Dataset Information

Intranasal Fluticasone Propionate Observational Cohort Safety Studies: Reviewing Evidence from Databases on Two Continents.

ABSTRACT: Our objective was to highlight the importance of database selection in observational research and to determine the incidence of corticosteroid-related events in patients exposed to fluticasone propionate intranasal spray (FPNS) compared with other intranasal steroids (INS).After a feasibility study using an electronic medical record database in the UK (1990-2002), a retrospective cohort study was conducted using a large administrative claims database in the USA from 1994 to 2002 comparing the incidence and rate ratios of steroid-related events among intermittent, sub-chronic, and chronic FPNS use and other INS use episodes.Most patients used INS intermittently; power was low to evaluate risk associated with chronic use. Significantly elevated adjusted rate ratios were observed in the US study comparing FPNS with other INS for hypercorticism, sinusitis, abscess, and empyema, as well as a significantly decreased rate ratio for cataracts. The US claims database provided greater granularity on covariates and markers of severity to improve control of confounding for this study and time period, but neither database was able to assess the indication for prescription and the UK study could not address the use of INS without a prescription.The FPNS results were consistent with the risk profile for INS and did not raise any new safety signals at the time of study conduct, which is consistent with the current safety profile. We were not able to discern the extent of potential off-label use of FPNS or other INS. Differences in the available data and healthcare systems highlight important considerations for database selection in the feasibility phase to assess the precision and limitations prior to formal risk evaluation.

SUBMITTER: Davis KJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4819470 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Intranasal Fluticasone Propionate Observational Cohort Safety Studies: Reviewing Evidence from Databases on Two Continents.

Davis Kourtney J KJ Hinds David D Motsko Stephen P SP Goehring Earl E Jones Judith K JK

Drugs - real world outcomes 20160301 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>Our objective was to highlight the importance of database selection in observational research and to determine the incidence of corticosteroid-related events in patients exposed to fluticasone propionate intranasal spray (FPNS) compared with other intranasal steroids (INS).<h4>Methods</h4>After a feasibility study using an electronic medical record database in the UK (1990-2002), a retrospective cohort study was conducted using a large administrative claims database in the USA fr ...[more]

PMID: 27747804

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) (fluticasone/formoterol; Flutiform®; 100/10 µg b.i.d.) was compared with fluticasone propionate (Flixotide® Evohaler® pMDI; 100 µg b.i.d.) and fluticasone/salmeterol (Seretide® Evohaler® pMDI; 100/50 µg b.i.d.) in a pediatric asthma population (EudraCT number: 2010-024635-16).MethodsA double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group, multicenter study. Patients, aged 5-<12 years with persistent asthma ⩾ 6 months and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) ⩽ 90% predicted were randomized 1:1:1 to 12 weeks' treatment. The study objectives were to demonstrate superiority of fluticasone/formoterol to fluticasone and non-inferiority to fluticasone/salmeterol.ResultsA total of 512 patients were randomized: fluticasone/formoterol, 169; fluticasone, 173; fluticasone/salmeterol, 170. Fluticasone/formoterol was superior to fluticasone for the primary endpoint: change from predose FEV1 at baseline to 2 h postdose FEV1 over 12 weeks [least squares (LS) mean difference 0.07 l; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03, 0.11; p < 0.001] and the first key secondary endpoint, FEV1 area under the curve over 4 hours (AUC0-4 h) at week 12 (LS mean difference 0.09 l; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.13; p < 0.001). Per a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -0.1 l, fluticasone/formoterol was non-inferior to fluticasone/salmeterol for the primary endpoint (LS mean difference 0.00 l; 95% CI -0.04, 0.04; p < 0.001) and first key secondary endpoint (LS mean difference 0.01; 95% CI -0.03, 0.06; p < 0.001). Fluticasone/formoterol was non-inferior to fluticasone/salmeterol for the second key secondary endpoint, change from predose FEV1 over 12 weeks (treatment difference -0.02 l; 95% CI -0.06, 0.02; p < 0.001), but was not superior to fluticasone for this endpoint (LS mean difference 0.03 l; 95% CI -0.01, 0.07; p = 0.091). All treatments elicited large improvements from baseline to week 12 for the Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (LS mean change 0.76 to 0.85 units) and Asthma Control Questionnaire (LS mean change -1.03 to -1.13 units). Few severe exacerbations were seen (fluticasone/formoterol: two; fluticasone/salmeterol: two). All treatments were well tolerated.ConclusionsThis study supports the efficacy and safety of fluticasone/formoterol in a pediatric asthma population and its superiority to fluticasone.

