Outcomes of patients with COPD switching from multiple-inhaler to once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy in a real-world primary care setting in England: a retrospective pre-post cohort study

BACKGROUND

Compared with multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT), single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) demonstrated improved lung function and meaningful improvements in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) Assessment Test score. This real-world study compared the effectiveness of switching patients with COPD in England from MITT to once-daily SITT with FF/UMEC/VI by evaluating rates of COPD exacerbation, healthcare resource use (HCRU) and associated direct medical costs.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort pre-post study using linked primary care electronic health record and secondary care administrative datasets. Patients diagnosed with COPD at age ≥35 years, with smoking history, linkage to secondary care data and continuous GP registration for 12 months pre-switch and 6 months post-switch to FF/UMEC/VI were included. Index date was the first initiation of an FF/UMEC/VI prescription immediately following MITT use from 15 November 2017 to 30 September 2019. Baseline was 12 months prior to index, with outcomes assessed 6/12 months pre-switch and post-switch, and stratified by prior COPD exacerbation status.

RESULTS

We included 2533 patients (mean [SD] age: 71.1 [9.9] years; 52.1% male). In the 6 months post-switch, there were significant decreases in the proportion of patients experiencing ≥1 moderate-to-severe (36.2%-28.9%), moderate only (24.4%-19.8%) and severe only (15.4%-11.8%) COPD exacerbation (each, p<0.0001) compared with the 6 months pre-switch. As demonstrated by rate ratios, there were significant reductions in exacerbation rates of each severity overall (p<0.01) and among patients with prior exacerbations (p<0.0001). In the same period, there were significant decreases in the rate of each COPD-related HCRU and total COPD-related costs (-24.9%; p<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Patients with COPD switching from MITT to once-daily SITT with FF/UMEC/VI in a primary care setting had significantly fewer moderate and severe exacerbations, and lower COPD-related HCRU and costs, in the 6 months post-switch compared with the 6 months pre-switch.

Characteristics of Users and New Initiators of Single- and Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Germany

Purpose

To assess patient characteristics of users and new initiators of triple therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in Germany.

Patients and Methods

Retrospective cohort study of patients with COPD and ≥1 prescription for single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT; fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol [FF/UMEC/VI] or beclomethasone dipropionate/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol [BDP/GLY/FOR]) or multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT), using data from the AOK PLUS German sickness fund (1 January 2015-31 December 2019). The index date was the first date of prescription for FF/UMEC/VI or BDP/GLY/FOR (SITT users), or the first date of overlap of inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting β2-agonist, and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (MITT users). Two cohorts were defined: the prevalent cohort included all identified triple therapy users; the incident cohort included patients newly initiating triple therapy for the first time (no prior use of MITT or SITT in the last 2 years). Patient characteristics and treatment patterns were assessed on the index date and during the 24-month pre-index period.

Results

In total, 18,630 patients were identified as prevalent triple therapy users (MITT: 17,945; FF/UMEC/VI: 700; BDP/GLY/FOR: 908; non-mutually exclusive) and 2932 patients were identified as incident triple therapy initiators (MITT: 2246; FF/UMEC/VI: 311; BDP/GLY/FOR: 395; non-mutually exclusive). For both the prevalent and incident cohorts, more than two-thirds of patients experienced ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the preceding 24 months; in both cohorts more BDP/GLY/FOR users experienced ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation, compared with FF/UMEC/VI and MITT users. Overall, 97.9% of prevalent triple therapy users and 86.4% of incident triple therapy initiators received maintenance treatment in the 24-month pre-index period.

Conclusion

In a real-world setting in Germany, triple therapy was most frequently used after maintenance therapy in patients with recent exacerbations, in line with current treatment recommendations.

Benefit of Prompt Vs Delayed Initiation of Triple Therapy Following an Exacerbation in Patients with COPD in Japan: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Purpose

There is currently limited evidence for the optimal timing of triple therapy initiation in Japan, which is crucial for optimizing strategies for the effective treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study assessed the impact of prompt vs delayed initiation of triple therapy following a COPD exacerbation on clinical and economic outcomes in patients in Japan.

Patients and Methods

Retrospective cohort study of patients in the Medical Data Vision Co., Ltd. database initiating triple therapy as single-inhaler triple therapy (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol or budesonide/glycopyrronium/formoterol) or multiple-inhaler triple therapy within 180 days of a moderate-to-severe exacerbation (index). For the main analysis, patients were categorized as prompt or delayed initiators, initiating triple therapy within 0-30 days or 31-180 days of index, respectively. Inverse probability of treatment weighting based on propensity scores was used to adjust for measured confounders between prompt and delayed cohorts.

Results

For the main analysis, 610 (60.3%) and 402 (39.7%) patients were prompt and delayed initiators, respectively. The rate of subsequent moderate-to-severe exacerbations following index exacerbation was numerically lower in prompt vs delayed initiators (weighted rate ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74-1.21; P = 0.6603). Time-to-first subsequent moderate-to-severe exacerbation increased significantly in prompt vs delayed initiators (weighted hazard ratio 0.77, 95% CI: 0.64-0.93; P = 0.0053). In patients indexed on a severe exacerbation, delayed initiation resulted in significantly higher 90-day all-cause readmissions vs prompt initiation (42.1% vs 30.6%; P = 0.0329 [weighted estimates]). Weighted healthcare resource utilization rates were numerically lower in prompt vs delayed initiators, and weighted direct costs (all cause and COPD-related) were significantly lower in prompt initiators.

Conclusion

This real-world study demonstrated that earlier initiation of triple therapy resulted in several benefits in clinical outcomes for COPD and may also reduce the economic burden of COPD management in Japan.

Risk Factors Associated with a First Exacerbation Among Patients with COPD Classified as GOLD A and B in Routine Clinical Practice in the UK

Purpose

Risk factors for exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have been previously characterized for patients with more severe cases of COPD. It is unclear how the risk of first exacerbation may best be identified in patients with less severe disease. This study investigated risk factors for first exacerbation among English patients with COPD classified as Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group A or B.

Patients and Methods

A retrospective cohort study using data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) AURUM linked to Hospital Episode Statistics. Patients with COPD aged ≥35 years and classified as GOLD group A or B (2020 criteria) from January 2013-December 2019 were eligible. Patients were required to have 24 months history in CPRD (baseline). Two cohorts were defined: cohort 1 included patients with no severe exacerbations during baseline; cohort 2 included patients with no moderate or severe exacerbations during baseline. Risk factors associated with severe, or combined moderate and severe exacerbation were examined for up to 5 years of follow-up.

Results

Overall, 194,948 patients were included in cohort 1 (mean age 66.2 years; 55.2% male), and 148,396 patients in cohort 2 (mean age 66.1 years; 56.6% male). Identified risk factors for exacerbation (and associated 1-year absolute risk of severe, or combined moderate and severe exacerbation, respectively) included: Medical Research Council dyspnea scale score (15.9%/28.4%); COPD Assessment Test score (9.6%/25.3%); GOLD grade of airflow limitation (forced expiratory volume in 1 second % predicted; 13.6%/27.5%); and lung cancer (8.1%/23.6%). After adjustment for risk factors, these factors remained independently associated with severe exacerbation at 1, 3, and 5 years of follow-up.

Conclusion

The identified risk factors may aid physicians in the early recognition of patients with COPD classified as GOLD group A or B at risk of first exacerbation.

DElaying Disease Progression In COPD with Early Initiation of Dual Bronchodilator or Triple Inhaled PharmacoTherapy (DEPICT): A Predictive Modelling Approach

INTRODUCTION

Clinical studies demonstrate an accelerated decline in lung function in patients with moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease [GOLD] grade 2) versus severe and very severe COPD (GOLD grades 3 and 4). This predictive modelling study assessed the impact of initiating pharmacotherapy earlier versus later on long-term disease progression in COPD.

METHODS

The modelling approach used data on decline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) extracted from published studies to develop a longitudinal non-parametric superposition model of lung function decline with progressive impact of exacerbations from 0 per year to 3 per year and no ongoing pharmacotherapy. The model simulated decline in FEV1 and annual exacerbation rates from age 40 to 75 years in COPD with initiation of long-acting anti-muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) (umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI)) or triple (inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LAMA/LABA; fluticasone furoate (FF)/UMEC/VI) therapy at 40, 55 or 65 years of age.

RESULTS

Model-predicted decline in FEV1 showed that, compared with 'no ongoing' therapy, initiation of triple or LAMA/LABA therapy at age 40, 55 or 65 years preserved an additional 469.7 mL or 236.0 mL, 327.5 mL or 203.3 mL, or 213.5 mL or 137.5 mL of lung function, respectively, by the age of 75. The corresponding average annual exacerbation rates were reduced from 1.57 to 0.91, 1.06 or 1.23 with triple therapy or to 1.2, 1.26 and 1.4 with LAMA/LABA therapy when initiated at 40, 55 or 65 years of age, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This modelling study suggests that earlier initiation of LAMA/LABA or triple therapy may have positive benefits in slowing disease progression in patients with COPD. Greater benefits were demonstrated with early initiation therapy with triple versus LAMA/LABA.

Benefit of prompt initiation of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) in patients with COPD in England following an exacerbation: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Triple therapy is recommended for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who remain symptomatic despite dual therapy. The optimal timing of triple therapy following an exacerbation of COPD is unknown. The outcomes of prompt (≤ 30 days) vs. delayed (31-180 days) initiation of single-inhaler triple therapy with fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) following an exacerbation of COPD were examined.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of linked English primary (Clinical Practice Research Datalink) and secondary (Hospital Episode Statistics) care data. Patients aged ≥ 35 years with COPD were indexed on the first and/or earliest date of exacerbation between November 15, 2017 and March 31, 2019 with subsequent FF/UMEC/VI initiation within 180 days. Patients were required to be continuously registered with a general practitioner for ≥ 12 months prior to and following index. Subsequent exacerbations, direct medical costs, and hospital readmissions were compared between prompt and delayed initiators. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for measured confounders between cohorts.

RESULTS

Overall, 1599 patients were included (prompt: 393, delayed: 1206). After weighting, prompt initiators had numerically lower moderate/severe exacerbations compared with delayed initiators (rate ratio: 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-1.01, p = 0.0587). Both all-cause and COPD-related 30-day hospital readmissions were significantly lower among patients with prompt initiation compared with delayed initiators (all-cause: 23.6% vs. 34.6%, odds ratio [95% CI]: 0.58 [0.36-0.95], p = 0.0293; COPD-related: 20.3% vs. 30.6%, odds ratio [95% CI]: 0.58 [0.35-0.96], p = 0.0347). Prompt initiators also had numerically lower all-cause total costs and significantly lower COPD-related costs per-person-per year compared with delayed initiators (COPD-related: £742 vs. £801, p = 0.0016).

CONCLUSION

Prompt initiation of FF/UMEC/VI following a moderate/severe exacerbation was associated with fewer subsequent exacerbations, fewer hospital readmissions, and lower COPD-related medical costs compared with delayed initiation.

Comparative Effectiveness of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus Indacaterol/Glycopyrronium on Moderate-to-Severe Exacerbations in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Clinical Practice in England

Purpose

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations are associated with significant morbidity and mortality and increased economic healthcare burden for patients with COPD. Long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) dual therapy is recommended for patients receiving mono-bronchodilator therapy who experience exacerbations or ongoing breathlessness. This study compared two single-inhaler LAMA/LABA dual therapies, umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) and indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY), on moderate-to-severe exacerbation rates in patients with COPD in England.

Patients and Methods

This retrospective cohort study used linked primary care electronic health record data (Clinical Practice Research Datalink-Aurum) and secondary care data (Hospital Episode Statistics) to assess outcomes for patients with COPD who had a first prescription for single-inhaler UMEC/VI or IND/GLY (index date) between 1 January 2015 and 30 September 2019 (indexing period). Analyses compared UMEC/VI and IND/GLY on moderate-to-severe, moderate, and severe exacerbations, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and direct costs at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, and time-to-first on-treatment exacerbation up to 24 months post-index date. Following inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), non-inferiority and superiority of UMEC/VI versus IND/GLY were assessed.

Results

In total, 12,031 patients were included, of whom 8753 (72.8%) were prescribed UMEC/VI and 3278 (27.2%) IND/GLY. After IPTW, for moderate-to-severe exacerbations, weighted rate ratios were <1 at 6, 12, and 18 months and equal to 1 at 24 months for UMEC/VI; around the null value for moderate exacerbations and <1 at all timepoints for severe exacerbations. UMEC/VI showed lower HCRU incidence rates than IND/GLY for all-cause Accident and Emergency visits and COPD-related inpatient stays and associated all-cause costs at 6 months post-indexing. Time-to-triple therapy was similar for both treatments.

Conclusion

UMEC/VI demonstrated non-inferiority to IND/GLY in moderate-to-severe exacerbation reduction at 6, 12 and 18 months. These results support previous findings demonstrating similarity between UMEC/VI and IND/GLY on reduction of moderate-to-severe exacerbations.

Cost-Effectiveness of Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) versus Tiotropium Monotherapy in Patients with Symptomatic Moderate-to-Very Severe COPD in the UK

Purpose

For patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who remain symptomatic despite maintenance treatment, clinical management guidelines recommend a stepwise escalation from monotherapy to dual therapy, and from dual therapy to triple therapy. However, in clinical practice, patients are often escalated directly from monotherapy to triple therapy based on disease severity. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of once-daily, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy compared with long-acting muscarinic antagonist monotherapy with once-daily tiotropium (TIO) in patients with symptomatic moderate-to-very severe COPD, from a UK National Health Service perspective.

Patients and Methods

The validated GALAXY-COPD disease progression model was populated with patient baseline characteristics and treatment effect data from the 12-week GSK Study 207626 comparing FF/UMEC/VI with TIO in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. UK unit costs and drug costs (British Pound, 2021) were applied to healthcare resource utilization and treatments. The base case analysis was conducted over a lifetime horizon, and costs and health outcomes (except for life years [LYs]) were discounted at 3.5% per year. Model outputs included exacerbation rates, healthcare costs, LYs, quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

Results

Overall, treatment with FF/UMEC/VI resulted in increased clinical benefit (reduction in total exacerbations and increased overall survival and QALYs), coupled with cost savings (derived from lower maintenance and exacerbation healthcare costs) compared with TIO monotherapy. In the base case analysis, FF/UMEC/VI provided an additional 0.393 LYs (95% range: 0.176, 0.655) and 0.443 QALYs (0.246, 0.648), at a cost saving of £880 (£54, £1608) versus TIO. FF/UMEC/VI remained the cost-effective (dominant) treatment option across sensitivity and scenario analyses.

Conclusion

FF/UMEC/VI offers greater clinical benefits and is a cost-effective treatment option compared with TIO for the treatment of adult patients with COPD with persistent symptoms and/or who are at risk of exacerbation in the UK.

Comparison of Rescue Medication Prescriptions in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Receiving Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus Tiotropium Bromide/Olodaterol in Routine Clinical Practice in England

Purpose

Routinely collected healthcare data on the comparative effectiveness of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist combination umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus tiotropium bromide/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is limited. This study compared rescue medication prescriptions in patients with COPD in England receiving UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO.

Patients and Methods

This retrospective cohort study used primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum database linked with secondary care administrative data from Hospital Episode Statistics. Patients with a COPD diagnosis at age ≥35 years were included (indexed) following initiation of single-inhaler UMEC/VI or TIO/OLO between July 1, 2015, and September 30, 2019. Outcomes included the number of rescue medication prescriptions at 12-months (primary), and at 6-, 18- and 24-months (secondary), adherence at 6-, 12-, 18- and 24-months post-index, defined as proportion of days covered ≥80% (secondary), and time-to-initiation of triple therapy (exploratory). Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance potential confounding baseline characteristics. Superiority of UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO for the primary outcome of rescue medication prescriptions was assessed using an intention-to-treat analysis with a p-value < 0.05.

Results

In total, 8603 patients were eligible (UMEC/VI: n = 6536; TIO/OLO: n = 2067). Following IPTW, covariates were well balanced across groups. Patients initiating UMEC/VI had statistically significantly fewer (mean [standard deviation]; p-value) rescue medication prescriptions versus TIO/OLO in both the unweighted (4.84 [4.78] vs 5.68 [5.00]; p < 0.001) and weighted comparison (4.91 [4.81] vs 5.48 [5.02]; p = 0.0032) at 12 months; consistent results were seen at all timepoints. Adherence was numerically higher for TIO/OLO versus UMEC/VI at all timepoints. Time-to-triple therapy was similar between treatment groups.

Conclusion

UMEC/VI was superior to TIO/OLO in reducing rescue medication prescriptions at 12 months after treatment initiation in a primary care cohort in England, potentially suggesting improvements in symptom control with UMEC/VI compared with TIO/OLO.

Burden of Disease in Patients with Mild or Mild-to-Moderate Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease Group A or B): A Systematic Literature Review

Background

Patients with mild or mild-to-moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), defined as Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group A/B, are regarded as having a lower risk of experiencing multiple or severe exacerbations compared with patients classified as GOLD group C/D. Current guidelines suggest that patients in GOLD A/B should commence treatment with a bronchodilator; however, some patients within this population who have a higher disease burden may benefit from earlier introduction of dual bronchodilator or inhaled corticosteroid-containing therapies. This study aimed to provide research-based insights into the burden of disease experienced by patients classified as GOLD A/B, and to identify characteristics associated with poorer outcomes.

Methods

A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to identify evidence (burden of disease and prevalence data) relating to the population of interest (patients with COPD classified as GOLD A/B).

Results

A total of 79 full-text publications and four conference abstracts were included. In general, the rates of moderate and severe exacerbations were higher among patients in GOLD group B than among those in group A. Among patients classified as GOLD A/B, the risk of exacerbation was higher in those with more symptoms (modified Medical Research Council or COPD Assessment Test scales) and more severe airflow limitation (forced expiratory volume in 1 second % predicted).

Conclusion

Data from this SLR provide clear evidence of a heavier burden of disease for patients in GOLD B, compared with those in GOLD A, and highlight factors associated with worse outcomes for patients in GOLD A/B.

Comparative Effectiveness of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus Inhaled Corticosteroid/Long-Acting β2-Agonist in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in a Primary Care Setting in England

Purpose

To compare adherence to once-daily umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β₂-agonist (LAMA/LABA), and twice-daily inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/LABA single-inhaler dual therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in a primary care cohort in England.

