Dataset Information

The Salford Lung Study protocol: a pragmatic, randomised phase III real-world effectiveness trial in asthma.

ABSTRACT: Novel therapies need to be evaluated in normal clinical practice to allow a true representation of the treatment effectiveness in real-world settings.The Salford Lung Study is a pragmatic randomised controlled trial in adult asthma, evaluating the clinical effectiveness and safety of once-daily fluticasone furoate (100 ?g or 200 ?g)/vilanterol 25 ?g in a novel dry-powder inhaler, versus existing asthma maintenance therapy. The study was initiated before this investigational treatment was licensed and conducted in real-world clinical practice to consider adherence, co-morbidities, polypharmacy, and real-world factors.Asthma Control Test at week 24; safety endpoints include the incidence of serious pneumonias. The study utilises the Salford electronic medical record, which allows near to real-time collection and monitoring of safety data.The Salford Lung Study is the world's first pragmatic randomised controlled trial of a pre-licensed medication in asthma. Use of patients' linked electronic health records to collect clinical endpoints offers minimal disruption to patients and investigators, and also ensures patient safety. This highly innovative study will complement standard double-blind randomised controlled trials in order to improve our understanding of the risk/benefit profile of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol in patients with asthma in real-world settings.Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01706198; 04 October 2012.

SUBMITTER: Woodcock A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4676141 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Salford Lung Study protocol: a pragmatic, randomised phase III real-world effectiveness trial in asthma.

Woodcock Ashley A Bakerly Nawar Diar ND New John P JP Gibson J Martin JM Wu Wei W Vestbo Jørgen J Leather David D

BMC pulmonary medicine 20151210

<h4>Background</h4>Novel therapies need to be evaluated in normal clinical practice to allow a true representation of the treatment effectiveness in real-world settings.<h4>Methods/design</h4>The Salford Lung Study is a pragmatic randomised controlled trial in adult asthma, evaluating the clinical effectiveness and safety of once-daily fluticasone furoate (100 μg or 200 μg)/vilanterol 25 μg in a novel dry-powder inhaler, versus existing asthma maintenance therapy. The study was initiated before ...[more]

PMID: 26651333

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe 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.ObjectiveThe 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.AchievementsThe 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.ConclusionIntegration 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.

Project description:IntroductionThe Salford Lung Studies (SLS) were real-world randomised controlled trials set within UK primary care that assessed the effectiveness and safety of initiating once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol versus continuing usual care in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma. Data were collected for a relatively short period, limiting the study of long-term outcomes. To broaden the capture of SLS patients' data, we undertook the Extended SLS (Ext-SLS), aiming to better understand the patient disease journey and the effects of treatment in a real-world setting, through collection of patient-level data. Here, we present study design information and the challenges and learnings gathered in creating the Ext-SLS.MethodsThe Ext-SLS was intended to augment the SLS by collecting retrospective and prospective (up to 10 years from consent) primary and secondary care electronic health record (EHR) data and patient questionnaires. After ethics approval, general practitioners (GPs) obtained consent from SLS patients remotely (mean 3.2 years post-SLS completion). To facilitate GPs identifying eligible patients, a novel EHR-based approach flagged SLS patients who were alive and registered with their original GP. An automated system sent consent forms/questionnaires to patients. Medical data were collected via EHRs; primary care data were extracted from GPs' systems whilst secondary care data were sourced from the UK NHS.ResultsOf the 75 GP sites from the SLS, 35 (47%) declined Ext-SLS participation leaving 4158 potentially eligible patients; 1169 (28%) patients were excluded as GPs could not confirm them as SLS participants or due to incapacity. Of 2989 patients invited, 1189 (40%) consented.ConclusionsDeveloping an EHR-based trial extension was achieved, with reasonable consent rates amongst invited patients. The resulting Ext-SLS is a unique and valuable research resource. Leveraging EHRs and technology reduced GP burden, facilitating participation. Initiation of extension studies prior to study close-out may help increase GP and patient participation.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:In the UK and Ireland, severe and complex obesity is managed in specialist weight management services (SWMS), which provide multicomponent lifestyle interventions to support weight loss, and use of medication if available. Liraglutide 3 mg (LIRA 3 mg) is an effective weight-loss medication, but weight loss in individual patients is variable, and its efficacy has not been assessed in SWMS. This study aims to investigate whether a targeted prescribing pathway for LIRA 3 mg with multiple prespecified stopping rules could help people with severe obesity and established complications achieve ?15% weight loss in order to determine whether this could be considered a clinically effective and cost-effective strategy for managing severe and complex obesity in SWMS. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:In this 2-year, multicentre, open-label, real-world randomised controlled trial, 384 adults with severe and complex obesity (defined as body mass index ?35 kg/m2 plus either prediabetes, type 2 diabetes, hypertension or sleep apnoea) will be randomised via a 2:1 ratio to receive either standard SWMS care (n=128) or standard SWMS care plus a targeted prescribing pathway for LIRA 3 mg with prespecified stopping rules at 16, 32 and 52 weeks (n=256).The primary outcome is to compare the proportion of participants achieving a weight loss of ?15% at 52 weeks with a targeted prescribing pathway versus standard care. Secondary outcomes include a comparison of (1) the weight loss maintenance at 104 weeks and (2) the budget impact and cost effectiveness between the two groups in a real-world setting. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The Health Research Authority and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority in UK, the Health Products Regulatory Authority in Ireland, the North West Deanery Research Ethics Committee (UK) and the St Vincent's University Hospital European Research Ethics Committee (Ireland) have approved the study. The findings of the study will be published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ClinicalTrials.gov-Identifier: NCT03036800.European Clinical Trials Database-Identifier: EudraCT Number 2017-002998-20.

