Adherence and Persistence to Single-Inhaler Versus Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy for Asthma Management

A network meta-analysis of the association between patient traits and response to regular dosing with ICS plus short-acting β2-agonist reliever or ICS/formoterol reliever only in mild asthma

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

Mild asthma treatment recommendations include intermittent inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/formoterol dosing or regular ICS dosing with short-acting β2-agonist reliever. Due to the heterogeneity of asthma, identification of traits associated with improved outcomes to specific treatments would be clinically beneficial.

AIMS/OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of patient traits on treatment outcomes of regular ICS dosing compared with intermittent ICS/formoterol dosing, a systematic literature review (SLR) and network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted. Searches identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with asthma aged ≥12 years, containing ≥1 regular ICS dosing or intermittent ICS/formoterol dosing treatment arm, reporting traits and outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

The SLR identified 11 RCTs of mild asthma, of 14,516 patients. A total of 11 traits and 11 outcomes of interest were identified. Of these, a feasibility assessment indicated possible assessment of three traits (age, baseline lung function, smoking history) and two outcomes (exacerbation rate, change in lung function). The NMA found no significant association of any trait with any outcome with regular ICS dosing relative to intermittent ICS/formoterol dosing. Inconsistent reporting of traits and outcomes between RCTs limited analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first systematic analysis of associations between patient traits and differential treatment outcomes in mild asthma. Although the traits analysed were not found to significantly interact with relative treatment response, inconsistent reporting from the RCTs prevented assessment of some of the most clinically relevant traits and outcomes, such as adherence. More consistent reporting of respiratory RCTs would provide more comparable data and aid future analyses.

The pharmacological management of asthma in adults: 2023 update

INTRODUCTION

The pharmacotherapy of asthma is a dynamic process that changes as our knowledge of the underlying pathophysiology and treatment of this disease continues to evolve. This implies the need for continuous revision of the recommendations of asthma guidelines and strategies.

AREAS COVERED

This review summarizes the latest key practical information on the pharmacological management of asthma in adults. We provide the background to the 2023 update of the GINA strategy report, focusing on changes and discussing areas of uncertainty. We review current and emerging pharmacotherapy for uncontrolled asthma, including synthetic agents and new biologics, and provide expert perspectives and opinions on the treatment of uncontrolled asthma.

EXPERT OPINION

The current pharmacological treatment of asthma, based on a step-by-step, control-based approach, with ICSs, LABAs and LAMAs being the mainstay generally provides good symptom control. Biologic therapies are often effective in treating T2high severe asthma. However, there is still room for improvement, such as the discovery of new molecules that specifically target chronic inflammation and, most importantly, the ability to provide solutions to the various areas of uncertainty that still exist. Also finding solutions to improve the accessibility and affordability of rescue ICS in resource-constrained settings is critical.

Smaller Differences in the Comparative Effectiveness of Biologics in Reducing Asthma-Related Hospitalizations Compared With Overall Exacerbations

BACKGROUND

Evidence on the comparative effectiveness of respiratory biologics remains sparse.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in a matched retrospective cohort of patients with asthma.

METHODS

We identified patients with asthma aged ≥18 years who were incident users of these biologics between November 1, 2018, and June 30, 2023, in administrative claims data from the Food and Drug Administration's Sentinel System and Merative MarketScan Commercial Database. We compared asthma-related exacerbations and hospitalizations in the 12 months since biologic prescription in pairwise comparisons of propensity score-matched cohorts. Covariates used in matching included age, sex, allergic comorbidities, baseline asthma medications use, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using negative binomial regression models.

RESULTS

A total of 893 patients on mepolizumab, 1300 on benralizumab, 1170 on omalizumab, and 1863 on dupilumab were identified. The average age was 55 years, and two-thirds of the participants were female. At baseline, over 80% of these individuals had an active prescription for an inhaled corticosteroid. Almost half of patients on dupilumab had concomitant nasal polyposis compared with 6% to 13% of patients on the other biologics. Covariates were balanced after matching. In matched analyses, dupilumab was associated with the lowest incidence of exacerbations over the follow-up period (vs dupilumab): mepolizumab (IRR: 1.36; 95% CI: 1.12, 1.64), omalizumab (IRR: 1.33; 95% CI: 1.13, 1.58), benralizumab (IRR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.41). For exacerbations leading to hospitalizations, benralizumab and mepolizumab were associated with the lowest incidence of hospitalizations, and the greatest difference was between mepolizumab versus dupilumab (IRR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.56, 1.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Dupilumab was associated with the lowest incidence of overall exacerbations, and mepolizumab with the lowest incidence of asthma hospitalizations in this administrative claims-based cohort of individuals with asthma. Despite matching propensity scores, residual confounding, such as baseline eosinophil count, may explain some of these findings.

Revisiting asthma pharmacotherapy: where do we stand and where do we want to go?

Several current guidelines/strategies outline a treatment approach to asthma, which primarily consider the goals of improving lung function and quality of life and reducing symptoms and exacerbations. They suggest a strategy of stepping up or down treatment, depending on the patient's overall current asthma symptom control and future risk of exacerbation. While this stepwise approach is undeniably practical for daily practice, it does not always address the underlying mechanisms of this heterogeneous disease. In the last decade, there have been attempts to improve the treatment of severe asthma, such as the addition of a long-acting antimuscarinic agent to the traditional inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist treatment and the introduction of therapies targeting key cytokines. However, despite such strategies several unmet needs in this population remain, motivating research to identify novel targets and develop improved therapeutic and/or preventative asthma treatments. Pending the availability of such therapies, it is essential to re-evaluate the current conventional "one-size-fits-all" approach to a more precise asthma management. Although challenging, identifying "treatable traits" that contribute to respiratory symptoms in individual patients with asthma may allow a more pragmatic approach to establish more personalised therapeutic goals.

Budget Impact Analysis of Single-Inhaler Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Patients with Asthma in the Dubai Academic Healthcare Corporation

Purpose

Asthma is a common, chronic respiratory disorder associated with substantial societal and economic burden globally, despite the availability of different treatment modalities. GSK has developed a once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT), comprised of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI); a combination of inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and long-acting β₂-agonist for patients with uncontrolled asthma. A budget impact analysis was conducted to determine the financial impact of introducing FF/UMEC/VI SITT from the perspective of the Dubai Academic Healthcare Corporation (DAHC).

Methods

A budget impact model was constructed using an epidemiology-based approach and used to estimate the expected 5-year budget impact of including FF/UMEC/VI for the treatment of eligible patients within the DAHC in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The model included both pharmacy and efficacy-related costs. The perspective of the DAHC healthcare payer was adopted, thus only direct payer costs were included in the analysis. A one-way sensitivity analysis was conducted to test the robustness of the model structure, assumptions, and input parameters.

Results

The total budget impact was estimated to save 1 million United States Dollars (USD) over 5 years, with budget impacts of 0.08 million USD in Year 1; 0.14 million USD in Year 2; 0.22 million USD in Year 3; 0.28 million USD in Year 4; and 0.33 million USD in Year 5. The overall budget impact per patient was estimated to save 12.2 USD over 5 years. In one-way sensitivity analyses, the budget impact was most sensitive to changes in the market uptake of FF/UMEC/VI.

Conclusion

Healthcare payers may consider FF/UMEC/VI in the management of uncontrolled asthma which would save costs and reduce healthcare resource use in the UAE.

Clinical characteristics, treatment patterns and adherence in patients with asthma on multiple inhaler triple therapy: a review of findings

INTRODUCTION

The value of treating asthma with the triple regimen of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), long-acting β2-agonist (LABA), and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) delivered using multiple inhalers (MITT), or a single inhaler (SITT) is supported by a growing body of evidence, although research is still limited regarding the use of MITT.

AREAS COVERED

Clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, disease burden, and persistence/adherence associated with MITT use in asthma. The MEDLINE database was searched to identify references from inception until October 2022.

EXPERT OPINION

The use of MITT is not very frequent in asthma patients, although it improves lung function and reduces the incidence of severe exacerbations. This may be due to existing concerns about using different devices on adherence and persistence to treatment, with a negative influence on outcomes, and to the fear that the patient will discontinue ICS/LABA but not LAMA. Nevertheless, although the current trend favors the SITT approach, some physicians may be induced to prescribe MITT over SITT because it allows the titration of individual components of triple therapy to be increased or decreased. Therefore, there is an evident need for pragmatic real-life studies to document when to prefer SITT and when MITT should be used.