Patients and Methods

Active comparator, new-user, retrospective cohort study using CPRD-Aurum primary care data and linked Hospital Episode Statistics secondary care administrative data. Patients without exacerbations in the previous year were indexed on first/earliest prescription date of once-daily UMEC/VI or twice-daily ICS/LABA as initial maintenance therapy between July 2014-September 2019. Primary outcome: medication adherence at 12 months post-index, defined as proportion of days covered (PDC) ≥80%. PDC represented proportion of time over the treatment duration that the patient was theoretically in possession of the medication. Secondary outcomes: adherence at 6, 18, and 24 months post-index, time-to-triple therapy, time-to-first on-treatment COPD exacerbation, COPD-related and all-cause healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and direct health-care costs. A propensity score was generated and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance potential confounders. Superiority was defined as >0% difference between treatment groups.

Results

In total, 6815 eligible patients were included (UMEC/VI:1623; ICS/LABA:5192). At 12 months post-index, weighted odds of a patient being adherent were significantly greater with UMEC/VI versus ICS/LABA (odds ratio [95% CI]: 1.71 [1.09, 2.66]; p=0.0185), demonstrating superiority of UMEC/VI. Patients taking UMEC/VI were statistically significantly more adherent than those taking ICS/LABA at 6, 18, and 24 months post-index (p<0.05). Differences in time-to-triple therapy, time-to-moderate COPD exacerbations, HCRU, and direct medical costs were not statistically significant between treatments after IPTW was applied.

Conclusion

At 12 months post-treatment initiation, once-daily UMEC/VI was superior to twice-daily ICS/LABA in medication adherence among patients with COPD without exacerbations in the previous year, newly initiating dual maintenance therapy in England. The finding was consistent at 6, 18, and 24 months.

Treatment Patterns, Healthcare Utilization and Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Initiating Single-Inhaler Long-Acting β2-Agonist/Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist Dual Therapy in Primary Care in England

Purpose

Selection of treatments for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may impact clinical outcomes, healthcare resource use (HCRU) and direct healthcare costs. We aimed to characterize these outcomes along with treatment patterns, for patients with COPD following initiation of single-inhaler long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β₂-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual therapy in the primary care setting in England.

Patients and Methods

This retrospective cohort study used linked primary care electronic medical record data (Clinical Practice Research Datalink-Aurum) and secondary care administrative data (Hospital Episode Statistics) in England to assess outcomes for patients with COPD who had a prescription for one of four single-inhaler LAMA/LABA dual therapies between 1st June 2015-31st December 2018 (indexing period). Outcomes were assessed during a 12-month follow-up period from the index date (date of earliest prescription of a single-inhaler LAMA/LABA within the indexing period). Incident users were those without previous LAMA/LABA dual therapy prescriptions prior to index; this manuscript focuses on a subset of incident users: non-triple therapy users (patients without concomitant inhaled corticosteroid use at index).

Results

Of 10,991 incident users included, 9888 (90.0%) were non-triple therapy users, indexed on umeclidinium/vilanterol (n=4805), aclidinium/formoterol (n=2109), indacaterol/glycopyrronium (n=1785) and tiotropium/olodaterol (n=1189). At 3 months post-index, 63.3% of non-triple therapy users remained on a single-inhaler LAMA/LABA, and 22.1% had discontinued inhaled therapy. Most patients (86.9%) required general practitioner consultations in the first 3 months post-index. Inpatient stays were the biggest contributor to healthcare costs. Acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPDs), adherence, time-to-triple therapy, time-to-first on-treatment moderate-to-severe AECOPD, time-to-index treatment discontinuation, HCRU and healthcare costs were similar across indexed therapies.

Conclusion

Patients initiating treatment with single-inhaler LAMA/LABA in primary care in England were unlikely to switch treatments in the first three months following initiation, but some may discontinue respiratory medication. Outcomes were similar across indexed treatments.

COPD Exacerbations, Costs, and Health Care Resource Utilization Before and After Initiation of Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Routine Care in the USA

Purpose

To examine the impact of initiating fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) in a single device on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, COPD exacerbation-related costs, and all-cause and COPD-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs in patients with COPD.

Methods

Retrospective database analysis of patients with COPD aged ≥40 years who initiated FF/UMEC/VI between September 1, 2017, and December 31, 2018 (index date: first pharmacy claim for FF/UMEC/VI), following evidence of multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) (≥30 consecutive days) in the year prior to index. COPD exacerbations, COPD exacerbation-related costs, and all-cause and COPD-related HCRU and costs were compared between the baseline period (12 months prior to and including index) and follow-up period (12 months following index).

Results

Data from 912 patients (mean [SD] age: 71.2 [8.1], 51.2% female) were included in the analyses. Among the overall cohort, mean count of total COPD exacerbations (moderate or severe) per patient was statistically significantly lower in the follow-up period compared to baseline (1.2 vs 1.4, p=0.001). The proportion of patients with ≥1 COPD exacerbation (moderate or severe) was also statistically significantly lower in the follow-up period compared to baseline (56.4% vs 62.4%, p=0.001). All-cause and COPD-related HCRU were similar during follow-up compared to baseline, although the proportion of patients with COPD-related ambulatory visits was lower during follow-up (p<0.001). COPD-related office visit costs, emergency room visit costs, and pharmacy costs were statistically significantly lower during follow-up compared to baseline (p<0.001; p=0.019; p<0.001, respectively).

Conclusion

In a real-world setting, patients on MITT who subsequently initiated FF/UMEC/VI in a single device had significant reductions in the rate of COPD exacerbations (moderate or severe). Switching to FF/UMEC/VI also resulted in improvements in some HCRU and cost outcomes. These data support the use of FF/UMEC/VI among patients at high risk of exacerbation to reduce future risk and improve outcomes.

Cost-Effectiveness of Once-Daily Single-Inhaler COPD Triple Therapy in Spain: IMPACT Trial

Purpose

Given between-country differences in healthcare systems, treatment costs, and disease management guidelines, country-specific cost-effectiveness analyses are important. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI among patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at risk of exacerbations from a Spanish healthcare system perspective.

Patients and Methods

Baseline data and treatment effects from the IMPACT trial were populated into the validated GALAXY COPD progression model. Utilities were estimated using Spanish observational data. Direct healthcare costs (2019 €) were informed by Spanish public sources. A 3% discount rate for costs and benefits was applied. The time horizon and treatment duration were 3 years (base case). One-way sensitivity, scenario, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results

FF/UMEC/VI treatment resulted in fewer exacerbations over 3 years (4.130 vs 3.648) versus FF/VI, with a mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) incremental cost of €444 (€149, €713) per patient and benefit of 0.064 (0.053, 0.076) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €6887 per QALY gained. FF/UMEC/VI was a dominant treatment strategy versus UMEC/VI, resulting in fewer exacerbations (4.130 vs 3.360), with a mean (95% CI) incremental cost of -€450 (-€844, -€149) and benefit of 0.054 (0.043, 0.064) QALYs. FF/UMEC/VI was cost-effective versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI across all analyses.

Conclusion

FF/UMEC/VI was predicted to be a cost-effective treatment option versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI in symptomatic COPD patients at risk of exacerbations in Spain, across all scenarios and sensitivity analyses.

Cost-Effectiveness of Single- versus Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy in a UK COPD Population: The INTREPID Trial

Purpose

The 24-week INTREPID trial demonstrated the clinical benefits of once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) with fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus non-ELLIPTA multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of FF/UMEC/VI versus non-ELLIPTA MITT for the treatment of symptomatic COPD from a United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS) perspective.

Patients and Methods

The analysis was conducted using the validated GALAXY COPD disease progression model. Baseline characteristics, treatment effect parameters (forced expiratory volume in 1 second and St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire score [derived from exploratory COPD Assessment Test score mapping]), and discontinuation data from INTREPID were used to populate the model. UK healthcare resource and drug costs (2020 British pounds) were applied, and costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. Analyses were conducted over a lifetime horizon from a UK NHS perspective. Model outputs included exacerbation rates, total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results by varying parameter values and assumptions.

Results

Over a lifetime horizon, FF/UMEC/VI provided an additional 0.174 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.024, 0.344) LYs (approximately 2 months), and 0.253 (95% CI: 0.167, 0.346) QALYs (approximately 3 months), at a cost saving of £1764 (95% CI: −£2600, −£678) per patient, compared with non-ELLIPTA MITT. FF/UMEC/VI remained the dominant treatment option, meaning greater benefits at lower costs, across all scenario and sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

Based on this analysis, in a UK setting, FF/UMEC/VI would improve health outcomes and reduce costs compared with non-ELLIPTA MITT for the treatment of patients with symptomatic COPD. SITT may help to reduce the clinical and economic burden of COPD and should be considered by physicians as a preferred treatment option.

Clinical and Economic Impact of Long-Term Inhaled Corticosteroid Withdrawal in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Treated with Triple Therapy in Spain

Purpose

To determine the clinical and economic impact of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) withdrawal in Spanish patients with COPD receiving triple therapy (TT) with ICS, long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA), and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA).

Patients and Methods

This was an observational, retrospective study of BIG-PAC database medical records. Patients aged ≥40 years receiving TT from 2016 to 2018 were followed for 1 year. Two cohorts were identified: patients continuing TT (ICS+LABA+LAMA), and patients receiving TT with ICS withdrawn (LABA+LAMA). Variables included medication, exacerbations (moderate and severe), pneumonia, mortality, health resource use (HRU), and cost per patient/year. Cohorts were compared using propensity score matching (PSM). Multivariate statistical analysis using analysis of covariance and Cox proportional risks was conducted.

