Multidisciplinary diagnosis and treatment model based on a retrospective cohort study: Pulmonary function and prognosis quality of life in severe COPD

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common chronic respiratory disease worsening airflow limitation.

OBJECTIVE

To explore pulmonary function rehabilitation, life quality and prognosis in patients with severe COPD.

METHODS

Between February 2018 and August 2021, 150 patients with severe COPD cured in our hospital were arbitrarily assigned into the control group (n= 75) and study group (n= 75). The control group received routine treatment and the research group received multidisciplinary diagnosis and treatment. The body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnea and exercise (BODE), pulmonary function, the number of acute attacks, 6-minute walking distance (6MWD), Borg score and life quality were compared.

RESULTS

There was no remarkable difference in BODE score before treatment (P> 0.05). During the 2- and 6-month following treatment, the BODE score of the study group was lower (P< 0.05). In the study group, FEV1 percentage of the predicted value, forced expiratory volume in one second (PPO-FEV1) and the percentage of forced expiratory volume in one second/forced vital capacity (FEV1/FVC) in the first second were higher (P< 0.05). In the study group, there were fewer acute attacks (P< 0.05). After treatment, the 6MWD of the study group following 2- and 6-month treatment was higher (P< 0.05). The Borg scores of the study group at 2- and 6-months after treatment were lower (P< 0.05). There were no remarkable differences in the score of life quality before treatment (P> 0.05), however, the symptom score, activity score, influence score and total score of the study group were lower after the treatment (P< 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The application of multidisciplinary diagnosis and treatment model can promote the rehabilitation of pulmonary function of patients with severe COPD, improve their prognosis, slow down the development of the disease and enhance their life quality.

Rational use of inhaled corticosteroids for the treatment of COPD: a plain language summary

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are a type of medication delivered via an inhaler device that are commonly used in the treatment of asthma. ICS can also be used to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a progressive respiratory condition in which the lungs become worse over time. However, unlike in asthma, ICS are only effective in a small proportion of people with COPD. ICS can cause significant side effects in people with COPD, including pneumonia. Because of this, guidelines written by COPD experts recommend that ICS should largely be prescribed to people with COPD whose symptoms flare up frequently and become difficult to manage (episodes known as exacerbations). Despite this guidance, records collected from routine clinical practice suggest that many healthcare professionals prescribe ICS to people with COPD who do not have frequent exacerbations, putting them at unnecessary risk of side effects. The over-prescription of ICS in COPD may partly be due to the recent introduction of single-inhaler combination therapies, which combine ICS with other medicines (bronchodilators). This 'one inhaler for all' approach is a concerning trend as it goes against global COPD treatment guidelines, which recommend ICS use in only a small proportion of people. This is a plain language summary of a review article originally published in the journal NPJ Primary Care Respiratory Medicine. In this review, we investigate the benefits and risks of ICS use in COPD. Using data from both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies, we explain which people benefit from ICS use, and why health regulatory bodies have concluded that ICS do not help people with COPD to live longer. Lastly, we provide practical guidance for doctors and people with COPD regarding when ICS should be prescribed and when they should be withdrawn.

VIDEO ABSTRACT

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.

Comparative efficacy and safety of glycopyrronium/formoterol fixed-dose combination versus glycopyrronium monotherapy in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD

Background

The safety and efficacy of fixed-dose combination (FDC) of glycopyrronium bromide 12.5 μg/formoterol fumarate 12 μg (GB/FF) twice daily as dry powder inhalers (DPIs) compared to glycopyrronium 50 μg monotherapy (GLY) once daily as DPI in subjects with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were evaluated.

Methods

This was a phase-3, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group, superiority study conducted in India. COPD patients aged ≥40 to ≤65 years, current or ex-smokers with FEV1/FVC <0.70, using ICS, LAMA, or LABA for ≥1 month were included. Subjects were randomized (1:1) to GB/FF or GLY for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in peak FEV1 at the end of 12 weeks. The study is registered with the Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI/2017/02/007814).

Results

Between March 2017 and July 2018, 331 patients were enrolled and randomized into GB/FF FDC (165 patients) and GLY monotherapy (166 patients) groups. At week 12, the difference in change from baseline in the peak FEV1 for GB/FF DPI versus GLY was 0.115 L (SE = 0.02; 95% CI = 0.061, 0.170; P < 0.0001). Trough FEV1 increased significantly in the GB/FF group compared to the GLY group with a treatment difference of 0.078 L (SE = 0.02; 95% CI = 0.015, 0.14; P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in adverse events between the groups.

Conclusion

FDC of GB/FF (12.5/12 μg twice daily) as a DPI provides superior bronchodilation and lung function improvement over GLY (50 μg once daily) monotherapy. It is safe and well tolerated in symptomatic COPD patients.

Effectiveness of Tiotropium/Olodaterol in the Real World: A Post Hoc Subgroup Analysis After the First Year of Use

INTRODUCTION

Real-world evidence is needed to optimize pharmacotherapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The effectiveness of inhaled tiotropium/olodaterol according to baseline symptoms and previous COPD treatment and predictors of response were assessed.

METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis of a 52-week post-marketing surveillance study of tiotropium/olodaterol in 1255 Japanese patients with COPD of all severities. We analyzed change in total COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score and lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV₁] and forced vital capacity [FVC]). Patient subgroups were analyzed based on baseline CAT score (< 10 [n = 184], ≥ 10 [n = 507]) and previous COPD treatment (treatment-naive [n = 407], previously treated [n = 848], treatment with long-acting muscarinic antagonist monotherapy [n = 161]).

RESULTS

In the CAT ≥ 10 subgroup, tiotropium/olodaterol showed statistically significant improvements in mean total CAT score (- 6.2; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 7.2, - 5.1), FEV₁ (0.109 L; 95% CI 0.059, 0.159) and FVC (0.171 L; 95% CI 0.096, 0.245), which continued through Week 52. CAT score and lung function improvement were greatest in treatment-naive patients: - 7.6 (95% CI - 9.2, - 6.1) mean total CAT score, 0.177 L (95% CI 0.076, 0.279) mean FEV₁ and 0.178 L (95% CI 0.036, 0.319) mean FVC. Baseline factors associated with treatment response (total CAT score improvement ≥ 2 points) were: shorter COPD duration (odds ratio [OR] 0.91; 95% CI 0.87, 0.96), total CAT score ≥ 10 (OR 3.86; 95% CI 2.46, 6.06) and treatment-naive status (OR 1.86; 95% CI 1.12, 3.07). Baseline total CAT scores ≥ 13 predicted responses to tiotropium/olodaterol in all previous COPD treatment subgroups including treatment-naive patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Tiotropium/olodaterol improved symptoms and lung function in Japanese COPD patients. Our results support the possible use of tiotropium/olodaterol in treatment-naive patients and those with total CAT scores ≥ 10.

TRAIL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier for parent study: NCT02850978.

Time-to-first exacerbation, adherence, and medical costs among US patients receiving umeclidinium/vilanterol or tiotropium as initial maintenance therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Adherence to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) maintenance medication is important for managing symptoms and exacerbation risk, and is associated with reduced mortality, hospitalizations, and costs. This study compared on-treatment exacerbations, medical costs, and medication adherence in patients with COPD initiating treatment with umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) or tiotropium (TIO).

METHODS

This retrospective matched cohort study selected patients from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart database who initiated maintenance treatment with UMEC/VI or TIO between 01/01/2014 and 12/31/2017 (index date defined as the first dispensing). Eligible patients were ≥ 40 years of age and had ≥ 12 months continuous health plan coverage pre- and post-index; ≥ 1 medical claim for COPD pre-index or on the index date; no moderate/severe COPD-related exacerbations on the index date; no asthma diagnosis pre- or post-index; no maintenance medication fills containing inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting β₂-agonists, or long-acting muscarinic antagonists pre-index or on the index date; and no fills for both UMEC/VI and TIO on the index date. Outcomes included time-to-first (Kaplan-Meier analysis) and rates of on-treatment COPD-related moderate/severe exacerbations, medication adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC] and proportion of adherent patients [PDC ≥ 0.8]), and COPD-related medical costs per patient per month (PPPM). Propensity score matching was used to adjust for potential confounders.

RESULTS

Each cohort included 3929 matched patients. Kaplan-Meier rates of on-treatment COPD-related exacerbations were similar between cohorts (hazard ratio at 12 months; overall: 0.93, moderate: 0.92, severe: 1.07; all p > 0.05). UMEC/VI versus TIO initiators had significantly higher adherence (mean PDC: 0.44 vs 0.37; p < 0.001; proportion with PDC ≥ 0.8: 22.0% vs 16.4%; p< 0.001) and significantly lower mean on-treatment COPD-related total medical costs ($867 vs $1095 PPPM; p = 0.028), driven by lower outpatient visit costs.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide valuable information for physicians considering UMEC/VI or TIO as initial maintenance therapy options for patients with COPD.

Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Compared with Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol, Budesonide/Formoterol, and Tiotropium as Initial Maintenance Therapy in Patients with COPD Who Have High Costs and Comorbidities

Background

Comorbidities in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are associated with increased medical costs and risk of exacerbations. This study compared COPD-related medical costs and exacerbations in high-cost, high-comorbidity patients with COPD receiving initial maintenance treatment (IMT) with umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL), budesonide/formoterol (B/F), or tiotropium (TIO).

Methods

This retrospective, matched cohort study identified patients from Optum’s de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart database who initiated UMEC/VI, FP/SAL, B/F, or TIO between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2018 (index date defined as date of the first fill). Eligibility criteria included age ≥40 years at index, ≥1 pre-index COPD diagnosis, no pre-index asthma diagnosis, 12 months of continuous insurance coverage pre-index, and high pre-index costs (≥80th percentile of IMT population) and comorbidities (Quan-Charlson comorbidity index ≥3). Propensity score matching was used to control for potential confounders. On-treatment COPD-related medical costs (primary endpoint) and exacerbations were evaluated.

Results

Matched cohorts were well balanced on baseline characteristics (UMEC/VI vs FP/SAL: n=1194 each; UMEC/VI vs B/F: n=1441 each; UMEC/VI vs TIO: n=1277 each). Patients receiving UMEC/VI had significantly lower COPD-related medical costs versus FP/SAL (difference: $6587 per patient per year; P=0.048), and numerically lower costs versus B/F and TIO. Patients initiating UMEC/VI had significantly lower risk of COPD-related severe exacerbation versus FP/SAL (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.78 [0.62, 0.98]; P=0.032), B/F (0.77 [0.63, 0.95]; P=0.016), and TIO (0.79 [0.64, 0.98]; P=0.028). The rate of COPD-related severe exacerbations was significantly lower with UMEC/VI versus FP/SAL (rate ratio [95% CI]: 0.73 [0.59, 0.91]; P=0.008) and B/F (0.73 [0.59, 0.93]; P=0.012), and numerically lower versus TIO (0.83 [0.68, 1.04]; P=0.080).

