17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Determinants of initial inhaled corticosteroid use in patients with GOLD A/B COPD: a retrospective study of UK general practice

      research-article

      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

          Initial use of inhaled corticosteroid therapy is common in patients with Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) A or B chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, contrary to GOLD guidelines. We investigated UK prescribing of inhaled corticosteroid therapy in these patients, to identify predictors of inhaled corticosteroid use in newly diagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. A cohort of newly diagnosed GOLD A/B chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients was identified from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (June 2005–June 2015). Patients were classified by prescribed treatment, with those receiving inhaled corticosteroid-containing therapy compared with those receiving long-acting bronchodilators without inhaled corticosteroid. In all, 29,815 patients with spirometry-confirmed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were identified. Of those prescribed maintenance therapy within 3 months of diagnosis, 63% were prescribed inhaled corticosteroid-containing therapy vs. 37% prescribed non-inhaled corticosteroid therapy. FEV 1% predicted, concurrent asthma diagnosis, region, and moderate exacerbation were the strongest predictors of inhaled corticosteroid use in the overall cohort. When concurrent asthma patients were excluded, all other co-variates remained significant predictors. Other significant predictors included general practitioner practice, younger age, and co-prescription with short-acting bronchodilators. Trends over time showed that initial inhaled corticosteroid prescriptions reduced throughout the study, but still accounted for 47% of initial prescriptions in 2015. These results suggest that inhaled corticosteroid prescribing in GOLD A/B patients is common, with significant regional variation that is independent of FEV 1% predicted.

          Early-stage chronic lung disease: overuse of inhaled steroids in the UK

          Inhaled steroids are often prescribed to early-stage chronic lung disease patients in the UK despite guidelines to the contrary. Patients newly diagnosed with early-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) should not be prescribed inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), because they carry an increased risk of side effects such as pneumonia and osteoporosis. ICS should be reserved for patients with severe COPD and frequent exacerbations. James Chalmers at the Scottish Centre for Respiratory Research, Dundee, and co-workers examined prescribed medication data from the UK spanning 10 years, to determine key predictors of ICS prescription during early-stage COPD. Of 29,815 patients identified, an average of 63% were prescribed ICS upon diagnosis, regardless of disease severity. Younger patients were more likely to receive ICS, possibly due to co-morbidity with chronic asthma, and particular UK regions and medical practices prescribed ICS more readily than others.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Validity of diagnostic coding within the General Practice Research Database: a systematic review.

          The UK-based General Practice Research Database (GPRD) is a valuable source of longitudinal primary care records and is increasingly used for epidemiological research. To conduct a systematic review of the literature on accuracy and completeness of diagnostic coding in the GPRD. Systematic review. Six electronic databases were searched using search terms relating to the GPRD, in association with terms synonymous with validity, accuracy, concordance, and recording. A positive predictive value was calculated for each diagnosis that considered a comparison with a gold standard. Studies were also considered that compared the GPRD with other databases and national statistics. A total of 49 papers are included in this review. Forty papers conducted validation of a clinical diagnosis in the GPRD. When assessed against a gold standard (validation using GP questionnaire, primary care medical records, or hospital correspondence), most of the diagnoses were accurately recorded in the patient electronic record. Acute conditions were not as well recorded, with positive predictive values lower than 50%. Twelve papers compared prevalence or consultation rates in the GPRD against other primary care databases or national statistics. Generally, there was good agreement between disease prevalence and consultation rates between the GPRD and other datasets; however, rates of diabetes and musculoskeletal conditions were underestimated in the GPRD. Most of the diagnoses coded in the GPRD are well recorded. Researchers using the GPRD may want to consider how well the disease of interest is recorded before planning research, and consider how to optimise the identification of clinical events.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Blood eosinophil count and exacerbations in severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease after withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids: a post-hoc analysis of the WISDOM trial

            Blood eosinophil counts might predict response to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and a history of exacerbations. We used data from the WISDOM trial to assess whether patients with COPD with higher blood eosinophil counts would be more likely to have exacerbations if ICS treatment was withdrawn.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Validity of the general practice research database.

              The United Kingdom General Practice Research Database (GPRD) is an office-based, computer-generated, medical resource designed from its inception to be used for epidemiologic research. A distinct version of the GPRD is maintained by the Boston Collaborative Drug Surveillance Program and has been the source of more than 130 scientific articles primarily addressing drug safety issues. We reviewed evidence related to the validity of the GPRD. Specifically, with our extensive experience with this automated database, we evaluated the quality and completeness of the data that it contains.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +44 (1344) 746419 , abby.tebboth@boehringer-ingelheim.com
                Journal
                NPJ Prim Care Respir Med
                NPJ Prim Care Respir Med
                NPJ Primary Care Respiratory Medicine
                Nature Publishing Group UK (London )
                2055-1010
                29 June 2017
                29 June 2017
                2017
                : 27
                : 43
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0397 2876, GRID grid.8241.f, Scottish Centre for Respiratory Research, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, , University of Dundee, ; Dundee, Scotland
                [2 ]GRID grid.459394.6, , Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd., ; Bracknell, Berkshire UK
                Article
                40
                10.1038/s41533-017-0040-z
                5491501
                28663549
                7919d4ce-b450-465e-9e2c-7e7405fc4866
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as 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 images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 10 October 2016
                : 22 May 2017
                : 25 May 2017
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Comments

                Comment on this article