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.

Tools for Assessing Outcomes in Studies of Chronic Cough: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report

BACKGROUND: Since the publication of the 2006 American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) cough guidelines, a variety of tools has been developed or further refined for assessing cough. The purpose of the present committee was to evaluate instruments used by investigators performing clinical research on chronic cough. The specific aims were to (1) assess the performance of tools designed to measure cough frequency, severity, and impact in adults, adolescents, and children with chronic cough and (2) make recommendations or suggestions related to these findings.

METHODS: By following the CHEST methodologic guidelines, the CHEST Expert Cough Panel based its recommendations and suggestions on a recently published comparative effectiveness review commissioned by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, a corresponding summary published in CHEST, and an updated systematic review through November 2013. Recommendations or suggestions based on these data were discussed, graded, and voted on during a meeting of the Expert Cough Panel.

RESULTS: We recommend for adults, adolescents (≥ 14 years of age), and children complaining of chronic cough that validated and reliable health-related quality-of-life (QoL) questionnaires be used as the measurement of choice to assess the impact of cough, such as the Leicester Cough Questionnaire and the Cough-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire in adult and adolescent patients and the Parent Cough-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire in children. We recommend acoustic cough counting to assess cough frequency but not cough severity. Limited data exist regarding the performance of visual analog scales, numeric rating scales, and tussigenic challenges.

CONCLUSIONS: Validated and reliable cough-specific health-related QoL questionnaires are recommended as the measurement of choice to assess the impact of cough on patients. How they compare is yet to be determined. When used, the reporting of cough severity by visual analog or numeric rating scales should be standardized. Previously validated QoL questionnaires or other cough assessments should not be modified unless the new version has been shown to be reliable and valid. Finally, in research settings, tussigenic challenges play a role in understanding mechanisms of cough.

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.