| Title |
Assessing the healthcare resource use associated with inappropriate prescribing of inhaled corticosteroids for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in GOLD groups A or B: an observational study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Respiratory Research, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12931-018-0767-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
James D. Chalmers, Chris Poole, Samantha Webster, Abigail Tebboth, Scott Dickinson, Alicia Gayle |
| Abstract |
Recent recommendations from the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) position inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients experiencing exacerbations (≥ 2 or ≥ 1 requiring hospitalisation); i.e. GOLD groups C and D. However, it is known that ICS is frequently prescribed for patients with less severe COPD. Potential drivers of inappropriate ICS use may be historical clinical guidance or a belief among physicians that intervening early with ICS would improve outcomes and reduce resource use. The objective of this study was to compare healthcare resource use in the UK for COPD patients in GOLD groups A and B (0 or 1 exacerbation not resulting in hospitalisation) who have either been prescribed an ICS-containing regimen or a non-ICS-containing regimen. Linked data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database were used. For the study period (1 July 2005 to 30 June 2015) a total 4009 patients met the inclusion criteria; 1745 receiving ICS-containing therapy and 2264 receiving non-ICS therapy. Treatment groups were propensity score-matched to account for potential confounders in the decision to prescribe ICS, leaving 1739 patients in both treatment arms. Resource use was assessed in terms of frequency of healthcare practitioner (HCP) interactions and rescue therapy prescribing. Treatment acquisition costs were not assessed. Results showed no benefit associated with the addition of ICS, with numerically higher all-cause HCP interactions (72,802 versus 69,136; adjusted relative rate: 1.07 [p = 0.061]) and rescue therapy prescriptions (24,063 versus 21,163; adjusted relative rate: 1.05 [p = 0.212]) for the ICS-containing group compared to the non-ICS group. Rate ratios favoured the non-ICS group for eight of nine outcomes assessed. Outcomes were similar for subgroup analyses surrounding potential influential parameters, including patients with poorer lung function (FEV1 < 50% predicted), one prior exacerbation or elevated blood eosinophils. These data suggest that ICS use in GOLD A and B COPD patients is not associated with a benefit in terms of healthcare resource use compared to non-ICS bronchodilator-based therapy; using ICS according to GOLD recommendations may offer an opportunity for improving patient care and reducing resource use. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Moldova, Republic of | 1 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 5 | 71% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 80 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 15% |
| Other | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 15% |
| Unknown | 23 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 14 | 18% |
| Unknown | 24 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 August 2018.
All research outputs
#14,605,790
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#1,416
of 3,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,083
of 343,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#34
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,062 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,278 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.