorded in UK primary care. Given that these scores are embedded in UK guidelines, further work is required to assess feasibility and barriers to use of CRB65 scores in primary care.

Fractional exhaled nitric oxide as a predictor of response to inhaled corticosteroids in patients with non-specific respiratory symptoms and insignificant bronchodilator reversibility: a randomised controlled trial.

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 µg, two puffs twice per day, equivalent to 800 µg 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 corticosteroids group than in the placebo group (difference between groups 0·071, 95% CI 0·002 to 0·139; p=0·044). The most common adverse events were nasopharyngitis (18 [12%] patients in the treatment group vs 13 [9%] in the placebo group), infections and infestations (25 [17%] vs 21 [14%]), and respiratory, thoracic, and mediastinal disorders (13 [9%] vs 17 [12%]). INTERPRETATION: FeNO measurement is an easy and non-invasive tool to use in clinical practice in patients with non-specific respiratory symptoms to predict response to inhaled corticosteroids. Further research is needed to examine its role in patients with evidence of other airway diseases, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. FUNDING: Sponsored by OPRI with partial funding by Circassia and study drugs provided by TEVA.

A Randomized Pragmatic Trial of Changing to and Stepping Down Fluticasone/Formoterol in Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend reducing treatment in patients with well-controlled asthma after 3 months of stability. However, there is inadequate real-life data to guide physicians on therapy change in daily practice. OBJECTIVE: To assess asthma control after change to and step-down of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate dihydrate (FP/FOR) in real-life patients. METHODS: In a randomized controlled, pragmatic, open-label trial, 225 well-controlled patients with asthma were randomized (1:2) to maintain high-dose fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate (FP/SAL, 1000/100 µg) or switch to FP/FOR (1000/40 µg) daily for 12 weeks (phase 1). One hundred sixteen patients stable on FP/FOR at week 12 were subsequently randomized (1:1) to maintain this therapy, or stepped down to FP/FOR (500/20 µg) daily for 12 weeks (phase 2). The primary end point was the 7-question Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ7) score. RESULTS: In phase 1, FP/FOR (1000/40 µg) (n = 126) was noninferior to FP/SAL (1000/100 µg) (n = 73) for ACQ7 (difference in means, -0.12; 95% CI, -0.32 to 0.09). In phase 2, FP/FOR (500/20 µg) (n = 52) was noninferior to FP/FOR (1000/40 µg) (n = 52) for ACQ7 (difference in means, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.20 to 0.22). There was no significant difference in exacerbation rate between the groups in either phase. However, 1 to 2 exacerbations in 12 months before phase 1 were associated with the occurrence of an exacerbation after step-down (P = .007). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with well-controlled asthma, a change from FP/SAL to FP/FOR did not compromise asthma control. Step-down of FP/FOR was well tolerated; however, in contrast to current guidelines, our data suggest caution in stepping down patients uncontrolled in the last 12 months. Larger step-down studies are required to confirm these findings.