Results

Of 6541 patients included, 5740 (87.8%) continued TT and 801 (12.2%) had ICS withdrawn. Patients with ICS withdrawal were younger, had lower disease burden, higher ICS doses, and more exacerbations compared with those continuing ICS. PSM matched 795 patients in each cohort. Mean age was 68.5 years (SD: 11.2), 69.9% were male, and mean Charlson index was 2.0. Patients with ICS withdrawal had more total exacerbations in the 12 months following withdrawal compared with patients continuing TT (36.6% vs 31.4%; p=0.030). No significant differences were found for pneumonia (3.3% vs 3.6%; p=0.583) and mortality (9.9% vs 7.5%; p=0.092). Median time to first exacerbation was shorter in patients with ICS withdrawal compared with those continuing ICS (HR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.57–0.83; p<0.001). Mean health cost per patient/year among patients with ICS withdrawal was higher than those continuing TT (€2993 vs €2130; p<0.001).

Conclusion

ICS withdrawal in patients with COPD receiving TT was associated with increased exacerbations, HRU, and costs compared with continuing TT, with health and economic impacts on patients and the Spanish National Healthcare System, respectively. Pneumonia and mortality rates were similar between groups.

Characterisation of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease initiating single-device inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting β2-agonist dual therapy in a primary care setting in England

Introduction

Treatment pathways of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) receiving single-device dual therapies in England remain unclear. This study describes the characteristics of patients with COPD before initiating treatment with a single-device inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂-agonist (ICS/LABA) in primary care in England.

Methods

This is a retrospective, descriptive study of linked primary and secondary healthcare data (Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum, Hospital Episode Statistics). Patients with COPD were indexed on first prescription of fixed-dose, single-device ICS/LABA (June 2015–December 2018). Demographics, clinical characteristics, prescribed treatments, healthcare resource use (HCRU) and direct healthcare costs were assessed over 12 months pre-index. Incident users (indexed on first ever prescription) could be non-triple users (no concomitant long-acting muscarinic antagonist at index); a subset were initial maintenance therapy (IMT) users (no history of pre-index maintenance therapy).

Results

Overall, 13 451 incident users (non-triple users: 7448, 55.4%; IMT users: 5162, 38.4%) were indexed on beclomethasone dipropionate/formoterol (6122, 45.5%), budesonide/formoterol (2703, 20.1%) or Other ICS/LABA combinations (4626, 34.4%). Overall, 20.8% of incident users had comorbid asthma and 42.6% had ≥1 moderate-to-severe acute exacerbation of COPD pre-index. Baseline characteristics were similar across indexed therapies. At 3 months pre-index, 45.3% and 35.4% of non-triple and IMT users were receiving maintenance treatment. HCRU and direct healthcare costs were similar across indexed treatments. Prescribing patterns varied regionally.

Conclusion

Patient characteristics, prior treatments, prior COPD-related HCRU and direct healthcare costs were similar across single-device ICS/LABAs in primary care in England. A high proportion of patients were not receiving any respiratory medication pre-index, indicating that prescribing in primary care in England is more closely aligned with national guidelines than global treatment strategies. Comorbid asthma may have influenced prescribing decisions. Less than half of users had preindex exacerbations, suggesting that ICS/LABA is not being prescribed principally based on exacerbation history.

Characterization of Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Initiating Single-Inhaler Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist/Long-Acting β2-Agonist Dual Therapy in a Primary Care Setting in England

Purpose

Treatment pathways of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) receiving single-inhaler dual therapies remain unclear. We aimed to describe characteristics, prescribed treatments, healthcare resource use (HCRU) and costs of patients with COPD who initiated single-inhaler long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β₂-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual therapy in primary care in England.

Patients and Methods

Retrospective study using linked data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum and Hospital Episode Statistics datasets. Patients with COPD with ≥1 single-inhaler LAMA/LABA prescription between June 2015 and December 2018 (index) were included. Demographic and clinical characteristics, prescribed treatments, HCRU and costs were evaluated in the 12 months pre-index. Data are presented for patients not receiving concomitant inhaled corticosteroids at index (non-triple users).

Results

Of 10,991 patients initiating LAMA/LABA, 9888 were non-triple users, of whom 21.3% (n=2109) received aclidinium bromide/formoterol, 18.1% (n=1785) received indacaterol/glycopyrronium, 12.0% (n=1189) received tiotropium bromide/olodaterol and 48.6% (n=4805) received umeclidinium/vilanterol. Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar across indexed therapies. LAMA monotherapy was the most frequently prescribed respiratory therapy at 12 (18.4-25.8% of patients) and 3 months (23.9-33.7% of patients) pre-index across indexed therapies; 42.5-59.0% of patients were prescribed no respiratory therapy at these time points. COPD-related HCRU during the 12 months pre-index was similar across indexed therapies (general practitioner consultations: 62.0-68.6% patients; inpatient stays: 19.3-26.1% patients). Pre-index COPD-related costs were similar across indexed therapies, with inpatient stays representing the highest contribution. Mean total direct annual COPD-related costs ranged from £805-£1187.

Conclusion

Characteristics of patients newly initiating single-inhaler LAMA/LABA dual therapy were highly consistent across indexed therapies. As half of non-triple users were not receiving respiratory therapy one year prior to LAMA/LABA initiation, there may be an opportunity for early optimization of treatment to relieve clinical burden versus current prescribing patterns in primary care in England.

Modeling the Health and Economic Burden of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in China From 2020 to 2039: A Simulation Study

OBJECTIVES

Despite a growing prevalence of respiratory diseases in recent decades in China, limited evidence is available on the health and economic burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We estimated the 20-year health and economic burden of COPD in China from 2020 to 2039.

METHODS

We created a probabilistic dynamic open-cohort Markov model of COPD for the Chinese population aged ≥40 years. Projections of population growth and urbanization rates were obtained from the United Nations Population Division. Other parameter inputs including smoking prevalence, COPD prevalence and severity distributions, disease-related costs, and utility weights were obtained from the most recent published literature. We modeled number of COPD patients, excess mortality due to COPD, exacerbations, COPD-attributable losses of quality-adjusted life-years, and direct and indirect COPD costs over the 20 years.

RESULTS

The number of COPD patients was projected to increase from 88.3 million in 2020 to 103.3 million in 2039. The projected total losses of quality-adjusted life-years and the excess mortality due to COPD were, respectively, estimated to be 253.6 million and 3.9 million over the 20 years. The projected 20-year total discounted direct and indirect costs of COPD were, respectively, $3.1 trillion and $360.5 billion. The projected health and economic burden was higher in males and urban areas.

CONCLUSIONS

COPD is projected to inflict a substantial burden to the society and the health care system in China. Effective strategies for prevention and early management of COPD are needed to mitigate the forthcoming disease burden.

Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) Triple Therapy Compared with Other Therapies for the Treatment of COPD: A Network Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing triple therapies (inhaled corticosteroid [ICS], long-acting β₂-agonist [LABA], and long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]) for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are limited. This network meta-analysis (NMA) investigated the comparative efficacy of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus any triple (ICS/LABA/LAMA) combinations and dual therapies in patients with COPD.

METHODS

This NMA was conducted on the basis of a systematic literature review (SLR), which identified RCTs in adults aged at least 40 years with COPD. The RCTs compared different ICS/LABA/LAMA combinations or an ICS/LABA/LAMA combination with any dual therapy (ICS/LABA or LAMA/LABA). Outcomes of interest included forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), annualized rate of combined moderate and severe exacerbations, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and SGRQ responders, transition dyspnea index focal score, and rescue medication use (RMU). Analyses were conducted at 24 weeks (primary endpoint), and 12 and 52 weeks (if feasible).

RESULTS

The NMA was informed by five trials reporting FEV₁ at 24 weeks. FF/UMEC/VI was statistically significantly more effective at increasing trough FEV₁ (based on change from baseline) than all triple comparators in the network apart from UMEC + FF/VI. The NMA was informed by 17 trials reporting moderate or severe exacerbation endpoints. FF/UMEC/VI demonstrated statistically significant improvements in annualized rate of combined moderate or severe exacerbations versus single-inhaler budesonide/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol fumarate (BUD/GLY/FOR). At 24 weeks, the NMA was informed by five trials. FF/UMEC/VI showed statistically significant improvements in annualized rate of combined moderate or severe exacerbations versus UMEC + FF/VI and BUD/GLY/FOR. FF/UMEC/VI also demonstrated improvements in mean SGRQ score versus other triple therapy comparators at 24 weeks, and a significant reduction in RMU compared with BUD/GLY/FOR (160/18/9.6).

CONCLUSION

The findings of this NMA suggest favorable efficacy with single-inhaler triple therapy comprising FF/UMEC/VI. Further analysis is required as additional evidence becomes available.

Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy in Patients with Advanced COPD: Bayesian Modeling of the Healthcare Resource Utilization Data and Associated Costs from the IMPACT Trial

Objectives

In the IMPACT trial (NCT02164513), triple therapy with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) showed clinical benefit compared with dual therapy with either FF/VI or UMEC/VI in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We used data from IMPACT to determine whether this translated into differences in COPD-related healthcare resource utilization (HRU) costs in a United Kingdom (UK) setting.

