Registration for a live webinar on 'Innovative Vaccines and Viral Pathogenesis: Insights from Recent Monkeypox (Mpox) Research' is now open.
See webinar detailsWe noted you are experiencing viewing problems
-
Check with your IT department that JWPlatform, JWPlayer and Amazon AWS & CloudFront are not being blocked by your network. The relevant domains are *.jwplatform.com, *.jwpsrv.com, *.jwpcdn.com, jwpltx.com, jwpsrv.a.ssl.fastly.net, *.amazonaws.com and *.cloudfront.net. The relevant ports are 80 and 443.
-
Check the following talk links to see which ones work correctly:
Auto Mode
HTTP Progressive Download Send us your results from the above test links at access@hstalks.com and we will contact you with further advice on troubleshooting your viewing problems. -
No luck yet? More tips for troubleshooting viewing issues
-
Contact HST Support access@hstalks.com
-
Please review our troubleshooting guide for tips and advice on resolving your viewing problems.
-
For additional help, please don't hesitate to contact HST support access@hstalks.com
We hope you have enjoyed this limited-length demo
This is a limited length demo talk; you may
login or
review methods of
obtaining more access.
Printable Handouts
Navigable Slide Index
- Introduction
- Conflict of interests declaration
- The Salford Lung Study
- Medicines in today’s world
- Patient Selection for COPD RCT
- What are the main drivers of effectiveness?
- FF/VI potential for effectiveness
- Why did we choose this design?
- Salford
- The Salford Lung Study: What is it?
- What was the intent behind the study design?
- Efficacy vs effectiveness?
- Salford Lung Study: COPD study design
- Salford Lung Study: Asthma study design
- Salford Lung COPD Study: Study design
- Consent in the Salford Lung Study
- Challenges and solutions (1)
- Challenges and solutions (2)
- The SLS Study collaboration
- Electronic surveillance in the Salford Lung Study
- Identifying and reporting of serious adverse events
- SLS teams
- Scale of the project
- Electronic clinical monitoring
- Randomisation and treatment stratification
- Statistical analysis
- Results: Moderate/severe exacerbations
- What was ‘usual care’?
- Other clinical effectiveness outcomes
- SLS: Main safety outcomes
- Incidence of on-treatment serious pneumonia
- Typical of everyday clinical practice (1)
- Typical of everyday clinical practice (2)
- Comparison of baseline data
- Very few drop outs
- SLS: What’s next?
- SLS COPD: Primary manuscript
Topics Covered
- Diversity in clinical research
- The Salford lung study (SLS)
- FF/VI effectiveness study
- Real-time surveillance in SLS
- Main safety outcomes
- Future of the research
Links
Series:
Categories:
Therapeutic Areas:
Talk Citation
Leather, D. (2017, November 1). The Salford lung study in COPD [Video file]. In The Biomedical & Life Sciences Collection, Henry Stewart Talks. Retrieved November 23, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.69645/RVEP6067.Export Citation (RIS)
Publication History
Financial Disclosures
- Dr. Dave Leather has not informed HSTalks of any commercial/financial relationship that it is appropriate to disclose.
A selection of talks on Clinical Practice
Transcript
Please wait while the transcript is being prepared...
0:00
My name is Dave Leather,
and I work for GSK in the Global Respiratory Franchise.
Today I'm going to be talking about the Salford lung study, in COPD.
And I was one of the leads
on the Salford lung study.
What I'm going to be talking about,
is a little bit about the background of this study, why we did it,
a little about how we did it,
and also tell you a bit about the results,
and some of the outcomes from this study.
0:26
My conflict of interests, clearly,
I'm a full time employee of GSK,
and I hold stocks and shares in GSK.
0:34
Throughout this presentation, the investigational product in
this study is Relvar Breo Ellipta device.
This is a fluticasone vilanterol combination inhaler.
And from here on, I'll refer to that as,
FF/VI just for simplicity reasons.
0:50
So firstly a little bit about the background.
Why did we decide to do a study that was different?
Well, we've been hearing calls from
different groups about the needs for different types of data.
People have been used to looking at the efficacy data,
but there was a call coming out now for looking at effectiveness.
This is really thinking about the effect of a medicine in everyday clinical practice,
not just from its efficacy perspective,
but from a safety perspective,
the risk benefit, value for money,
and thinking not just about the individual, but the community.
These calls have been coming from a variety of corners particularly from payers,
and Health Technology Assessment groups
who've long struggled with trying to take
efficacy data from double blind randomized controlled trials,
and translate that into relevant populations,
who ultimately receive the medicine.
Guideline writers I think have also struggled with the same problem.
How do you translate very strictly controlled trial data,
into a clinical guideline?
I think generally health care professionals also found that some of
the data that they were looking at wasn't relevant to their everyday clinical practice.
So there was a sort of sense in the background,
that maybe new types of data would be useful to
inform the users and payers and patients actually taking medicines.