Conclusion

These findings suggest that high-cost, high-comorbidity patients with COPD receiving UMEC/VI compared with FP/SAL, B/F, and TIO as IMT may have lower medical costs and exacerbation risk.

Hospital Admission and Readmission Among US Patients Receiving Umeclidinium/Vilanterol or Tiotropium as Initial Maintenance Therapy for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Introduction

Patients hospitalized for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations are at risk of further readmissions, increased treatment costs, and excess mortality. This study evaluated inpatient admissions and readmissions in patients receiving initial maintenance therapy with umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus tiotropium (TIO).

Methods

This retrospective, matched cohort study identified patients with COPD who initiated maintenance therapy with UMEC/VI or TIO from Optum’s de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart database between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2018 (index date defined as earliest dispensing). Eligibility criteria included: ≥ 1 medical claim for COPD pre-index or on the index date; ≥ 12 months of continuous eligibility pre-index; age ≥ 40 years at index; no pre- or post-index asthma diagnosis; and no pre-index claims for medications containing inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting β₂-agonists, or long-acting muscarinic antagonists. Outcomes included time to first on-treatment COPD-related inpatient admission, rate of on-treatment COPD-related admissions, and rate of all-cause and COPD-related readmissions within 30 and 90 days. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for potential confounders.

Results

Matched UMEC/VI and TIO cohorts each included 7997 patients and were balanced on baseline characteristics (mean age 70.9 years; female 47.1–47.6%). Over 12 months, patients initiating UMEC/VI had significantly reduced risk (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.87 [0.79, 0.96]; p = 0.006) and rates (rate ratio [95% CI]: 0.80 [0.72, 0.92]; p = 0.008) of COPD-related inpatient admissions compared with TIO. While all-cause readmission rates were similar between treatment cohorts, readmission rates among patients with an initial admission length of stay of 1–3 days were numerically lower for UMEC/VI versus TIO (30-day readmissions: 10.5% vs. 12.4%; 90-day readmissions: 15.5% vs. 19.8%). Similar patterns were observed for COPD-related readmissions.

Conclusions

These findings highlight the real-world benefits of dual therapy with UMEC/VI versus TIO in reducing inpatient admissions and readmissions in patients with COPD, which may translate to lower healthcare costs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41030-021-00151-y.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who are admitted to the hospital are more likely to be readmitted in the future, have higher healthcare costs, and are more likely to die from their illness. Patients who are readmitted to hospital have even higher treatment costs. Identifying which treatments are best at reducing the number of patients with COPD who are admitted to the hospital may help to improve outcomes and reduce the cost of COPD treatment. We used US healthcare claims data to compare two daily treatments for COPD, umeclidinium/vilanterol and tiotropium. We aimed to find out which treatment was more effective at reducing hospital admissions due to COPD. We also compared how many patients on each treatment were readmitted within 30 or 90 days of their original hospital admission for COPD. We found that patients who started treatment with umeclidinium/vilanterol were less likely to be admitted to the hospital for COPD than patients who started treatment with tiotropium. Similar numbers of patients on each treatment were readmitted to the hospital within 30 or 90 days after they were discharged. However, among patients whose initial hospital stay was short (1–3 days), readmissions within 30 or 90 days were less common with umeclidinium/vilanterol than tiotropium. These findings suggest that umeclidinium/vilanterol may be more effective than tiotropium at reducing the number of patients with COPD who need to be admitted or readmitted to hospital. Starting COPD treatment with umeclidinium/vilanterol may lead to better health outcomes and lower costs than tiotropium.

Evaluation of Medication Adherence and Rescue Medication Use in Non-Exacerbating Patients with COPD Receiving Umeclidinium/Vilanterol or Budesonide/Formoterol as Initial Maintenance Therapy

Background

Adherence to inhaled maintenance therapy is critical to managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), while increasing rescue medication usage may indicate worsening symptoms. This study evaluated adherence and rescue medication use in patients with COPD without a history of exacerbation who initiated combination therapy with budesonide/formoterol (B/F) or umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI).

Methods

Retrospective observational study of commercially insured and Medicare Advantage with Part D enrollees who initiated UMEC/VI or B/F between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2017 (earliest fill defined as index date). Eligibility criteria included age ≥40 years, 12 months continuous enrollment pre- and post-index, ≥1 pre-index COPD diagnosis, no pre-index asthma diagnosis, COPD-related exacerbations, or medication fills containing inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting β₂-agonists, or long-acting muscarinic antagonists. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance treatment groups on potential confounders. Medication adherence (primary endpoint) was evaluated by the proportion of days covered (PDC). Rescue medication use (secondary endpoint) was standardized to canister equivalents (1 metered dose inhaler [200 puffs] or ~100 nebulized doses of short-acting β₂-agonist- and/or short-acting muscarinic agonist-containing medication).