Project description:BACKGROUND: In Europe, administration of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combined with a long-acting ?2 agonist is approved in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with a pre-bronchodilator FEV1 < 60% predicted normal, a history of repeated exacerbations, and who have significant symptoms despite regular bronchodilator therapy. Minimal data are available on the use of the fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate combination (FSC) in the real-life COPD setting and prescription compliance with the licensed specifications. METHODS: A French observational study was performed to describe the COPD population prescribed with FSC, prescription modalities, and the coherence of prescription practices with the market authorized population. Data were collected for patients initiating FSC treatment (500 ?g fluticasone propionate, 50 ?g salmeterol, dry powder inhaler) prescribed by a general practitioner (GP) or a pulmonologist, using physician and patient questionnaires. RESULTS: A total of 710 patients were included, 352 by GPs and 358 by pulmonologists. Mean age was over 60 years, and 70% of patients were male. More than half were retired, and overweight or obese. Approximately half were current smokers and one-third had cardiovascular comorbidities. According to both physician evaluation and GOLD 2006 classification, the majority of patients (>75%) had moderate to very severe COPD. Strict compliance by prescribing physicians with the market-approved population for dry powder inhaler SFC in COPD was low, notably in ICS-naïve patients; all three conditions were fulfilled in less than a quarter of patients with prior ICS and less than 7% of ICS-naïve patients. CONCLUSIONS: Prescription of dry powder inhaler SFC by GPs and pulmonologists has very low conformity with the three conditions defining the licensed COPD population. Prescription practices need to be improved and systematic FEV1 evaluation for COPD diagnosis and treatment management should be emphasized.

Project description:IntroductionIn recognition of the value of long-term real-world data, a postauthorization safety study of the inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) fluticasone propionate and long-acting ?2-agonist (LABA) formoterol fumarate (fluticasone/formoterol; Flutiform®) was conducted.MethodsThis was a 12-month observational study of outpatients with asthma aged ? 12 years in eight European countries. Patients were prescribed fluticasone/formoterol according to the licensed indication, and independently of their subsequent enrolment in the study. They were then treated according to local standard practice. The study objectives were to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of fluticasone/formoterol under real-world conditions.ResultsThe safety population for this study comprised 2539 patients (mean age 47.7 years; 94.3% aged ? 18 years; 63.4% female). Most patients (1538/2539, 60.6%) had switched to fluticasone/formoterol from another ICS/LABA, primarily due to lack of efficacy (1150/2539, 45.3%). Three quarters (77.4%) of patients were treated for 12 months, and 80.6% continued fluticasone/formoterol treatment after the study. Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 60.0% patients, and 10.2% had AEs considered possibly related to fluticasone/formoterol [most commonly asthma exacerbation (2.0% patients), dysphonia (1.8%) and cough (1.1%)]. Thirty-six severe AEs, but no serious AEs, were considered possibly related to fluticasone/formoterol. The proportion of patients with controlled asthma (based on Asthma Control Test score ? 20) increased from 29.4% at baseline to 67.4% at study end (last observation carried forward). The proportion of patients experiencing at least one severe exacerbation decreased from 35.8% in the year prior to enrolment to 9.8% during the study. Improvements from baseline to study end were also observed in Asthma Quality of Life scores and physician/patient reports of satisfaction with treatment.ConclusionIn this real-world postauthorization safety study, fluticasone/formoterol demonstrated a safety profile consistent with that seen in controlled clinical trials, with effectiveness in improving asthma control.

Dataset Information

Intranasal Fluticasone Propionate Observational Cohort Safety Studies: Reviewing Evidence from Databases on Two Continents.

Publications

Intranasal Fluticasone Propionate Observational Cohort Safety Studies: Reviewing Evidence from Databases on Two Continents.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets