Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2021 May 31;7(2):00966-2020.
doi: 10.1183/23120541.00966-2020. eCollection 2021 Apr.

Safety data in randomised real-world evidence studies: Salford Lung Study learnings

Affiliations
Review

Safety data in randomised real-world evidence studies: Salford Lung Study learnings

Catherine Harvey et al. ERJ Open Res. .

Abstract

Evidence to support clinical decision making must be based on safety data that have been captured, analysed and interpreted in a robust and reliable way. Randomised real-world evidence (RRWE) studies provide the opportunity to evaluate the use of medicines in patients and settings representative of routine clinical practice. However, elements that underpin the design of RRWE studies can have a significant impact upon the analysis, interpretation and implications of safety data. In this narrative review, we use data from the Salford Lung Study; two prospective, 12-month, open-label, parallel-group, phase III randomised controlled trials conducted in primary care in the UK; to highlight the importance of capturing treatment modifications when attempting to evaluate safety events according to actual treatment exposure. We demonstrate that analysing safety data by actual treatment received (i.e. accounting for the treatment modifications that occur routinely in the primary care setting) provides additional insight beyond analysing according to randomised treatment strategy only. It is therefore proposed that understanding of safety data from RRWE trials can be optimised by analysing both by randomised group and by actual treatment received.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest: C. Harvey reports this study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline and medical writing support by Ashfield MedComms was also funded by GlaxoSmithKline; and she is an employee of and holds shares/options in GlaxoSmithKline. Conflict of interest: A. Woodcock reports this study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline and medical writing support by Ashfield MedComms was also funded by GlaxoSmithKline; and a speaker fee and expenses ($3491.62) from GlaxoSmithKline, and advisory fees and expenses ($4998.95) from Chiesi, outside the submitted work. He is also chairman/shareholder of Reacta Biotech, a university spinout manufacturing food challenge materials for allergy. Conflict of interest: J. Vestbo reports fees for attending six steering committee meetings over the study period from GlaxoSmithKline; and consultancy for COPD phase 2 and 3 programmes and payment for lectures including service in speaker bureaus from GlaxoSmithKline and Chiesi Pharmaceuticals, consultancy for COPD phase 2 and 3 programmes and payment for lectures including service in speaker bureau, and a biomarker study grant from Boehringer-Ingelheim, and consultancy for COPD phase 2 and 3 programes and payment for lectures including service in speaker bureaus from Novartis and AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: C. Crim reports reports this study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline and medical writing support by Ashfield MedComms was also funded by GlaxoSmithKline; and she is an employee of and holds shares/options in GlaxoSmithKline. Conflict of interest: L. Frith reports reports this study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline and medical writing support by Ashfield MedComms was also funded by GlaxoSmithKline; and she is an employee of and holds shares/options in GlaxoSmithKline. Conflict of interest: N.D. Bakerly reports reports this study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline and medical writing support by Ashfield MedComms was also funded by GlaxoSmithKline; and grants and personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis, support for congress attendance from Boehringer Ingelheim, and grants and personal fees from Almirall/AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: J.P. New reports reports this study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline and medical writing support by Ashfield MedComms was also funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Conflict of interest: C. Williams reports this study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline and medical writing support by Ashfield MedComms was also funded by GlaxoSmithKline; in addition, she was an employee of GlaxoSmithKline during the Salford Lung Studies. Conflict of interest: H. Elkhenini reports this study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline and medical writing support by Ashfield MedComms was also funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Conflict of interest: N. Majeed reports reports this study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline and medical writing support by Ashfield MedComms was also funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Conflict of interest: G. Cardwell reports reports this study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline and medical writing support by Ashfield MedComms was also funded by GlaxoSmithKline; and he is an employee of and holds shares/options in GlaxoSmithKline. Conflict of interest: S. Collier reports reports this study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline and medical writing support by Ashfield MedComms was also funded by GlaxoSmithKline; and she is an employee of and holds shares/options in GlaxoSmithKline. Conflict of interest: L. Jacques reports reports this study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline and medical writing support by Ashfield MedComms was also funded by GlaxoSmithKline; and she is an employee of and holds shares/options in GlaxoSmithKline. Conflict of interest: J. Fletcher reports reports this study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline and medical writing support by Ashfield MedComms was also funded by GlaxoSmithKline; and she is an employee of and holds shares/options in GlaxoSmithKline.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Overview of design of Salford Lung Study (SLS) COPD and SLS asthma groups. #: randomisation stratified by presence/absence of a COPD exacerbation in the previous 12 months and baseline intended COPD maintenance therapy. +: randomisation stratified by baseline Asthma Control Test (ACT) score (≥20, 16–19, ≤15) and baseline intended asthma maintenance therapy. AQLQ: Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire; BD: bronchodilator; CAT: COPD Assessment Test; EHR: electronic health record; FF/VI: fluticasone furoate/vilanterol; GP: general practitioner; ICS: inhaled corticosteroid; LABA: long-acting β2-agonist; LAMA: long-acting muscarinic antagonist; MARS-A: Medical Adherence Report Scale for Asthma; UC: usual care; WPAI: asthma: Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Treatment modifications by randomised treatment group during the 12-month study period in Salford Lung Study (SLS) COPD and SLS asthma groups. A key design characteristic of the SLS was the ability for patients’ treatment to be modified during the 12-month study period. Treatment modifications included a change in class of medication, an increase/decrease in medication dose or a change in brand of medication. Patients who initiated treatment with fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) were permitted to modify treatment to usual care (UC); however, patients who initiated treatment with UC were not permitted to initiate treatment with FF/VI. #: total study population (intent-to-treat).

References

    1. Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease . Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (2020 report). https://goldcopd.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/GOLD-2020-REPORT-ver1.0w... Date last accessed: April 13, 2021. - PubMed
    1. Global Initiative for Asthma . Global strategy for asthma management and prevention (2019 update). https://ginasthma.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/GINA-2019-main-report-J... Date last accessed: April 13, 2021.
    1. Herland K, Akselsen JP, Skjønsberg OH, et al. . How representative are clinical study patients with asthma or COPD for a larger “real life” population of patients with obstructive lung disease? Respir Med 2005; 99: 11–19. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2004.03.026 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Woodcock A, Boucot I, Leather DA, et al. . Effectiveness versus efficacy trials in COPD: how study design influences outcomes and applicability. Eur Respir J 2018; 51: 1701531. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01531-201751 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chalkidou K, Tunis S, Whicher D, et al. . The role for pragmatic randomized controlled trials (pRCTs) in comparative effectiveness research. Clin Trials 2012; 9: 436–446. doi: 10.1177/1740774512450097 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources