Background Blood eosinophil counts and history of exacerbations have been proposed as predictors of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who may benefit from triple therapy (inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting β 2 -agonist and long-acting muscarinic antagonist). Methods In a retrospective cohort analysis we examined the profiles of COPD patients from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and US Optum Clinformatics™ Data Mart (Optum) databases with reference to exacerbation frequency and blood eosinophil distribution. Results Of the 31,437 (CPRD) and 383,825 (Optum) patients with COPD, 15,364 (CPRD) and 139,465 (Optum) met the eligibility criteria and were included. Among patients with ≥2 exacerbations and available eosinophil counts in the baseline period (CPRD, n = 3089 and Optum, n = 13414), 17.0 and 13.3% respectively had eosinophil counts ≥400 cells/μL. Patients with ≥2 exacerbations or eosinophil count ≥400 cells/μL during first year, exacerbated at least once (CPRD, 82.8% vs Optum, 80.6%) or continued to have eosinophil count ≥300 cells/μL (76.8% vs 76.5%), respectively in the follow-up year. In both years, a higher variability in the number of exacerbations and eosinophil count was observed in patients with one exacerbation and eosinophil counts between 300 and 400 cells/μL; patients with eosinophil count < 150 cells/μL had the lowest variability. Approximately 10% patients had both ≥2 exacerbations and eosinophil count ≥300 cells/μL across the databases. Conclusion A high variability in blood eosinophil counts over two consecutive years was observed in UK and US patients with COPD and should be considered while making treatment decisions. A small proportion of COPD patients had frequent exacerbations and eosinophil count ≥300 cells/μL. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12931-019-1130-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
ObjectiveTo determine whether treatment with clarithromycin for respiratory tract infections was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) events, arrhythmias or all-cause mortality compared with other antibiotics.DesignRetrospective cohort design comparing clarithromycin monotherapy for lower (LRTI) or upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) with other antibiotic monotherapies for the same indication.SettingRoutine primary care data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and inpatient data from the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES).ParticipantsPatients aged ≥35 years prescribed antibiotic monotherapy for LRTI or URTI 1998–2012 and eligible for data linkage to HES.Main outcome measuresThe main outcome measures were: adjusted risk of first-ever CV event, within 37 days of initiation, in commonly prescribed antibiotics compared with clarithromycin. Secondarily, adjusted 37-day risks of first-ever arrhythmia and all-cause mortality.ResultsOf 700 689 treatments for LRTI and eligible for the CV analysis, there were 2071 CV events (unadjusted event rate: 29.6 per 10 000 treatments). Of 691 998 eligible treatments for URTI, there were 688 CV events (9.9 per 10 000 treatments). In LRTI and URTI, there were no significant differences in CV risk between clarithromycin and all other antibiotics combined: OR=1.00 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.22) and 0.82 (0.54 to 1.25), respectively. Adjusted CV risk in LRTI versus clarithromycin ranged from OR=1.42 (cefalexin; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.86) to 0.92 (doxycycline; 0.64 to 1.32); in URTI, from 1.17 (co-amoxiclav; 0.68 to 2.01) to 0.67 (erythromycin; 0.40 to 1.11). Adjusted mortality risk versus clarithromycin in LRTI ranged from 0.42 to 1.32; in URTI, from 0.75 to 1.43. For arrhythmia, adjusted risks in LRTI ranged from 0.68 to 1.05; in URTI, from 0.70 to 1.22.ConclusionsCV events were more likely after LRTI than after URTI. When analysed by specific indication, CV risk associated with clarithromycin was no different to other antibiotics.
Purpose Previous studies have shown that opportunities to diagnose chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) early are often missed in primary care. This retrospective study aimed to utilize secondary data from the United Kingdom (UK) healthcare system to understand the impact of early versus late diagnosis of COPD. Patients and Methods Newly diagnosed COPD patients were identified in the UK Clinical Practice Research Database from 2011 to 2014. Patients whose 5-year medical data before diagnosis revealed ≥3 counts of eight indicators of early COPD were deemed as late-diagnosed, whereas others were deemed as early-diagnosed. We assessed patients’ characteristics; time-to-first, risk, and rates of exacerbation; and healthcare resource utilization (COPD-related clinic visits, Accident and Emergency visits, and hospitalizations) in late- versus early-diagnosed patients. Results Of 10,158 patients included in the study, 6783 (67%) were identified as late-diagnosed and 3375 (33%) as early-diagnosed. The median time-to-first exacerbation was shorter in late-diagnosed (14.5 months) versus early-diagnosed (29.0 months) patients, with a significant risk of exacerbation (hazard ratio 1.46 [95% confidence interval: 1.38–1.55]). Additionally, the exacerbation rate (per 100 person-years) over 3 years was higher in late (108.9) versus early (57.2) diagnosed patients. Late-diagnosed patients had a significantly higher rate of COPD hospitalizations (per 1000 patient years) compared with early-diagnosed patients during 2 and 3 years of follow-ups ( P = 0.0165 and P < 0.0001, respectively). Conclusion Results showed that a significant percentage of COPD patients in UK primary care are diagnosed late. A late COPD diagnosis is associated with a shorter time-to-first exacerbation and a higher rate and risk of exacerbations compared with early diagnosis. Additionally, late diagnosis of COPD is associated with a higher rate of COPD-related hospitalizations compared with early diagnosis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.