Results

After IPTW, covariates were balanced between cohorts (UMEC/VI: N=4082; B/F: N=9529). UMEC/VI initiators had a significantly greater mean PDC (UMEC/VI: 0.47 [0.33]; B/F: 0.38 [0.30]; P<0.001) and significantly higher rates of adherence (PDC≥0.80) than B/F initiators (UMEC/VI: n=1004 [25%], B/F: n=1391 [15%]; relative risk: 1.68, 95% CI: 1.57, 1.81; P<0.001). In the year following initiation, UMEC/VI initiators filled significantly fewer rescue medication canister equivalents than B/F initiators (predicted mean [95% CI]: 1.78 [1.69, 1.88] vs 2.15 [2.08, 2.23]; mean difference [95% CI]: −0.37 [−0.50, −0.24]; P<0.001), corresponding to 17% less (estimated) rescue medication use (incidence rate ratio [95% CI]: 0.83 [0.78, 0.88]).

Conclusion

Among non-exacerbating patients with COPD initiating dual therapy, UMEC/VI demonstrated improved adherence and reduced rescue medication use compared with B/F.

COPD Maintenance Therapy with Tiotropium/Olodaterol Compared with Tiotropium: An Analysis in the Absence of Additional ICS Therapy

The American Thoracic Society guidelines recommend long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) dual bronchodilation over LAMA or LABA monotherapy as maintenance therapy for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease suffering from dyspnea or exercise intolerance. Previous studies, which included patients receiving background inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), have shown the benefits of dual bronchodilation over monotherapy. This analysis aimed to confirm the benefits of LAMA/LABA over LAMA alone, without any confounding effects from ICS use. This pooled post hoc analysis compared the efficacy of tiotropium/olodaterol with tiotropium alone in patients from the TONADO^® and OTEMTO^® clinical trials who were not receiving ICS at study entry or during the studies. We analyzed change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score and Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) score in all patients, by Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) stage, baseline SGRQ score, and Baseline Dyspnea Index score. In this analysis of 1596 patients, tiotropium/olodaterol improved trough FEV₁, SGRQ and TDI compared with tiotropium alone. The observed mean differences were: trough FEV₁, 0.054 L (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.036, 0.073; p < 0.001); SGRQ, -1.918 (95% CI -2.994, -0.843; p < 0.001); and TDI, 0.575 (95% CI 0.301, 0.848; p < 0.001). Similar improvements were seen in each of the subgroup analyses. Tiotropium/olodaterol therapy significantly improved lung function, symptoms and health status compared with tiotropium alone. In a population free from ICS treatment, these data confirm the benefits of dual bronchodilation versus monotherapy.

Efficacy and Safety of LAMA/LABA Fixed-Dose Combination Therapies in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review of Direct and Indirect Treatment Comparisons

Background

This literature review assessed comparative efficacy and safety of long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β₂-agonist (LAMA/LABA) fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) in patients with COPD and moderate-to-very severe airflow limitation, using evidence from direct (head-to-head) and indirect treatment comparisons.

Methods

Two systematic literature reviews were conducted to identify direct comparisons (head-to-head randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) and indirect comparisons (network meta-analyses [NMAs]; indirect treatment comparisons; meta-analyses) in patients with COPD with moderate-to-very severe airflow limitation. Study/Analysis characteristics, eligibility criteria, patient characteristics, and overall conclusions were extracted from relevant publications. The review of indirect comparisons focused on NMAs reporting efficacy outcomes at 12 and 24 weeks of treatment (established durations of symptomatic studies in COPD recommended by regulators).

Results

Direct comparisons: Four RCTs that provided head-to-head comparisons of LAMA/LABA FDCs were identified, and these varied in their study design, included patient population and reported endpoints. While some differences in lung function outcomes were noted, where assessed, LAMA/LABA FDCs had comparable efficacy in improving symptoms, health status, exacerbations, and comparable safety profiles. However, the differences in study methodology and patient characteristics between these studies made it difficult to draw generalizable conclusions regarding the comparative effectiveness of LAMA/LABA FDCs from the direct comparisons alone. Indirect comparisons: Six NMAs were identified that reported indirect comparisons between LAMA/LABA FDCs; five of these were within the pre-defined scope of this review. Although the scope of each NMA varied, all five concluded that LAMA/LABA FDCs were generally comparable in terms of lung function improvements, patient-reported outcomes, and safety (where assessed).

Conclusion

Although there were some inconsistencies between the outcomes of RCTs and NMAs for lung function, the totality of lung function, symptoms, exacerbations, and safety data suggests that currently available LAMA/LABA FDCs have comparable efficacy and safety in patients with COPD and moderate-to-very severe airflow limitation.

Single-inhaler triple therapy fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus fluticasone furoate/vilanterol and umeclidinium/vilanterol in patients with COPD: results on cardiovascular safety from the IMPACT trial

Background

This analysis of the IMPACT study assessed the cardiovascular (CV) safety of single-inhaler triple therapy with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI dual therapy.

Methods

IMPACT was a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, multicenter Phase III study comparing the efficacy and safety of FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 mcg with FF/VI 100/25 mcg or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg in patients ≥40 years of age with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the previous year. The inclusion criteria for the study were intentionally designed to permit the enrollment of patients with significant concurrent CV disease/risk. CV safety assessments included proportion of patients with and exposure-adjusted rates of on-treatment CV adverse events of special interest (CVAESI) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE), as well as time-to-first (TTF) CVAESI, and TTF CVAESI resulting in hospitalization/prolonged hospitalization or death.

Results

Baseline CV risk factors were similar across treatment groups. Overall, 68% of patients (n = 7012) had ≥1 CV risk factor and 40% (n = 4127) had ≥2. At baseline, 29% of patients reported a current/past cardiac disorder and 58% reported a current/past vascular disorder. The proportion of patients with on-treatment CVAESI was 11% for both FF/UMEC/VI and UMEC/VI, and 10% for FF/VI. There was no statistical difference for FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI in TTF CVAESI (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85, 1.11; p = 0.711 and HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.78, 1.08; p = 0.317, respectively) nor TTF CVAESI leading to hospitalization/prolonged hospitalization or death (HR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.93, 1.51; p = 0.167 and HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.72, 1.27; p = 0.760, respectively). On-treatment MACE occurred in ≤3% of patients across treatment groups, with similar prevalence and rates between treatments.

Conclusions

In a symptomatic COPD population with a history of exacerbations and a high rate of CV disease/risk, the proportion of patients with CVAESI and MACE was 10–11% and 1–3%, respectively, across treatment arms, and the risk of CVAESI was low and similar across treatment arms. There was no statistically significant increased CV risk associated with the use of FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI, and UMEC/VI versus FF/VI.

Trial registration

NCT02164513 (GSK study number CTT116855).

Benefits of glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI) in improving lung function and reducing exacerbations in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD: a pooled analysis of the PINNACLE studies

Background

The Phase III PINNACLE studies assessed the efficacy and safety of glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI), a dual long-acting bronchodilator for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Here we present a pre-specified pooled analysis of PINNACLE-1, PINNACLE-2, and PINNACLE-4.

Methods

PINNACLE-1, -2, and -4 were multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trials that enrolled patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD, with no requirement for exacerbation history or a high symptom burden. Patients received GFF MDI 18/9.6 μg, glycopyrrolate (GP) MDI 18 μg, formoterol fumarate (FF) MDI 9.6 μg, or placebo MDI, twice-daily for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint of the pooled analysis was the change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) at week 24. Secondary endpoints included COPD exacerbations and clinically important deterioration (CID). Adverse events were also assessed.

Results

The pooled intent-to-treat population included 4983 patients; of these, 61.9% had a COPD assessment test (CAT) score ≥15, and 25.0% had experienced ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the past year. At week 24, GFF MDI improved morning pre-dose trough FEV₁ versus GP MDI (least squares mean [LSM] difference [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 59 mL [43, 75]), FF MDI (65 mL [48, 81]), and placebo MDI (146 mL [125, 166]); all p < 0.0001. GFF MDI reduced the risk of a moderate/severe exacerbation by 18% (p = 0.0168), 15% (p = 0.0628), and 28% (p = 0.0012) compared with GP MDI, FF MDI, and placebo MDI, respectively. In general, exacerbation risk reduction with GFF MDI versus comparators was greater in subgroups of symptomatic patients (CAT ≥15) and those who had an exacerbation history, than in the pooled intent-to-treat population. The risk of CID was also lower with GFF MDI versus GP MDI (23% decrease), FF MDI (17%), and placebo MDI (49%); all p < 0.0001. All treatments were well tolerated, with no unexpected safety signals.

Conclusions

This pooled analysis of the PINNACLE studies demonstrated that GFF MDI improved lung function and reduced the risk of exacerbations compared with monocomponents and placebo in patients with COPD. Exacerbation reductions with GFF MDI versus comparators were generally greater in patients with higher symptom burden and those with exacerbation history.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01854645, NCT01854658, and NCT02343458. Registered 13 May 2013 (NCT01854645, NCT01854658) and 6 January 2015 (NCT02343458).

Efficacy And Safety Of Glycopyrrolate/Formoterol Fumarate Metered Dose Inhaler (GFF MDI) Formulated Using Co-Suspension Delivery Technology In Chinese Patients With COPD

Background

Glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI) is a long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β₂-agonist fixed-dose combination therapy delivered by MDI, formulated using innovative co-suspension delivery technology. The PINNACLE-4 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of GFF MDI in patients with moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) from Asia, Europe, and the USA. This article presents the results from the China subpopulation of PINNACLE-4.

Methods

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group Phase III study (NCT02343458), patients received GFF MDI 18/9.6 µg, glycopyrrolate (GP) MDI 18 µg, formoterol fumarate (FF) MDI 9.6 µg, or placebo MDI (all twice daily) for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second at Week 24. Secondary lung function endpoints and patient-reported outcome measures were also assessed. Safety was monitored throughout the study.

Results

Overall, 466 patients from China were included in the intent-to-treat population (mean age 63.6 years, 95.7% male). Treatment with GFF MDI improved the primary endpoint compared to GP MDI, FF MDI, and placebo MDI (least squares mean differences: 98, 104, and 173 mL, respectively; all P≤0.0001). GFF MDI also improved daily total symptom scores and time to first clinically important deterioration versus monocomponents and placebo MDI, and Transition Dyspnea Index focal score versus placebo MDI. Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar across the active treatment groups and slightly higher in the placebo MDI group.

Conclusion

GFF MDI improved lung function and daily symptoms versus monocomponents and placebo MDI and improved dyspnea versus placebo MDI. All treatments were well tolerated with no unexpected safety findings. Efficacy and safety results were generally consistent with the global PINNACLE-4 population, supporting the use of GFF MDI in patients with COPD from China.