Methods

In a within-trial analysis, individual patient data from the IMPACT intention-to-treat (ITT) population were analyzed to estimate rates of COPD-related HRU with FF/UMEC/VI, FF/VI, or UMEC/VI. A Bayesian approach was applied to address issues typically encountered with this kind of data, namely data missing due to early study withdrawal, subjects with zero reported HRU, and skewness. Rates of HRU were estimated under alternate assumptions of data being missing at random (MAR) or missing not at random (MNAR). UK-specific unit costs were then applied to estimated HRU rates to calculate treatment-specific costs.

Results

Under each MNAR scenario, per patient per year (PPPY) rates of COPD-related HRU were lowest amongst those patients who received treatment with FF/UMEC/VI compared with those receiving either FF/VI or UMEC/VI. Although absolute HRU rates and costs were typically higher for all treatment groups under MNAR scenarios versus MAR, final economic conclusions were robust to patient withdrawals.

Conclusions

PPPY rates were typically lower with FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI.

Characteristics of New Users of Single- and Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy for COPD in Primary Care in England

Purpose

Patients and Methods

Results

Conclusion

Disease Burden and Healthcare Utilization Among Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) in England

Purpose

Clinical guidelines for COPD management suggest pharmacologic treatment algorithms based on symptoms and exacerbation history. As previous research has suggested that prescribing patterns are not always aligned with these recommendations, this study investigated the burden of disease in patients with COPD receiving, and persisting on, new inhaled maintenance therapy.

Patients and Methods

This was a retrospective observational study using two linked electronic databases containing health records of patients in England. Patients aged ≥35 years with a confirmed diagnosis of COPD, and who initiated a new inhaled respiratory pharmacologic maintenance regimen between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2016 (index date) were eligible for inclusion. New treatments could be long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) or long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) monotherapy, inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA or LAMA/LABA dual therapy, or a multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT; LAMA/LABA/ICS). Patients were required to have 12 months of available medical history prior to, and after, the index date.

Results

In total, 25,350 eligible patients were identified, of these 8282 (mean age: 70.9 years; 51.5% male) persisted with their newly prescribed inhaled therapy for ≥12 months and were included in the analysis. In the 12 months prior to index, 54% of patients had moderate or severe dyspnea (Medical Research Council score ≥3). The most common therapy initiated at index was MITT (42%), followed by ICS/LABA dual therapy (31.2%). The proportion of patients with moderate or severe dyspnea in the post-index period ranged from 29.0% of patients receiving ICS to 64.2% of patients receiving MITT. In the post-index period, 48.1% of patients experienced ≥1 exacerbation and 54.9% had ≥5 general practitioner visits.

Conclusion

Many of the patients with COPD in our study continued to experience symptoms and exacerbations, despite persisting on the same treatment for ≥12 months. This suggests that some patients may benefit from treatment modification in accordance with guideline recommendations.

Benefit of Prompt versus Delayed Use of Single-Inhaler Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) Following a COPD Exacerbation

Purpose

Triple therapy (TT; inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and long-acting β₂-agonist) is recommended for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at risk of exacerbation, although the optimum timing of TT initiation remains unclear. This study evaluated the impact of prompt versus delayed initiation of single-inhaler TT (fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol [FF/UMEC/VI]) following a COPD exacerbation.

Patients and Methods

This retrospective cohort study used data from the IQVIA PharMetrics^® Plus database. Patients initiating FF/UMEC/VI following a COPD exacerbation between September 18, 2017 and September 30, 2019 (exacerbation = index date) were categorized as prompt (within 30 days of index) or delayed (31–180 days after index) FF/UMEC/VI initiators. Patients were aged ≥40 years at index, had ≥12 months’ continuous health insurance coverage before index (baseline), and ≥6 months’ coverage after index (follow-up). Patients with a COPD exacerbation or claim for FF/UMEC/VI during baseline were excluded. Inverse probability weighting was used to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics between cohorts. Exacerbations (overall, moderate, and severe), healthcare costs, and readmissions were evaluated during follow-up.

Results

A total of 1904 patients (prompt: 529; delayed: 1375) were included. After weighting, baseline characteristics were well balanced between cohorts. Patients in the prompt cohort had significantly lower rates per person-year (PPY) of overall (0.98 vs 1.23; rate ratio [RR] [95% CI] = 0.79 [0.65–0.94], p = 0.004), moderate (0.86 vs 1.03; RR [95% CI] = 0.84 [0.69–0.99], p = 0.038), and severe (0.11 vs 0.20; RR [95% CI] = 0.57 [0.37–0.79], p = 0.002) exacerbations, compared with delayed initiators. Mean all-cause and COPD-related healthcare costs were significantly lower among prompt initiators (all-cause: $26,107 vs $32,400 PPY, p = 0.014; COPD-related: $12,694 vs $17,640 PPY, p = 0.002).

Conclusion

Prompt initiation of FF/UMEC/VI following a moderate or severe COPD exacerbation was associated with significant reductions in exacerbations and healthcare costs relative to delayed initiation.

Comparative Efficacy of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Versus Other Bronchodilators for the Treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β₂-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual maintenance therapies for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus other dual and mono-bronchodilator therapies in symptomatic patients with COPD.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (October 2015-November 2020) was performed to identify RCTs ≥ 8 weeks long in adult patients with COPD that compared LAMA/LABA combinations against any long-acting bronchodilator-containing dual therapy or monotherapy. Data extracted on changes from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score, rescue medication use and moderate/severe exacerbation rate were analysed using an NMA in a frequentist framework. The primary comparison was at 24 weeks. Fixed effects model results are presented.

RESULTS

The NMA included 69 full-length publications (including 10 GSK clinical study reports) reporting 49 studies. At 24 weeks, UMEC/VI provided statistically significant greater improvements in FEV₁ versus all dual therapy and monotherapy comparators. UMEC/VI provided similar improvements in SGRQ total score compared with all other LAMA/LABAs, and significantly greater improvements versus UMEC 125 μg, glycopyrronium 50 μg, glycopyrronium 18 μg, tiotropium 18 μg and salmeterol 50 μg. UMEC/VI also provided significantly better outcomes versus some comparators for TDI focal score, rescue medication use, annualised moderate/severe exacerbation rate, and time to first moderate/severe exacerbation.

CONCLUSION

UMEC/VI provided generally better outcomes compared with LAMA or LABA monotherapies, and consistent improvements in lung function (measured by change from baseline in trough FEV₁ at 24 weeks) versus dual therapies. Treatment with UMEC/VI may improve outcomes for symptomatic patients with COPD compared with alternative maintenance treatments.

Economic Evaluation of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus Umeclidinium or Salmeterol in Symptomatic Non-Exacerbating Patients with COPD from a UK Perspective Using the GALAXY Model

Introduction

Dual bronchodilators are recommended as maintenance treatment for patients with symptomatic COPD in the UK; further evidence is needed to evaluate cost-effectiveness versus monotherapy. Cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol from a UK healthcare perspective in patients without exacerbations in the previous year was assessed using post hoc EMAX trial data.

Methods

The validated GALAXY model was populated with baseline characteristics and treatment effects from the non-exacerbating subgroup of the symptomatic EMAX population (COPD assessment test score ≥10) and 2020 UK healthcare and drug costs. Outputs included estimated exacerbation rates, costs, life-years (LYs), and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs); incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as incremental cost/QALY gained. The base case (probabilistic model) used a 10-year time horizon, assumed no treatment discontinuation, and discounted future costs and QALYs by 3.5% annually. Sensitivity and scenario analyses assessed robustness of model results.

Results

Umeclidinium/vilanterol treatment was dominant versus umeclidinium and salmeterol, providing an additional 0.090 LYs (95% range: 0.035, 0.158) and 0.055 QALYs (−0.059, 0.168) with total cost savings of £690 (£231, £1306) versus umeclidinium, and 0.174 LYs (0.076, 0.286) and 0.204 QALYs (0.079, 0.326) with savings of £1336 (£1006, £2032) versus salmeterol. In scenario and sensitivity analyses, umeclidinium/vilanterol was dominant versus umeclidinium except over a 5-year time horizon (more QALYs at higher total cost; ICER=£4/QALY gained) and at the lowest estimate of the St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire treatment effect (fewer QALYs at lower total cost; ICER=£12,284/QALY gained); umeclidinium/vilanterol was consistently dominant versus salmeterol. At willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY, probability that umeclidinium/vilanterol was cost-effective in this non-exacerbating subgroup was 95% versus umeclidinium and 100% versus salmeterol.

Conclusion

Based on model predictions from a UK perspective, symptomatic patients with COPD and no exacerbations in the prior year receiving umeclidinium/vilanterol are expected to have better outcomes at lower costs versus umeclidinium and salmeterol.

Is single-inhaler triple therapy for COPD cost-effective in the UK? The IMPACT trial

Background

The IMPACT trial demonstrated superior outcomes following 52 weeks of once-daily single-inhaler treatment with fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) (100/62.5/25 μg) compared with once-daily FF/VI (100/25 μg) or UMEC/VI (62.5/25 μg). This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of FF/UMEC/VI compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) from a UK National Health Service perspective.

Methods

Patient characteristics and treatment effects from IMPACT were populated into a hybrid decision tree/Markov economic model. Costs (GB£ inflated to 2018 equivalents) and health outcomes were modelled over a lifetime horizon, with a discount rate of 3.5% per annum applied to both. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of key assumptions and input parameters.

Results

Compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI, FF/UMEC/VI provided an additional 0.296 and 0.145 life years (LYs) (discounted) and 0.275 and 0.118 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), at an additional cost of £1129 and £760, respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for FF/UMEC/VI were £4104/QALY and £3809/LY gained versus FF/VI and £6418/QALY and £5225/LY gained versus UMEC/VI. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000/QALY, the probability that FF/UMEC/VI was cost-effective was 96% versus FF/VI and 74% versus UMEC/VI. Results were similar in a subgroup of patients recommended triple therapy in the 2019 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence COPD guideline.

Conclusions

FF/UMEC/VI single-inhaler triple therapy improved health outcomes and was a cost-effective option compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI for patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations in the UK at recognised cost-effectiveness threshold levels.

This analysis demonstrates that fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) provides a cost-effective treatment option versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI for patients with symptomatic COPD in the UKhttps://bit.ly/3w7vQj9

Quantifying the Economic Impact of Delayed Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy Initiation in Patients with COPD: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Linked Electronic Medical Record and Hospital Administrative Data in England

Purpose

To assess if early multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) initiation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) reduces subsequent healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), direct medical costs, and acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPDs).

Patients and Methods

This retrospective, longitudinal cohort study used electronic health records and linked hospital administrative data in England. COPD patients with an AECOPD between July 2012 and May 2016 (index), and who subsequently started MITT within 180 days were eligible. Patients with an AECOPD 6 months prior to index were excluded. HCRU, direct healthcare costs, and AECOPDs were assessed in the following 24-month period for early (≤30 days) and delayed (31-180 days) MITT initiators.

Results

A total of 934 patients were included in the analysis and categorized as early (n=367, 39%) or delayed (n=567, 61%) MITT initiators. Mean patient age was 68.5 years and 53.2% were male. A significantly higher proportion of delayed MITT initiators required ≥1 outpatient appointment (all-cause) compared with early MITT initiators (87% vs 79%; p=0.0016). A significantly higher proportion of delayed MITT initiators required ≥1 COPD‑related inpatient stay versus early MITT initiators (47% vs 40%; p=0.0262). Over the 24-month follow-up, mean all-cause and COPD-related total healthcare costs were significantly higher in delayed MITT initiators compared with early MITT initiators (all‑cause: £11,348 vs £8126; p=0.0011; COPD-related: £7307 vs £4535; p=0.0009).

Conclusion

Delayed initiation of multiple-inhaler triple therapy was associated with higher all-cause and COPD-related costs, suggesting that earlier initiation of triple therapy in COPD patients may help reduce the economic burden on the healthcare system.

Healthcare, Medication Utilization and Outcomes of Patients with COPD by GOLD Classification in England

Background

Available data on the relationship between COPD symptoms, disease outcomes, and mortality are currently limited. This study investigated the clinical characteristics, outcomes, healthcare utilization, and prescribing practices across GOLD 2017 groups (A, B, C, and D) in a large-scale, population-based cohort of COPD patients managed in an English primary care setting.

Patients and Methods

This retrospective analysis included patients aged ≥35 years, with a confirmed diagnosis of COPD and ≥1 record of pulmonary function testing in their medical history. Medical Research Council dyspnea score and exacerbation history were used to define patients’ GOLD 2017 classification. Patients were identified using the UK Clinical Practice Research Database and were followed for 12 months.

Results

Eligible COPD patients’ (N=42,331; mean [SD] age, 69.5 [10.7] years; 54% males), GOLD 2017 categorizations were: Group A: 49.1%, Group B: 30.5%, Group C: 8.2%, Group D: 12.1%. Overall, 37.7% of patients experienced ≥1 moderate COPD exacerbation. The rate of moderate exacerbations per person per year (PPPY) was highest in GOLD group D (0.72), followed by C (0.53), B (0.22), and A (0.15), while the rate of exacerbations leading to hospitalization PPPY was much higher in D (0.27) than in B (0.10), C (0.08), or A (0.03). Overall, 56.4% of patients visited their general practitioner ≥5 times in the 12 months of follow-up. Time-to-event analysis suggested that breathlessness contributed to exacerbation severity and frequency. One-year mortality was highest in GOLD groups D and B. The most frequent prescribed maintenance therapies were inhaled corticosteroids with long-acting β₂-agonists, multiple-inhaler triple therapy, or long-acting muscarinic antagonist, irrespective of GOLD classification.

Conclusion

The burden of COPD remains substantial in England. Stratification of this large primary care population according to GOLD criteria predicted the risk of COPD exacerbations. Understanding populations of patients with COPD may enable the optimization of patient care.

INTREPID: single- versus multiple-inhaler triple therapy for COPD in usual clinical practice

Introduction

Real-world trial data comparing single- with multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) in COPD patients are currently lacking. The effectiveness of once-daily single-inhaler fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) and MITT were compared in usual clinical care.

Methods

INTREPID was a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase IV effectiveness study comparing FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg via the ELLIPTA inhaler with a clinician's choice of any approved non-ELLIPTA MITT in usual COPD clinical practice in five European countries. Primary end-point was proportion of COPD Assessment Test (CAT) responders (≥2-unit decrease in CAT score from baseline) at week 24. Secondary end-points in a subpopulation included change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) and percentage of patients making at least one critical error in inhalation technique at week 24. Safety was also assessed.

Results

3092 patients were included (FF/UMEC/VI n=1545; MITT n=1547). The proportion of CAT responders at week 24 was significantly greater with FF/UMEC/VI versus non-ELLIPTA MITT (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.13–1.51; p<0.001) and mean change from baseline in FEV₁ was significantly greater with FF/UMEC/VI (77 mL versus 28 mL; treatment difference 50 mL, 95% CI 26–73 mL; p<0.001). The percentage of patients with at least one critical error in inhalation technique was low in both groups (FF/UMEC/VI 6%; non-ELLIPTA MITT 3%). Safety profiles, including incidence of pneumonia serious adverse events, were similar between treatments.

Conclusions

In a usual clinical care setting, treatment with once-daily single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI resulted in significantly more patients gaining health status improvement and greater lung function improvement versus non-ELLIPTA MITT.

Once-daily single-inhaler treatment with FF/UMEC/VI results in greater improvements in health status and lung function compared with non-ELLIPTA multiple-inhaler triple therapy in patients with COPD in a usual clinical practice settinghttps://bit.ly/2PHXNwU

Real-World Treatment Patterns of Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy Among Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in UK General Practice

Introduction

Until recently, triple therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has only been available through treatment with multiple inhalers. Evidence on real-world use of multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT), including duration of use and treatment patterns, is limited.

Methods

A retrospective, observational study of electronic health records and hospital episodes in patients with COPD initiating MITT between 2013 and 2015 in the UK was performed. This study described patients initiating, treatment persistence and discontinuation, and prior and subsequent COPD treatments.

Results

Eligible patients (N=3825) had a mean age of 69.5 years; most were former or current smokers (95%). The majority (86%) initiated MITT with two inhalers and 14% initiated with three inhalers. Mean duration of use was 5.1 (standard deviation: 4.6) months; 24% of patients persisted for 12 months. Patients who had significantly poorer lung function at baseline (12 months prior to initiating MITT) and had experienced significantly more moderate-to-severe acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD) and hospitalizations during the baseline period were more likely to persist for 12 months, compared with those who discontinued within 12 months. Most patients stepped down to an inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂-agonist combination (ICS/LABA; 48%) or a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA; 45%) after discontinuing MITT.

Conclusion

Initiation of MITT occurred in patients with clinically relevant symptoms and a history of AECOPD. Persistence varied and was most likely linked to disease severity, although more research is required to fully understand why patients discontinue MITT, the subsequent clinical consequences of therapy discontinuation, and the potential impact of newly available single-inhaler triple therapies.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a single-inhaler triple therapy for COPD in the UK

UK management costs for COPD, estimated at £1.9 billion/year, are rising. In the FULFIL (Lung Function and Quality of Life Assessment in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease with Closed Triple Therapy) study, single-inhaler triple therapy with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (100/62.5/25 µg) improved clinical outcomes versus budesonide/formoterol (400/12 µg) in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus budesonide/formoterol for treating COPD from a UK National Health Service perspective. A model was developed combining a trial-based and Markov component and populated with baseline and treatment effect data from FULFIL, together with UK healthcare resource costs and disease-related utilities. Costs per life year and per quality-adjusted life year gained (costing year 2017) for fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus budesonide/formoterol were calculated for a lifetime horizon. Results were explored using deterministic sensitivity, scenario and probabilistic analyses. Fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol was associated with gains in life years (0.533) and quality-adjusted life years (0.506) versus budesonide/formoterol, but at slightly increased total costs (£26 416 versus £25 860). This translated to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £1042/life year and £1098/quality-adjusted life year for fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus budesonide/formoterol. In scenario analyses, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from dominant to £1547/quality-adjusted life year gained. Fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol provides a cost-effective treatment option versus budesonide/formoterol for patients with symptomatic COPD in the UK.

Treatment Preferences of Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Results from Qualitative Interviews and Focus Groups in the United Kingdom, United States, and Germany

BACKGROUND

A wide range of therapeutic regimens, including single-inhaler triple therapies (SITTs), are now available for the maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Thus, an improved understanding of patient preferences may be valuable to inform physician prescribing decisions. This study was performed to assess the factors considered by patients when making decisions about their COPD treatments using qualitative techniques.