Project description:Background: Indirect comparison among biologics in severe asthma (SA) is a challenging but desirable goal for clinicians in real life. The aim of the study is to define characteristics of a biologic-treated T2-driven-SA population and to evaluate the effectiveness of biologic treatments in a real-world setting by variation in intra/inter-biologic parameters in an up to 4-year follow-up. Methods: Demographic, clinical, functional, and biological characteristics were evaluated retrospectively in 104 patients recruited until July 2022 at baseline (T0) and over a maximum of 4 years (T4) of biologic therapy (omalizumab/OmaG = 41, from T0 to T4, mepolizumab/MepoG = 26, from T0 to T4, benralizumab/BenraG = 18, from T0 to T2, and dupilumab/DupiG = 19, from T0 to T1). Variations of parameters using means of paired Delta were assessed. Results: At baseline, patients had high prevalence of T2-driven comorbidities, low asthma control test (ACT mean 17.65 ± 4.41), impaired pulmonary function (FEV1 65 ± 18 %pred), frequent exacerbations/year (AEs 3.5 ± 3), and OCS dependence (60%). DupiG had lower T2 biomarkers/comorbidities and AEs, and worse FEV1 (57 ± 19 %pred) compared to other biologics (p < 0.05). All biologics improved ACT, FEV1%, FVC%, AEs rate, and OCS use. FEV1% improved in MepoG and BenraG over the minimal clinically important difference and was sustained over 4 years in OmaG and MepoG. A significant RV reduction in OmaG (T4) and DupiG (T1), and BenraG normalization (T2) of airflow limitation were found. We observed through inter-biologic parameters pair delta variation comparison a significant nocturnal awakenings reduction in BenraG vs. OmaG/MepoG, and neutrophils reduction in BenraG/DupiG vs. OmaG. Conclusions: Indirect comparison among biologics unveils clinical and functional improvements that may mark a different effectiveness. These results may highlight the preference of a single biologic compared to another with regard to specific treatable traits.

Project description:PurposeReal-world data on mepolizumab in patients with severe asthma and allergic and non-allergic phenotypes are limited. This study investigated the effectiveness of mepolizumab treatment in patients with severe asthma with allergic and non-allergic phenotypes.Patients and methodsThis retrospective cohort study (GSK ID: 214148) used administrative claims data from the Optum Research Database. Eligible patients were ≥6 years of age with asthma and had ≥2 mepolizumab claims post-index. Index date was the first mepolizumab claim/administration (January 2016-December 2018). Patients were divided into two cohorts: allergic and non-allergic asthma, based on diagnosis codes, medication use and lab test results. Outcomes included the rate of asthma-related exacerbations and oral corticosteroid (OCS) use during the 12 months before (baseline period) and 12 months after (follow-up period) mepolizumab initiation. Study ended in December 2019.ResultsOverall, 240 (44.6%) and 298 (55.4%) patients were included in the allergic and non-allergic asthma cohorts, respectively. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) counts of asthma-related exacerbations were significantly reduced from baseline to follow-up in both the allergic and non-allergic asthma cohorts (3.2 [2.5] to 2.1 [2.1], p < 0.001 and 2.5 [2.2] to 1.7 [1.9], p < 0.001, respectively). The mean number of OCS pharmacy claims was significantly decreased by 33.3% and 41.4% from baseline to follow-up in the allergic and non-allergic cohorts, respectively (p < 0.001); mean daily OCS dose significantly decreased by 30.6% and 45.4%, respectively (p < 0.001) as well as the mean number of OCS bursts, which decreased by 44.9% and 41.8%, respectively (p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between cohorts in reductions in asthma exacerbations, counts of OCS pharmacy claims or OCS bursts (baseline to follow-up).ConclusionMepolizumab significantly reduced asthma exacerbations and OCS use in patients with allergic and non-allergic asthma, suggesting that mepolizumab provides real-world benefit in severe asthma irrespective of whether a patient has an allergic phenotype.

