What have we learnt from real-life research in asthma and COPD?: Standards and novel designs for the future

David Price; Thendral  Uthaman

doi:10.1111/resp.14381

What have we learnt from real-life research in asthma and COPD? Standards and novel designs for the future

David Price^* (Corresponding Author), Thendral Uthaman

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/debate › peer-review

Abstract

Key learnings from real-life research
Real-life research has high external validity and determines the effectiveness of clinical interventions in real life. On the other hand, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have high internal validity and determine the efficacy of interventions in patients with narrowly defined disease and good adherence to therapy. Thus, real-life research and RCTs answer different study questions.
By using larger numbers of patients, variables that are routinely collected and data from patients who do not qualify for RCTs due to their strict eligibility criteria, real-life research can answer research questions that may also be unfeasible for RCTs.
Some recent key findings from real-life research are that eosinophilic disease is more common than previously thought in both broad and severe asthma, short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) should not be prescribed alone, and oral theophylline has no value in terms of reducing exacerbations among adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Original language	English
Number of pages	4
Journal	Respirology
Volume	27
Issue number	12
Early online date	29 Sep 2022
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/resp.14381
Publication status	Published - Dec 2022

Keywords

real-life research
severe asthma
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
clinical guidelines

Access to Document

10.1111/resp.14381Licence: CC BY

Price_etal_R_What_have_we_learnt_VOR
© 2022 Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute. Respirology published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Asian Pacific Society of Respirology. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Final published version, 625 KBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

@article{ee56bf5a7d0e4ba7a20bdba05843d0bc,

title = "What have we learnt from real-life research in asthma and COPD?: Standards and novel designs for the future",

abstract = "Key learnings from real-life researchReal-life research has high external validity and determines the effectiveness of clinical interventions in real life. On the other hand, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have high internal validity and determine the efficacy of interventions in patients with narrowly defined disease and good adherence to therapy. Thus, real-life research and RCTs answer different study questions.By using larger numbers of patients, variables that are routinely collected and data from patients who do not qualify for RCTs due to their strict eligibility criteria, real-life research can answer research questions that may also be unfeasible for RCTs.Some recent key findings from real-life research are that eosinophilic disease is more common than previously thought in both broad and severe asthma, short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) should not be prescribed alone, and oral theophylline has no value in terms of reducing exacerbations among adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).",

keywords = "real-life research, severe asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, clinical guidelines",

author = "David Price and Thendral Uthaman",

note = "Acknowledgements We thank Dr Ruth B Murray (Medscript NZ Ltd) and Celine Goh, MBBS for their assistance in drafting and editing this commentary.",

year = "2022",

month = dec,

doi = "10.1111/resp.14381",

language = "English",

volume = "27",

journal = "Respirology",

issn = "1323-7799",

publisher = "Wiley",

number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - What have we learnt from real-life research in asthma and COPD?

T2 - Standards and novel designs for the future

AU - Price, David

AU - Uthaman, Thendral

N1 - Acknowledgements We thank Dr Ruth B Murray (Medscript NZ Ltd) and Celine Goh, MBBS for their assistance in drafting and editing this commentary.

PY - 2022/12

Y1 - 2022/12

N2 - Key learnings from real-life researchReal-life research has high external validity and determines the effectiveness of clinical interventions in real life. On the other hand, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have high internal validity and determine the efficacy of interventions in patients with narrowly defined disease and good adherence to therapy. Thus, real-life research and RCTs answer different study questions.By using larger numbers of patients, variables that are routinely collected and data from patients who do not qualify for RCTs due to their strict eligibility criteria, real-life research can answer research questions that may also be unfeasible for RCTs.Some recent key findings from real-life research are that eosinophilic disease is more common than previously thought in both broad and severe asthma, short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) should not be prescribed alone, and oral theophylline has no value in terms of reducing exacerbations among adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

AB - Key learnings from real-life researchReal-life research has high external validity and determines the effectiveness of clinical interventions in real life. On the other hand, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have high internal validity and determine the efficacy of interventions in patients with narrowly defined disease and good adherence to therapy. Thus, real-life research and RCTs answer different study questions.By using larger numbers of patients, variables that are routinely collected and data from patients who do not qualify for RCTs due to their strict eligibility criteria, real-life research can answer research questions that may also be unfeasible for RCTs.Some recent key findings from real-life research are that eosinophilic disease is more common than previously thought in both broad and severe asthma, short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) should not be prescribed alone, and oral theophylline has no value in terms of reducing exacerbations among adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

KW - real-life research

KW - severe asthma

KW - chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

KW - clinical guidelines

U2 - 10.1111/resp.14381

DO - 10.1111/resp.14381

M3 - Comment/debate

C2 - 36172950

VL - 27

JO - Respirology

JF - Respirology

SN - 1323-7799

IS - 12

ER -

What have we learnt from real-life research in asthma and COPD? Standards and novel designs for the future

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this