METHODS

In the United Kingdom, United States and Germany, individual qualitative interviews (n=10 per country) and focus groups (1 per country; [United Kingdom, n=4; United States, n=6; Germany, n=6 participants]) were conducted. Interviews and focus groups were semi‑structured, lasting approximately 60 minutes, and focused on treatment preferences. Data were analyzed according to emerging themes identified from the interviews; qualitative thematic analysis of the data was performed using specialist software.

RESULTS

In interviews and focus groups, efficacy, ease of use, and lower frequency of use were favored attributes for current treatment, while side effects, medication taste, and more complex administration techniques were key dislikes. In interviews, most participants would consider a switch in medication, mainly for improved efficacy, but also to reduce medication frequency or following physician advice. Overall, efficacy and ease of use were the 2 most important attributes reported in interviews in all 3 countries.

CONCLUSION

Patients with COPD have preferences for certain attributes of medication, highlighting the multi-faceted nature of treatment effectiveness and the importance of the delivery device.These results were subsequently used to inform the design of a discrete choice experiment.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Using the FULFIL Trial: A Spanish Perspective

Purpose

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) vs twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at risk of exacerbations, from the Spanish National Healthcare System perspective.

Patients and Methods

The validated GALAXY-COPD model was used to simulate disease progression and predict healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) over a 3-year time horizon for a Spanish population. Patient characteristics from published literature were supplemented by data from FULFIL (NCT02345161), which compared FF/UMEC/VI vs BUD/FOR in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. Treatment effects, extrapolated to 3 years, were based on Week 24 results in the FULFIL intent-to-treat population, including change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second, St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire score, and exacerbation rates. Treatment, exacerbations, and COPD management costs (2019€) were informed by Spanish public sources and published literature. A 3% discount rate for costs and benefits was applied. One-way sensitivity and scenario analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), were performed.

Results

FF/UMEC/VI treatment led to fewer moderate and severe exacerbations (2.126 and 0.306, respectively) vs BUD/FOR (2.608 and 0.515, respectively), with a mean incremental cost of €69 and gain of 0.107 QALYs, which resulted in an ICER of €642 per QALY gained. In sensitivity analyses, the ICER was most sensitive to treatment effect variations in exacerbations and healthcare resource utilization/event costs. Overall, 95% of 1000 PSA simulations resulted in an ICER less than €11,000 per QALY gained for FF/UMEC/VI vs BUD/FOR, confirming robustness of the results. The probability of FF/UMEC/VI being cost-effective vs BUD/FOR was 100% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY gained.

Conclusion

At the accepted Spanish ICER threshold of €30,000, FF/UMEC/VI represents a cost-effective treatment option vs BUD/FOR in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations.

Evaluating Patient Preferences of Maintenance Therapy for the Treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Discrete Choice Experiment in the UK, USA and Germany

Introduction

With increasing availability of different treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), we sought to understand patient preferences for COPD treatment in the UK, USA, and Germany using a discrete choice experiment (DCE).

Methods

Qualitative research identified six attributes associated with COPD maintenance treatments: ease of inhaler use, exacerbation frequency, frequency of inhaler use, number of different inhalers used, side effect frequency, and out-of-pocket costs. A DCE using these attributes, with three levels each, was designed and tested through cognitive interviews and piloting. It comprised 18 choice sets, selected using a D-efficient experimental design. Demographics and disease history were collected and the final DCE survey was completed online by participants recruited from panels in the UK, USA and Germany. Responses were analyzed using mixed logit models, with results expressed as odds ratios (ORs).

Results

Overall, 450 participants (150 per country) completed the DCE; most (UK and Germany, 97.3%; USA, 98.0%) were included in the final analysis. Based on relative attribute importance, avoidance of side effects was found to be most important (UK: OR 11.65; USA: OR 7.17; Germany: OR 11.45; all p<0.0001), followed by the likelihood of fewer exacerbations (UK: OR 2.22; USA: OR 1.63; Germany: OR 2.54; all p<0.0001) and increased ease of use (UK: OR 1.84; USA: OR 1.84; Germany: OR 1.60; all p<0.0001). Number of inhalers, out-of-pocket costs, and frequency of inhaler use were found to be less important. Preferences were relatively consistent across the three countries. All participants required a reduction in exacerbations to accept more frequent inhaler use or use of more inhalers.

Conclusion

When selecting COPD treatment, individuals assigned the highest value to the avoidance of side effects, experiencing fewer exacerbations, and ease of inhaler use. Ensuring that patients’ preferences are considered may encourage treatment compliance.

Economic Burden of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): A Systematic Literature Review

Background and Objectives

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) affects over 250 million people globally, carrying a notable economic burden. This systematic literature review aimed to highlight the economic burden associated with moderate-to-very severe COPD and to investigate key drivers of healthcare resource utilization (HRU), direct costs and indirect costs for this patient population.

Materials and Methods

Relevant publications published between January 1, 2006 and November 14, 2016 were captured from the Embase, MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process databases. Supplemental searches from relevant 2015-2016 conferences were also performed. Titles and abstracts were reviewed by two independent researchers against pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies were grouped by the type of economic outcome presented (HRU or costs). Where possible, data were also grouped according to COPD severity and/or patient exacerbation history.

Results

In total, 73 primary publications were included in this review: 66 reported HRU, 22 reported direct costs and one reported indirect costs. Most of the studies (94%) reported on data from either Europe or North America. Trends were noted across multiple studies for higher direct costs (including mean costs per patient per year and mean costs per exacerbation) being associated with increasingly severe COPD and/or a history of more frequent or severe exacerbations. Similar trends were noted according to COPD severity and/or exacerbation history for rate of hospitalization and primary care visits. Multivariate analyses were reported by 29 studies and demonstrated the statistical significance of these associations. Several other drivers of increased costs and HRU were highlighted for patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD, including comorbidities, and treatment history.

Conclusion

Moderate-to-very severe COPD represents a considerable economic burden for healthcare providers despite the availability of efficacious treatments and comprehensive guidelines on their use. Further research is warranted to ensure cost-efficient COPD management, to improve treatments and ease budgetary pressures.

Impact of Single Combination Inhaler versus Multiple Inhalers to Deliver the Same Medications for Patients with Asthma or COPD: A Systematic Literature Review

With increasing choice of medications and devices for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatment, comparative evidence may inform treatment decisions. This systematic literature review assessed clinical and economic evidence for using a single combination inhaler versus multiple inhalers to deliver the same medication for patients with asthma or COPD. In 2016, Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane library were searched for publications reporting studies in asthma or COPD comparing a single-inhaler combination medicine with multiple inhalers delivering the same medication. Publications included English-language articles published since 1996 and congress abstracts since 2013. Clinical, economic and adherence endpoints were assessed. Of 2031 abstracts screened, 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in asthma and four in COPD, nine retrospective and three prospective observational studies in asthma, and four observational studies in COPD were identified. Of these, five retrospective and one prospective study in asthma, and two retrospective studies in COPD reported greater adherence with a single inhaler than multiple inhalers. Nine observational studies reported significantly (n=7) or numerically (n=2) higher rates of adherence with single- versus multiple-inhaler therapy. Economic analyses from retrospective and prospective studies showed that use of single-inhaler therapies was associated with reduced healthcare resource use (n=6) and was cost-effective (n=5) compared with multiple-inhaler therapies. Findings in 18 asthma RCTs and one prospective study reporting lung function, and six RCTs reporting exacerbation rates, showed no significant differences between a single inhaler and multiple inhalers. This was in contrast to several observational studies reporting reductions in healthcare resource use or exacerbation events with single-inhaler treatment, compared with multiple inhalers. Retrospective and prospective studies showed that single-inhaler use was associated with decreased healthcare resource utilization and improved cost-effectiveness compared with multiple inhalers. Lung function and exacerbation rates were mostly comparable in the RCTs, possibly due to study design.

Cost-Effectiveness Of Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy In COPD: The IMPACT Trial

Background

We assessed the cost-effectiveness of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI from a Canadian public healthcare perspective, incorporating data from the IMPACT trial in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (NCT02164513).

Methods

Baseline inputs and treatment effects from IMPACT were populated into the validated GALAXY-COPD disease progression model. Canadian unit costs and drug costs (Canadian dollars [C$], 2017) were applied to healthcare resource utilization and treatments. Future costs and health outcomes were discounted at 1.5% annually. Analyses were probabilistic, and outputs included exacerbation rates, costs, and life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained.

Results

Compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI over a lifetime horizon, the analyses predicted that treatment with FF/UMEC/VI resulted in fewer moderate and severe exacerbations, more LYs and more QALYs gained, with a small incremental cost. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY gained was C$18,989 (95% confidence interval [CI]: C$14,665, C$25,753) versus FF/VI and C$13,776 (95% CI: C$9787, C$19,448) versus UMEC/VI. FF/UMEC/VI remained cost-effective versus both FF/VI and UMEC/VI in all sensitivity analyses, including in scenario analyses that considered different intervention and comparator discontinuation rates, and treatment effects for subsequent therapy.

Conclusion

Treatment with FF/UMEC/VI was predicted to improve outcomes and be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI, in Canada.

