English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Real-world data provide the potential for generating evidence on drug treatment effects in groups excluded from trials, but rigorous, validated methodology for doing so is lacking. We investigated whether non-interventional methods applied to real-world data could reproduce results from the landmark TORCH COPD trial.  We performed a historical cohort study (2000–2017) of COPD drug treatment effects in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Two control groups were selected from CPRD by applying TORCH inclusion/exclusion criteria and 1:1 matching to TORCH participants, as follows. Control group 1: people with COPD not prescribed fluticasone propionate (FP)-salmeterol (SAL); control group 2: people with COPD prescribed SAL only. FP-SAL exposed groups were then selected from CPRD by propensity score matching to each control group. Outcomes studied were COPD exacerbations, death from any cause and pneumonia.  2652 FP-SAL exposed people were propensity score matched to 2652 FP-SAL unexposed people while 991 FP-SAL exposed people were propensity score matched to 991 SAL exposed people. Exacerbation rate ratio was comparable to TORCH for FP-SAL  versus  SAL (0.85, 95% CI 0.74–0.97  versus  0.88, 0.81–0.95) but not for FP-SAL  versus  no FP-SAL (1.30, 1.19–1.42  versus  0.75, 0.69–0.81). In addition, active comparator results were consistent with TORCH for mortality (hazard ratio 0.93, 0.65–1.32  versus  0.93, 0.77–1.13) and pneumonia (risk ratio 1.39, 1.04–1.87  versus  1.47, 1.25–1.73).  We obtained very similar results to the TORCH trial for active comparator analyses, but were unable to reproduce placebo-controlled results. Application of these validated methods for active comparator analyses to groups excluded from randomised controlled trials provides a practical way for contributing to the evidence base and supporting COPD treatment decisions.

Real world effects of COPD medications: a cohort study with validation against results from randomised controlled trials