Current evidence for COPD management with dual long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist bronchodilators

Long-acting inhaled bronchodilator medications are recommended as initial maintenance therapy for many patients with COPD. These medications include long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) and long-acting β₂-agonists (LABA). Combinations of long-acting bronchodilator agents (LAMA/LABA) and inhaled corticosteroids combined with LABA (ICS/LABA) are also used as initial or follow-up therapy in patients with more severe symptoms or at risk of COPD exacerbations. This review summarizes the position of LAMA/LABA combinations in treatment recommendations, and the evidence supporting their placement relative to LAMA monotherapy and ICS/LABA combination therapy, as well as differences within the LAMA/LABA class. Most studies show that LAMA/LABA treatment leads to greater improvements in lung function and symptoms than LAMA monotherapy or ICS/LABA treatment. There are fewer studies comparing the impact of different medication classes on patients' risk of exacerbations; however, the available evidence suggests that LAMA/LABA treatment and LAMA monotherapy lead to a similar reduction in exacerbation risk, while the effect of LAMA/LABA compared with ICS/LABA remains unclear. The incidence of adverse events is similar with LAMA/LABA and LAMA alone. There is a lower risk of pneumonia with LAMA/LABA compared with ICS/LABA. This evidence supports the use of LAMA/LABA combinations as an initial maintenance therapy option for symptomatic patients with low exacerbation risk and severe breathlessness or patients with severe symptoms who are at risk of exacerbations, and as follow-up treatment in patients with uncontrolled symptoms or exacerbations on bronchodilator monotherapy.

Real-world effectiveness of umeclidinium/vilanterol versus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol as initial maintenance therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a retrospective cohort study

Background and objective

Retrospective claims data in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) initiating maintenance therapy with inhaled fixed-dose combinations of long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β₂-agonist (LAMA/LABA) versus inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA have not been reported.

Methods

Retrospective observational study in a COPD-diagnosed population of commercial and Medicare Advantage with Part D (MAPD) enrollees aged ≥40 years from a US health insurer database. Patients initiated umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI [62.5/25 µg]) or fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL [250/50 µg]) between April 1, 2014 and August 31, 2016 (index date) and had 12 months continuous enrollment pre- and post-index. Exclusion criteria included an asthma diagnosis in the pre-index period/index date; ICS-, LABA-, or LAMA-containing therapy during the pre-index period; or pharmacy fills for both UMEC/VI and FP/SAL, multiple-inhaler triple therapy, a non-index therapy, or COPD exacerbation on the index date. Adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC] ≥80%) was modeled using weighted logistic regression following inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Weighted Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression following IPTW were performed for incidence of COPD exacerbation and escalation to multiple-inhaler triple therapy.

Results

The study population included 5306 patients (1386 initiating UMEC/VI and 3920 initiating FP/SAL). Adjusted odds of adherence were 2.00 times greater among UMEC/VI than FP/SAL initiators (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.62─2.46; P<0.001). The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for first exacerbation was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.74–1.01; P=0.067) among UMEC/VI versus FP/SAL initiators. UMEC/VI initiators had 35% lower adjusted risk of escalation to multiple-inhaler triple therapy (HR 0.65; 95% CI: 0.47–0.89; P=0.008) versus FP/SAL. On-treatment, UMEC/VI initiators had an adjusted 30% reduced risk of a first moderate/severe COPD exacerbation (HR 0.70; 95% CI: 0.54–0.90; P=0.006).

Conclusion

Patients with COPD initiating UMEC/VI had higher adherence and longer time before escalation to multiple-inhaler triple therapy than FP/SAL initiators.

Efficacy and safety of the dual bronchodilator combination umeclidinium/vilanterol in COPD by age and airflow limitation severity: A pooled post hoc analysis of seven clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and those with more severe airway limitation are perceived to experience reduced efficacy from inhaled bronchodilators, especially those administered in a dry powder inhaler. This study compared the efficacy and safety of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β₂-agonist dry powder combination in elderly patients with COPD and patients with moderate-to-very severe airflow limitation.

METHODS

This post hoc pooled analysis of seven randomized studies of ≥12 weeks' duration investigated the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25 μg versus tiotropium (TIO) 18 μg or fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) 250/50 μg. Change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), a common efficacy measure in all trials, proportion of FEV₁ responders (≥100 mL increase from baseline) and safety outcomes were analyzed at Day 28, 56, and 84 in patients classified by age (<65, ≥65, and ≥75 years of age) and severity of baseline airflow limitation (Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease [GOLD] stage 2 [moderate] and stage 3/4 [severe/very severe]). A 24-week analysis was also conducted for the UMEC/VI versus TIO comparison.

RESULTS

The pooled intent-to-treat population comprised 3821 patients (≥65 years: 44-45%; ≥75 years: 9-10%; GOLD stage 3/4: 50-55%); 2246, 874, and 701 patients received UMEC/VI, TIO, or FP/SAL, respectively. Significant improvements in trough FEV₁ at Day 84 were observed with UMEC/VI versus TIO or FP/SAL irrespective of age (all p ≤ 0.029) or GOLD stage (all p < 0.001). The proportion of FEV₁ responders at Day 84 was significantly greater with UMEC/VI versus TIO or FP/SAL across all age groups (all p ≤ 0.016) and GOLD stages (all p < 0.001). Safety profiles were similar between treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

UMEC/VI consistently demonstrated improved lung function versus TIO and FP/SAL across age and airflow limitation severity subgroups, with no safety concerns, indicating that UMEC/VI provides no loss in efficacy or additional safety concerns for both elderly patients with COPD and patients with severe/very severe airway limitation.