Project description:BackgroundBreathlessness in advanced disease causes significant distress to patients and carers and presents management challenges to health care professionals. The Breathlessness Intervention Service (BIS) seeks to improve the care of breathless patients with advanced disease (regardless of cause) through the use of evidence-based practice and working with other healthcare providers. BIS delivers a complex intervention (of non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments) via a multi-professional team. BIS is being continuously developed and its impact evaluated using the MRC's framework for complex interventions (PreClinical, Phase I and Phase II completed). This paper presents the protocol for Phase III.Methods/designPhase III comprises a pragmatic, fast-track, single-blind randomised controlled trial of BIS versus standard care. Due to differing disease trajectories, the service uses two broad service models: one for patients with malignant disease (intervention delivered over two weeks) and one for patients with non-malignant disease (intervention delivered over four weeks). The Phase III trial therefore consists of two sub-protocols: one for patients with malignant conditions (four week protocol) and one for patients with non-malignant conditions (eight week protocol). Mixed method interviews are conducted with patients and their lay carers at three to five measurement points depending on randomisation and sub-protocol. Qualitative interviews are conducted with referring and non-referring health care professionals (malignant disease protocol only). The primary outcome measure is 'patient distress due to breathlessness' measured on a numerical rating scale (0-10). The trial includes economic evaluation. Analysis will be on an intention to treat basis.DiscussionThis is the first evaluation of a breathlessness intervention for advanced disease to have followed the MRC framework and one of the first palliative care trials to use fast track methodology and single-blinding. The results will provide evidence of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the service, informing its longer term development and implementation of the model in other centres nationally and internationally. It adds to methodological developments in palliative care research where complex interventions are common but evidence sparse.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00678405ISRCTN: ISRCTN04119516.

Project description:BackgroundThere is an ethical imperative to offer the results of trials to those who participated. Existing research highlights that less than a third of trials do so, despite the desire of participants to receive the results of the trials they participated in. This scoping review aimed to identify, collate, and describe the available evidence relating to any aspect of disseminating trial results to participants.MethodsA scoping review was conducted employing a search of key databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from January 2008 to August 2019) to identify studies that had explored any aspect of disseminating results to trial participants. The search strategy was based on that of a linked existing review. The evidence identified describes the characteristics of included studies using narrative description informed by analysis of relevant data using descriptive statistics.ResultsThirty-three eligible studies, including 12,700 participants (which included patients, health care professionals, trial teams), were identified and included. Reporting of participant characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity) across the studies was poor. The majority of studies investigated dissemination of aggregate trial results. The most frequently reported mode of disseminating of results was postal. Overall, the results report that participants evaluated receipt of trial results positively, with reported benefits including improved communication, demonstration of appreciation, improved retention, and engagement in future research. However, there were also some concerns about how well the dissemination was resourced and done, worries about emotional effects on participants especially when reporting unfavourable results, and frustration about the delay between the end of the trial and receipt of results.ConclusionsThis scoping review has highlighted that few high-quality evaluative studies have been conducted that can provide evidence on the best ways to deliver results to trial participants. There have been relatively few qualitative studies that explore perspectives from diverse populations, and those that have been conducted are limited to a handful of clinical areas. The learning from these studies can be used as a platform for further research and to consider some core guiding principles of the opportunities and challenges when disseminating trial results to those who participated.

Dataset Information

The Salford Lung Study protocol: a pragmatic, randomised phase III real-world effectiveness trial in asthma.

Publications

The Salford Lung Study protocol: a pragmatic, randomised phase III real-world effectiveness trial in asthma.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets