A Real World Study to Assess the Effectiveness of Switching to Once Daily Closed Triple Therapy from Mono/Dual Combination or Open Triple Therapy in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

EVELUT®: A Real-World, Observational Study Assessing Dyspnoea and Symptom Burden in COPD Patients Switched from LABA/ICS to LAMA/LABA or LAMA/LABA/ICS

INTRODUCTION

The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD 2023) no longer recommends a long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) plus inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combination for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In patients treated with LABA/ICS, who continue to experience symptoms without frequent or severe exacerbations, GOLD now recommends switching to long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/LABA instead of escalating to triple therapy (TT; LAMA/LABA/ICS), which previously was also a recommended option. EVELUT®, a real-life, observational study, compared these two treatment strategies in terms of symptom relief and health status improvement.

METHODS

Patients with symptomatic COPD at low exacerbation risk (GOLD B) were switched, at their physicians' discretion, from LABA/ICS to either fixed-dose LAMA/LABA (tiotropium/olodaterol, Respimat® [Tio/Olo]) or fixed or free TT. Primary endpoints were change in modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) and COPD Assessment Test™ (CAT™) scores after 12 weeks.

RESULTS

The safety set contained 463 patients (Tio/Olo, n = 329; TT, n = 134). In a propensity score-matched set (Tio/Olo, n = 121; TT, n = 121), improvement in mMRC score was similar in patients on Tio/Olo (-0.23; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.11, -0.36) and TT (-0.25; 95% CI -0.13, -0.38). Improvement in total CAT score was slightly larger in patients on Tio/Olo (-3.45; 95% CI -2.45, -4.45) versus TT (-2.51; 95% CI -1.62, -3.40). In both groups, Physician's Global Evaluation scores increased, with 69-89% of patients satisfied with their treatment overall. Marginally more patients on Tio/Olo responded to treatment versus TT (Δ mMRC score ≥ 1; 25% vs. 22%; Δ CAT score ≥ 2, 68% vs. 56%).

CONCLUSION

In patients with symptomatic COPD at low exacerbation risk, treatment can be switched from LABA/ICS to LAMA/LABA without compromising clinical benefit, compared with escalating to LAMA/LABA/ICS. Switching from LABA/ICS to LAMA/LABA can provide symptom relief and improve health status without exposure to the risks associated with ICS.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03954132.

Cost-Effectiveness of Triple Therapy with Budesonide/Glycopyrronium/Formoterol Fumarate Dihydrate versus Dual Therapies in Moderate-to-Very Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: United Kingdom Analysis Using the ETHOS Study

Background

In the 52-week ETHOS study (NCT02465567), fixed-dose triple therapy with budesonide/glycopyrronium/formoterol fumarate dihydrate (BGF) reduced moderate or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations versus fixed-dose long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) or inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA dual therapies. Here, ETHOS data were used to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of BGF versus LAMA/LABA and ICS/LABA dual therapies in the United Kingdom.

Methods

Costs, exacerbations, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and LYs were extrapolated using a Markov model that considered disease severity progression, risk of moderate and severe exacerbations, adverse events, and treatment discontinuation in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD receiving BGF 320/14.4/10 µg, the LAMA/LABA glycopyrronium/formoterol fumarate dihydrate 14.4/10 µg (GFF), or the ICS/LABA budesonide/formoterol fumarate dihydrate 320/10 µg (BFF). Utilities for COPD severity states were estimated using EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level data from ETHOS. Exacerbation disutilities were sourced from published literature. Healthcare resource utilization was based on ETHOS data, published literature, key external experts’ input, and informed assumptions. Unit costs came from the UK National Health Service Schedule of Reference Costs, Unit Costs of Health and Social Care from the Personal Social Services Research Unit, and published literature. A lifetime horizon was considered, with costs, QALYs, and LYs discounted at 3.5% per annum.

Results

The incremental cost–utility ratio (ICUR; per QALY gained) was £9901 for BGF versus GFF and £2164 for BGF versus BFF. The probability of treatments being cost-effective at the conventional UK-adopted willingness-to-pay threshold of ICUR <£20,000 was 85.1% for BGF, 14.3% for GFF, and 0.6% for BFF.

Conclusion

Based on ETHOS data, BGF was demonstrated to be cost-effective versus LAMA/LABA and ICS/LABA dual therapies at the conventional UK-adopted willingness-to-pay threshold (ICUR <£20,000). The main cost-effectiveness driver for BGF versus LAMA/LABA and ICS/LABA therapies was reduction in rate of exacerbations, which reduced costs and preserved quality of life.