A Retrospective Claims Analysis of Dual Bronchodilator Fixed-Dose Combination Versus Bronchodilator Monotherapy in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Introduction

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) increasingly receive combination bronchodilator therapies. Real world evidence for the benefits of combination therapy compared to monotherapy is lacking.

Methods

COPD patients aged ≥ 40 years initiating monotherapy (MT) with either a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) or long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) or dual therapy (DT) with a LAMA/LABA fixed dose combination (FDC) between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2016 were identified from a large U.S. administrative claims database. Patients diagnosed with cystic fibrosis, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, or asthma were excluded. Cohorts were propensity score matched 1:1 using baseline measures (e.g., exacerbations, hospitalizations) as proxies for COPD severity to create balanced cohorts.

Results

Following propensity score matching (PSM), 1286 patients remained in each cohort for analysis. Patients were followed for approximately 1 year. Patients in the DT versus MT cohort had lower rates of exacerbations leading to hospitalization (incidence rate ratio 0.7886; p=0.019), lower mean COPD-related pharmacy costs per patient per month (PPPM) ($300 versus $379, respectively; p<0.001) and total costs PPPM ($990 versus $1203, respectively; p=0.003). This occurred despite lower mean COPD-related pharmacy fills PPPM in the DT versus MT cohorts (1.41 versus 1.51, respectively; p=0.038). Patients in the DT cohort had lower rates of switching (p<0.001) and augmentation (p<0.001), and higher rates of non-persistence (p<0.001) versus the MT cohort. Rates of discontinuation were similar.

Conclusions

Patients in the DT cohort had lower rates of exacerbations leading to hospitalization, lower COPD-related pharmacy and total costs PPPM, and lower rates of switching and augmentation compared to patients in the MT cohort.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol 62.5/25 mcg versus tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 mcg in symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a Spanish National Healthcare System perspective

BACKGROUND

A head-to-head study demonstrated the superiority of once-daily umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25 mcg on trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) versus once-daily tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) 5/5 mcg in symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis evaluated the cost effectiveness of UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO from a Spanish National Healthcare System perspective, using data from this study and Spanish literature.

METHODS

This analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Spanish National Healthcare System with a 3-year horizon as base case. A disease progression model using a linked risk equation approach was used to estimate disease progression and associated healthcare costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The Evaluation of COPD Longitudinally to Identify Predictive Surrogate Endpoints (ECLIPSE) study was used to develop the statistical risk equations for clinical endpoints, and costs were calculated using a health state approach (by dyspnea severity). Utilities for QALY calculation were estimated using patient baseline characteristics within a regression fit to Spanish observational data. Treatment effect, expressed as change from baseline in FEV1 was obtained from the head-to-head study and used in the model (UMEC/VI minus TIO/OLO difference: + 52 mL [95% confidence interval: 28, 77]). Baseline patient characteristics were sourced from Spanish literature or the head-to-head study if unavailable. A scenario analysis using only the intent-to-treat (ITT) population from the head-to-head study, and sensitivity analyses (including probabilistic sensitivity analyses), were conducted. Direct healthcare costs (2017 Euro) were obtained from Spanish sources and costs and benefits were discounted at 3% per annum.

RESULTS

UMEC/VI was associated with small improvements in QALYs (+ 0.029) over a 3-year time horizon, compared with TIO/OLO, alongside cost savings of €393/patient. The ITT scenario analysis and sensitivity analyses had similar results. All probabilistic simulations resulted in UMEC/VI being less costly and more effective than TIO/OLO.

CONCLUSION

UMEC/VI dominated TIO/OLO (more effective and less expensive). These results may aid payers and decision-makers in Spain when making judgements on which long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) treatments can be considered cost effective in Spain.

Effects of a single long-acting muscarinic antagonist agent and a long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-adrenoceptor agonist combination on lung function and symptoms in untreated COPD patients in Japan

BACKGROUND

A large body of evidence suggests that long-acting β2-adrenoceptor agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) combinations induce a strong synergistic bronchodilatory effect in human isolated airways. Moreover, a recent post hoc analysis demonstrated clinical synergism between LABAs and LAMAs, which induces a synergistic improvement not only in lung function but also in dyspnea in COPD patients.

AIM

The aim of this study is to examine the baseline factors related to improvement in lung function or clinical symptoms that results from the administration of LAMA or LAMA/LABA and to compare the differences in improvement in lung function or clinical symptoms between LAMA and LAMA/LABA.

METHODS

Among 829 patients with COPD who were treated with LAMA or LAMA/LABA in our hospital, 112 patients (aged 40-89 years) matched the criteria. Of these 112 patients, 71 received LAMA (LAMA group) and 41 received LAMA/LABA (LAMA/LABA group) as the initial treatment. Various examination results such as lung function test values, symptom change, and frequency of exacerbations were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Compared with the monotherapy, the combination therapy significantly improved the FEV1, inspiratory capacity (IC), and total COPD assessment test (CAT) scores. Comparing the improvement in each domain of the CAT produced by the combination therapy with that of the monotherapy, larger improvements were found for the domains of going out and sleeping. The frequency of exacerbations during the 24 weeks was significantly lower in the combination therapy group than in the LAMA monotherapy group (P=0.034). Although no relationship was found between improvement in FEV1 and any pretreatment factors in the LAMA/LABA group, the improvement in the CAT score was strongly related to the baseline CAT score, smoking index, and air trapping index (P-value <1×10-4).

CONCLUSION

In this study of clinical practice, we found that LAMA/LABA combination therapy improved the clinical symptoms of COPD and IC and that the effects of the combination therapy were consistent with those observed in previous clinical trials.

A randomized study using functional respiratory imaging to characterize bronchodilator effects of glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate delivered by a metered dose inhaler using co-suspension delivery technology in patients with COPD

Background

Functional respiratory imaging (FRI) uses high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) scans to assess changes in airway volume and resistance.

Patients and methods

In this randomized, double-blind, 2-week, crossover, Phase IIIB study, patients with moderate-to-severe COPD received twice-daily glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate delivered by a metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI, 18/9.6 μg) and placebo MDI, formulated using innovative co-suspension delivery technology. Co-primary endpoints included the following: specific image-based airway volume (siVaw) and specific image-based airway resistance (siRaw) at Day 15, measured using FRI. Secondary and other endpoints included the following: change from baseline in post-dose forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) and inspiratory capacity (IC; spirometry) and ratio to baseline in post-dose functional residual capacity (FRC) and residual volume (RV; body plethysmography).

Results

Twenty patients (46-78 years of age) were randomized and treated; of whom 19 completed the study. GFF MDI treatment increased siVaw by 75% and reduced siRaw by 71% vs placebo MDI (both P<0.0001). Image-based airway volume (iVaw) and image-based airway resistance (iRaw), without adjusting for lobe volume, demonstrated corresponding findings to the co-primary endpoint, as lobe volumes did not change with either treatment. Approximately 48% of the delivered dose of glycopyrronium and formoterol fumarate was estimated to be deposited in the lungs. Compared with placebo, GFF MDI treatment improved post-dose FEV₁ and IC (443 mL and 454 mL, respectively; both P<0.001) and reduced FRC and RV (13% and 22%, respectively; both P<0.0001). There were no significant safety findings.

Conclusion

GFF MDI demonstrated significant, clinically meaningful benefits on FRI-based airway volume and resistance in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Benefits were associated with improvements in FEV₁, IC, and hyperinflation.

Clinical trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02643082.

Efficacy and safety of four doses of glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate delivered via a metered dose inhaler compared with the monocomponents in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD

Purpose

To determine the efficacy and safety of glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI 36/9.6, 36/7.2, 18/9.6, 9/9.6 µg) using innovative co-suspension delivery technology, compared with glycopyrrolate (GP) MDI 36 µg and formoterol fumarate (FF) MDI 9.6 µg, in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.

Methods

In this Phase IIb, randomized, double-blind, balanced incomplete-block, two-period, cross-over study (NCT01349816), patients received treatment twice-daily for 7 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) area under the curve from 0 to 12 hours (AUC_0–12) on Day 7. Secondary efficacy endpoints were peak change from baseline in FEV₁ through 2 hours; time to onset of action (≥10% improvement in mean FEV₁); proportion of patients achieving ≥12% improvement in FEV₁ on Day 1; peak change from baseline in inspiratory capacity (IC) on Days 1 and 7; change from baseline in morning pre-dose FEV₁; peak change from baseline in FEV₁ through 6 hours; and change from baseline in mean evening 12-hour post-dose trough FEV₁ on Day 7. Safety was assessed.

Results

All 185 randomized patients received treatment. All doses of GFF MDI significantly improved the primary endpoint compared with GP MDI 36 µg (all P≤0.0137). For peak change in FEV₁ and IC and time to onset of action secondary endpoints, ≥2 doses of GFF MDI demonstrated superiority to GP MDI 36 µg. No significant differences were observed between GFF MDI and FF MDI 9.6 µg for primary and secondary endpoints. The incidence of adverse events was similar between treatments.

Conclusion

While all doses of GFF MDI were superior to GP MDI 36 µg for the primary end-point, in this study neither superiority of GFF MDI to FF MDI 9.6 µg nor a clear dose-response was observed. All treatments were well tolerated with no unexpected safety findings.

Rates of escalation to triple COPD therapy among incident users of LAMA and LAMA/LABA

BACKGROUND

Improved outcomes have been reported for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) receiving combination long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β₂-agonist (LAMA/LABA) therapy compared with LAMA monotherapy. However, little is known about the relative characteristics of these patients and their rates of escalation to triple therapy (TT, combining a LAMA, LABA, and inhaled corticosteroid). This study aimed to characterize patients initiating treatment with the LAMA tiotropium (TIO) and the fixed-dose LAMA/LABA combination therapy umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI), and to compare rates of escalation to TT between patients receiving these therapies.

METHODS

Retrospective study of patients with COPD enrolled in a US health insurance plan during 2013-2015 and newly initiated on TIO or UMEC/VI. Patients were ≥40 years of age at index (date of therapy initiation) with continuous enrollment for 12 months pre-index and ≥30 days post-index. LAMA users were propensity score matched 1:1 to LAMA/LABA users, with TT initiation rates reported by cohort using pharmacy claims.

RESULTS

35,357 patients initiating on TIO and 2407 patients initiating on UMEC/VI were identified. After propensity score matching, the rate of TT initiation was significantly higher in new TIO users (n = 1320) than in new UMEC/VI users (n = 1320) (0.92 vs 0.49 per 100 months of exposure, respectively; p < 0.001). Relative to the UMEC/VI cohort, the TIO cohort had an 87% higher risk of TT initiation (hazard ratio: 1.87; 95% confidence interval: 1.4-2.5; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving UMEC/VI progressed to TT more slowly, and were at lower risk of progressing to TT, than patients receiving TIO.