One-Year Safety of Olodaterol Once Daily via Respimat® in Patients with GOLD 2-4 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Results of a Pre-Specified Pooled Analysis

The novel long-acting β2-agonist olodaterol demonstrated an acceptable safety profile in short-term phase II clinical studies. This analysis of four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase III studies (1222.11, NCT00782210; 1222.12, NCT00782509; 1222.13, NCT00793624; 1222.14, NCT00796653) evaluated the long-term safety of olodaterol once daily (QD) in a large cohort of patients with moderate to very severe (Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2-4) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The studies compared olodaterol (5 or 10 μg) QD via Respimat®, formoterol 12 μg twice daily (BID) via Aerolizer® (1222.13 and 1222.14), and placebo for 48 weeks. Patients continued receiving background maintenance therapy, with ∼60% receiving concomitant cardiovascular therapy and 25% having a history of concomitant cardiac disease. Pre-specified analyses of pooled data assessed the adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs in the whole population, and in subgroups with cardiac disease, along with in-depth electrocardiogram and Holter monitoring. In total, 3104 patients were included in the safety analysis: 876 received olodaterol 5 μg, 883 received olodaterol 10 μg, 885 received placebos, and 460 received formoterol 12 μg BID. Overall incidence of on-treatment AEs (71.2%), serious AEs (16.1%), and deaths (1.7%) were balanced across treatment groups. Respiratory and cardiovascular AEs, including major adverse cardiac events, were reported at similar frequencies in placebo and active treatment groups. The safety profiles of both olodaterol 5 μg (marketed and registered dose) and 10 μg QD delivered via Respimat® are comparable to placebo and formoterol BID in this population, with no safety signals identified.

Methodologies for the Development of the Management of Cough: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report

BACKGROUND: This series of guidance documents on cough, which will be published over time, is a hybrid of two processes: (1) evidence-based guidelines and (2) trustworthy consensus statements based on a robust and transparent process.

METHODS: The CHEST Guidelines Oversight Committee selected a nonconflicted Panel Chair and jointly assembled an international panel of experts in each clinical area with few, if any, conflicts of interest. PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome)-based key questions and parameters of eligibility were developed for each clinical topic to inform the comprehensive literature search. Existing guidelines, systematic reviews, and primary studies were assessed for relevance and quality. Data elements were extracted into evidence tables and synthesized to provide summary statistics. These, in turn, are presented to support the evidence-based graded recommendations. A highly structured consensus-based Delphi approach was used to provide expert advice on all guidance statements. Transparency of process was documented.

RESULTS: Evidence-based guideline recommendations and consensus-based suggestions were carefully crafted to provide direction to health-care providers and investigators who treat and/or study patients with cough. Manuscripts and tables summarize the evidence in each clinical area supporting the recommendations and suggestions.

CONCLUSIONS: The resulting guidance statements are based on a rigorous methodology and transparency of process. Unless otherwise stated, the recommendations and suggestions meet the guidelines for trustworthiness developed by the Institute of Medicine and can be applied with confidence by physicians, nurses, other health-care providers, investigators, and patients.

Appointment keeping for medical review among patients with selected chronic diseases in an urban area of Uganda

Introduction: proper management of chronic diseases is important for prevention of disease complications and yet some patients miss appointments for medical review thereby missing the opportunity for proper monitoring of their disease conditions. There is limited information on missed appointments among chronic disease patients in resource limited settings. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of missed appointments for medical review and associated factors among chronic disease patients in an urban area of Uganda.

Methods: patients or caregivers of children with chronic diseases were identified as they bought medicines from a community pharmacy. They were visited at home to access their medical documents and those whose chronic disease status was ascertained were enrolled. The data was collected using: questionnaires, review of medical documents, and in-depth interviews with chronic disease patients.

Results: the prevalence of missed appointments was 42% (95%CI=35-49%). The factors associated with missed appointments were: monthly income ?30US Dollars (OR=2.56, CI=1.25–5.26), affording less than half of prescribed drugs (OR=3.92, CI=1.64–9.40), not experiencing adverse events (OR=2.66, CI=1.26–5.61), not sure if treatment helps (OR=2.84, CI=1.047.77), not having a medicines administration schedule (OR=6.77, CI=2.11–21.68), and increasing number of drugs (OR=0.72, CI=0.53–0.98). Conclusion: patients missed appointments mainly due to: financial and health system barriers, conflicting commitments with appointments, and perceptions of the disease condition. Patients should be supported with accessible and affordable health services.