Wing Kevin, Williamson Elizabeth, Carpenter James R, Wise Lesley, Schneeweiss Sebastian, Smeeth Liam, Quint Jennifer K, Douglas Ian
Dept of Non-communicable Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Dept of Medical Statistics, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Eur Respir J. 2021 Mar 25;57(3). doi: 10.1183/13993003.01586-2020. Print 2021 Mar.
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 SAL (0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.97 0.88, 0.81-0.95) but not for FP-SAL no FP-SAL (1.30, 1.19-1.42 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 0.93, 0.77-1.13) and pneumonia (risk ratio 1.39, 1.04-1.87 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.
真实世界数据为生成关于被排除在试验之外的人群的药物治疗效果的证据提供了潜力,但缺乏用于此目的的严格、经过验证的方法。我们调查了应用于真实世界数据的非干预方法是否能重现具有里程碑意义的慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)TORCH试验的结果。我们在英国临床实践研究数据链(CPRD)中进行了一项关于COPD药物治疗效果的历史性队列研究(2000 - 2017年)。通过应用TORCH纳入/排除标准并与TORCH参与者进行1:1匹配,从CPRD中选择了两个对照组,具体如下。对照组1:未开具丙酸氟替卡松(FP)-沙美特罗(SAL)的COPD患者;对照组2:仅开具SAL的COPD患者。然后通过倾向得分匹配从CPRD中为每个对照组选择FP - SAL暴露组。所研究的结局为COPD急性加重、任何原因导致的死亡和肺炎。2652名FP - SAL暴露者与2652名未暴露者进行倾向得分匹配,而991名FP - SAL暴露者与991名SAL暴露者进行倾向得分匹配。对于FP - SAL与SAL组,急性加重率比与TORCH试验相当(0.85,95%可信区间0.74 - 0.97对0.88,0.81 - 0.95),但对于FP - SAL与未使用FP - SAL组则不然(1.30,1.19 - 1.42对0.75,0.69 - 0.81)。此外,活性对照分析的结果在死亡率(风险比0.93,0.65 - 1.32对0.93,0.77 - 1.13)和肺炎(风险比1.39,1.04 - 1.87对1.47,1.25 - 1.73)方面与TORCH试验一致。我们在活性对照分析中获得了与TORCH试验非常相似的结果,但无法重现安慰剂对照的结果。将这些经过验证的活性对照分析方法应用于被排除在随机对照试验之外的人群,为充实证据基础和支持COPD治疗决策提供了一种切实可行的方法。