A single inhaler triple therapy fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol for the treatment of COPD

INTRODUCTION

: Single inhaler triple therapy (SITT) with an inhaled corticosteroid, a long-acting β₂-agonist, and a long-acting muscarinic antagonist is an effective and attractive therapeutic option codified in the recommendations of guidelines and treatment strategies for the management of COPD.

AREAS COVERED

: The preclinical and clinical development in COPD of fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) SITT and its use in the real world.

EXPERT OPINION

: Findings from phase III/IV trials and the use of FF/UMEC/VI in the real-world setting support the view that it may be a useful, safe, and cost-effective option for the maintenance treatment of COPD, especially when dealing with patients who are not adequately controlled with dual ICS/LABA or LAMA/LABA therapy. Only direct head-to-head comparisons will be able to establish whether FF/UMEC/VI may be preferable to the other SITTs approved for COPD due to its pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics and especially the fact that it is the only one that can be taken once-daily. In addition, there is a need for further studies, especially in the real world, to optimize the positioning of FF/UMEC/VI in the treatment of COPD, also considering the availability of FF/VI and UMEC/VI and the need for better differentiation between the three treatments.

Beyond Dual Bronchodilation – Triple Therapy, When and Why

Although pharmacological treatment of COPD is codified in different guidelines and strategy documents, there is abundant evidence of discrepancy between what they suggest and what health professionals prescribe, especially in low-risk groups where there is widespread overprescription of triple therapy. It is therefore necessary to clarify when the use of triple therapy is indicated in COPD patients and when it is preferable to maintain treatment with dual bronchodilation. In this article, we discuss our views based on our experience and what is reported in the literature and try to give answers to these two questions. The evidence generated by pivotal RCTs supports the use of triple therapy in patients who present for the first time and have severe airway obstruction, are symptomatic, have had frequent moderate or severe exacerbations in the previous year, and have peripheral eosinophilia. However, it is difficult to determine whether step-up is useful in all other cases because the available data are quite conflicting. It is likely that the inconsistency in the information generated by the various available studies may explain the prescribing behaviour of many physicians who do not adhere to recommendations of guidelines and strategies. However, it is necessary to establish whether and when the addition of an ICS to the LAMA/LABA combination is effective, to determine whether triple therapy can induce an additional clinical benefit over dual bronchodilation, irrespective of a preventive effect on COPD exacerbations, to establish its value, and to examine whether cost differences can support the use of triple therapy over combined LAMA/LABA therapy in real life.

Real-World Effectiveness of Inhalation Therapy Among Patients With Symptomatic COPD in China: A Multicenter Prospective Study

Purpose: This real-world study evaluated the effectiveness of different inhalation therapies in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in China and also explored the relevant factors that influence the effectiveness of inhalation therapy.

Patients and Methods: We conducted a multicenter prospective longitudinal study that was carried out in 12 hospitals in China from December 2016 to June 2021. A face-to-face interview was conducted to collect data. Baseline data were collected at the first visit. Minimum clinically important difference (MCID) was defined as attaining a COPD assessment test (CAT) decrease ≥2. We mainly assessed the MCID and the incidence of exacerbations at the 6 months follow-up.

Results: In 695 patients, the mean age was 62.5 ± 8.2 years, with a mean CAT score of 15.1 ± 6.0. Overall, 341 (49.1%) patients attained the MCID of CAT and the incidence of exacerbation during follow-up was 22.3%. Females were significantly more likely to attain MCID than male in COPD patients (adjusted odd ratio (aOR) = 1.93, adjusted 95% confidence interval (a95%CI) = 1.09–3.42, p = 0.024). Patients treated with LABA/LAMA or ICS/LABA/LAMA (ICS, inhaled corticosteroid; LABA, long-acting β2-agonist; LAMA, long-acting muscarinic antagonist) were more likely to attain MCID than patients treated with LAMA (aOR = 3.97, a95%CI = 2.48–6.35, p < 0.001; aOR = 3.17, a95%CI = 2.09–4.80, p < 0.001, respectively). Patients treated with LABA/LAMA had a higher incidence of severe exacerbation than patients treated with ICS/LABA/LAMA (aOR = 1.95, a95%CI = 1.04–3.66, p = 0.038).

Conclusion: The incidence of MCID in symptomatic COPD patients treated with inhalation therapy was nearly 50%. Patients treated with LABA/LAMA or ICS/LABA/LAMA were more likely to attain MCID than patients treated with LAMA. Patients treated with LABA/LAMA had a higher incidence of severe exacerbations than with ICS/LABA/LAMA.