13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Erratum to: Effectiveness of initiating extrafine-particle versus fine-particle inhaled corticosteroids as asthma therapy in the Netherlands

      correction

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Erratum The original version of this article [1] unfortunately contained errors that have since been corrected. The word “pharmo” has been fully capitalised to “PHARMO” throughout the article. The reference to Table 2 in the first and second sentence under the Outcomes heading has been replaced with Fig. 3. Under the Abbreviations heading ‘extrafine-particle’ was repeated, this has been corrected to ‘EF-HFA-BDP [Qvar®]: extrafine-particle hydrofluoroalkane beclomethasone dipropionate’. The competing interests of Nicolas Roche and Theresa Guibert have been amended. Academic affiliations for Dirkje S. Postma (2), Richard J. Martin (3), Ron M.C. Herrings (4), Jetty Overbeek (4), and Nicolas Roche (7) have been corrected. Figure 3 in the online and pdf version did not match, this been amended.

          Related collections

          Most cited references1

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Effectiveness of initiating extrafine-particle versus fine-particle inhaled corticosteroids as asthma therapy in the Netherlands

          Background Most randomised clinical trials typically exclude a significant proportion of asthma patients, including those at higher risk of adverse events, with comorbidities, obesity, poor inhaler technique and adherence, or smokers. However, these patients might differentially benefit from extrafine-particle inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). This matched cohort, database study, compared the effectiveness of extrafine-particle with fine-particle ICS in a real-life population initiating ICS therapy in the Netherlands. Methods Data were from the Pharmo Database Network, comprising pharmacy and hospital discharge records, representative of 20 % of the Dutch population. The study population included patients aged 12 − 60, with a General Practice-recorded diagnosis for asthma (International Classification of Primary Care code R96), when available, ≥2 prescriptions for asthma therapy at any time in their recorded history, and receiving first prescription of ICS therapy as either extrafine-particle (ciclesonide or hydrofluoroalkane beclomethasone dipropionate [BDP]) or fine-particle ICS (fluticasone propionate or non-extrafine-particle-BDP). Patients were matched (1:1) on relevant demographic and clinical characteristics over 1-year baseline. Primary outcomes were severe exacerbation rates, risk domain asthma control and overall asthma control during the year following first ICS prescription. Secondary outcomes, treatment stability and being prescribed higher versus lower category of short-acting β2 agonists (SABA) dose, were compared over a 1-year outcome period using conditional logistic regression models. Results Following matching, 1399 patients were selected in each treatment cohort (median age: 43 years; males: 34 %). Median (interquartile range) initial ICS doses (fluticasone-equivalents in μg) were 160 (160 − 320) for extrafine-particle versus 500 (250 − 500) for fine-particle ICS (p < 0.001). Following adjustment for residual confounders, matched patients prescribed extrafine-particle ICS had significantly lower rates of exacerbations (adjusted rate ratio [95 % CI], 0.59 [0.47–0.73]), and significantly higher odds of achieving asthma control and treatment stability in the year following initiation than those prescribed fine-particle ICS, and this occurred at lower prescribed doses. Patients prescribed extrafine-particle ICS had lower odds of being prescribed higher doses of SABA (0.50 [0.44–0.57]). Conclusion In this historical, matched study, extrafine-particle ICS was associated with better odds of asthma control than fine-particle ICS in patients prescribed their first ICS therapy in the Netherlands. Of importance, this was reached at significantly lower prescribed dose. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12890-016-0234-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
            Bookmark

            Author and article information

            Contributors
            dprice@rirl.org
            Journal
            BMC Pulm Med
            BMC Pulm Med
            BMC Pulmonary Medicine
            BioMed Central (London )
            1471-2466
            23 July 2016
            23 July 2016
            2016
            : 16
            : 105
            Affiliations
            [ ]Department of General Practice, University of Groningen, University Medical Center, Groningen, The Netherlands
            [ ]University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department Pulmonary Medicine and Tuberculosis, Groningen, The Netherlands
            [ ]National Jewish Health and the University of Colorado, Denver, USA
            [ ]PHARMO Institute for Drugs Outcome Research, Utrecht, The Netherlands
            [ ]Research in Real Life, Ltd, Cambridge, UK
            [ ]Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
            [ ]Groupe Hospitalier Cochin, AP-HP and University Paris Descartes (EA2511), Paris, France
            [ ]Cincinnati Children’s Hospital and Medical Center, Cincinnati, USA
            [ ]Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA USA
            [ ]Emma’s Children Hospital, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
            [ ]Observational & Pragmatic Research Institute Pte, Ltd, Singapore, Singapore
            [ ]Academic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Polwarth Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD UK
            Article
            270
            10.1186/s12890-016-0270-9
            4958282
            27450521
            2422ee29-da7a-4a33-8e69-536f702bd824
            © The Author(s). 2016

            Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

            History
            : 20 May 2016
            : 19 July 2016
            Categories
            Erratum
            Custom metadata
            © The Author(s) 2016

            Respiratory medicine
            Respiratory medicine

            Comments

            Comment on this article