Clinical effectiveness of once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol in usual practice: the COPD INTREPID study design

Effectiveness studies complement conventional randomised controlled trials by providing a holistic view of treatments in the setting of usual clinical practice. We present the protocol for the ongoing INTREPID (INvestigation of TRelegy Effectiveness: usual PractIce Design; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03467425) study, a randomised, open-label, 24-week effectiveness study of once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI; Trelegy) delivered by the ELLIPTA inhaler versus non-ELLIPTA multiple-inhaler triple therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in usual practice settings. INTREPID was designed to provide evidence of FF/UMEC/VI effectiveness in patients with COPD managed in routine healthcare systems across multiple European countries. Between study initiation and end-of-study visits, patients will receive their medication and care as they would ordinarily receive it, from their usual healthcare provider at their usual healthcare centre. Study-specific intervention will be minimal. The primary end-point will be the proportion of COPD assessment test (CAT) responders, defined as a clinically meaningful improvement from baseline of ≥2 units, at week 24. The CAT was chosen as it provides health status information relevant to patients, physicians, health technology agencies and payers. Lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 s) and critical inhaler errors will also be assessed in a subgroup of patients. The strengths and weaknesses of the protocol and some of the challenges associated with conducting this multicountry study, such as differences in healthcare systems and treatment practices across sites, will also be discussed.

The INTREPID COPD study is investigating the real-world effectiveness of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol delivered by ELLIPTA versus multiple-inhaler triple therapies in Europe. This article presents the protocol and discusses effectiveness studies in COPD.http://bit.ly/2ZzBAo3

Economic impact of delaying initiation with multiple-inhaler maintenance triple therapy in Spanish patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Purpose

Guidelines recommend the use of triple therapy with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), a long-acting β₂ agonist (LABA) and a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) to reduce the risk of future exacerbations in symptomatic COPD patients with a history of exacerbations. This study aimed to estimate COPD-related healthcare resource use and costs, and subsequent exacerbation rates, for patients initiating multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) early (≤30 days) versus late (31–180 days) following an exacerbation, in a real-world clinical setting.

Patients and methods

This was an observational, longitudinal, retrospective study using electronic medical records from the Spanish database of the Red de Investigación en Servicios Sanitarios Foundation. Patients ≥40 years old with a confirmed COPD diagnosis who were newly prescribed MITT up to 180 days after an exacerbation between January 2013 and December 2015 were included. Patients were followed from the date of MITT initiation for up to 12 months to assess COPD-related health care resource use (routine and emergency visits, hospitalizations, pharmacologic treatment), exacerbation rate, and costs (€2017); these endpoints were compared between early versus late groups.

Results

The study included 1280 patients who met selection criteria: mean age 73 years, 78% male, and 41% had severe/very severe lung function impairment. The proportion of patients initiating MITT early versus late was 61.6% versus 38.4%, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups. During follow-up, health care resource consumption was lower in the early versus late group, especially primary care and ED visits, leading to lower total costs (€1861 versus €1935; P<0.05). In the follow-up period, 28.0% of the patients in the early group experienced ≥1 exacerbation versus 36.4% in the late group (P=0.002), with an exacerbation rate of 0.5 versus 0.6 per person per year (P=0.022), respectively.

Conclusion

Initiating MITT early (≤30 days after an exacerbation) may reduce health care costs and exacerbation rate compared with late MITT initiation.

Long-term cost and utility consequences of short-term clinically important deterioration in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from the TORCH study

Purpose: Clinically important deterioration (CID) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a novel composite endpoint that assesses disease stability. The association between short-term CID and future economic and quality of life (QoL) outcomes has not been previously assessed. This analysis considers 3-year data from the TOwards a Revolution in COPD Health (TORCH) study, to examine this question. Patients and methods: This post hoc analysis of TORCH (NCT00268216) compared costs and utilities at 3 years among patients without CID (CID-) and with CID (CID+) at 24 weeks. A positive CID status was defined as either: a deterioration in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) of ≥100 mL from baseline; or a ≥4-unit increase from baseline in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score; or the incidence of a moderate/severe exacerbation. Patients from all treatment arms were included. Utility change was based on the EQ-5D utility index. Costs were based on healthcare resource utilization from 24 weeks to end of follow-up combined with unit costs for the UK (2016 GBP), and reported as per patient per year (PPPY). Adjusted estimates were generated controlling for baseline characteristics, treatment assignment, and number of CID criteria met. Results: Overall, 3,769 patients completed the study and were included in the analysis (stable CID- patients, n=1,832; unstable CID+ patients, n=1,937). At the end of follow-up, CID- patients had higher mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) utility scores than CID+ patients (0.752 [0.738, 0.765] vs 0.697 [0.685, 0.71]; difference +0.054; P<0.001), and lower costs PPPY (£538 vs £916; difference: £378 [95% CI: £244, £521]; P<0.001). The cost differential was primarily driven by the difference in general hospital ward days (P=0.003). Conclusion: This study demonstrated that achieving early stability in COPD by preventing short-term CID is associated with better preservation of future QoL alongside reduced healthcare service costs.

COPD treatment pathways in France: a retrospective analysis of electronic medical record data from general practitioners

Background

Increasing availability of therapeutic options for COPD may drive new treatment pathways. This study describes COPD treatment in France, focusing on identifying initial treatment modifications in patients with COPD who either initiated long-acting bronchodilator (LABD)-based therapy or escalated to triple therapy (long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA] + long-acting β₂-agonist [LABA] + inhaled corticosteroid [ICS]).

Methods

This retrospective analysis of patients with COPD in a large general practitioner database (IQVIA Longitudinal Patient Database) in France included two cohorts: Cohort 1 – new initiators of LABD-based therapy (LAMA, LABA, LAMA + LABA, LAMA + ICS, LABA + ICS or LAMA + LABA + ICS); Cohort 2 – patients escalating to triple therapy from mono- or dual-bronchodilator-based maintenance treatment. Both cohorts were indexed on the date of initiation/escalation (January 2008–December 2013), and the first treatment modification (at class level) within the 18-month post-index observational period was described. Five mutually exclusive outcomes were defined: continuous use (no modification), discontinuation (permanent [≥91 days with no restart] or temporary [≥91 days with subsequent restart]), switch, and augmentation (Cohort 1 only). Exploratory analysis of Cohort 1 explored potential drivers of treatment initiation.

Results

Overall, 5,065 patients initiated LABD-based therapy (Cohort 1), and 501 escalated to triple therapy (Cohort 2). In Cohort 1, 7.0% of patients were continuous users, 46.5% discontinued permanently, 28.5% discontinued temporarily, 2.8% augmented (added LAMA and/or LABA and/or ICS), and 15.2% switched therapy. In Cohort 2, 18.2% of patients were continuous users, 7.2% discontinued permanently, 27.9% discontinued temporarily, and 46.7% switched therapy. Exploratory analyses showed that time since COPD diagnosis was first recorded, pre-index exacerbation events, and concomitant medical conditions were potential drivers of initial maintenance treatment choices.

Conclusion

Discontinuation among new initiators of LABD-based therapy was high in France, whereas few switched or augmented treatment. In comparison, permanent discontinuation within 18 months was low in patients escalating to triple therapy.

Preventing clinically important deterioration with single-inhaler triple therapy in COPD

Clinically important deterioration (CID) is a novel composite end-point (lung function, health status, exacerbations) for assessing disease stability in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We prospectively analysed CID in the FULFIL study. FULFIL (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02345161; randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, multicentre study) compared 24 weeks of once daily, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 µg with twice daily budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) 400/12 μg in patients aged ≥40 years with symptomatic advanced COPD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease group D). A subset of patients received study treatment for up to 52 weeks. Time to first CID event was assessed over 24 and 52 weeks using two approaches for the health status component: St George's Respiratory Questionnaire and COPD assessment test. FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced the risk of a first CID event by 47-52% versus BUD/FOR in the 24- and 52-week populations using both CID definitions (p<0.001). The median time to first CID event was ≥169 days and ≤31 days with FF/UMEC/VI and BUD/FOR, respectively. Only stable patients with no CID at 24 weeks demonstrated sustained clinically important improvements in lung function and health status at 52 weeks versus those who had experienced CID. Once daily, single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced the risk of CID versus twice daily BUD/FOR with a five-fold longer period without deterioration.

Cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium compared with tiotropium and glycopyrronium as monotherapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a UK perspective

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness of once-daily umeclidinium bromide (UMEC) was compared with once-daily tiotropium (TIO) and once-daily glycopyrronium (GLY) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective.

METHODS

A linked-equation model was implemented to estimate COPD progression, associated healthcare costs, exacerbations rates, life years (LY) and quality-adjusted LY (QALYs). Statistical risk equations for endpoints and resource use were derived from the ECLIPSE and TORCH studies, respectively. Treatment effects [mean (standard error)] at 12 weeks on forced expiratory volume in 1 s and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score were obtained from the intention-to-treat populations of two head-to-head studies [GSK study identifiers 201316 (NCT02207829) and 201315 (NCT02236611)] which compared UMEC 62.5 mcg with TIO 18 mcg and UMEC 62.5 mcg with GLY 50 mcg, respectively. Treatment costs reflect UK list prices (2016) and NHS unit costs; UMEC and GLY prices being equal and less than TIO. A lifetime horizon, discounted costs and effects at 3.5% were used. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of variations in input parameters and assumptions in the model.

RESULTS

Over a lifetime horizon, UMEC was predicted to increase LYs (+ 0.195; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.069, 0.356) and QALYs (+ 0.118; 95% CI: 0.055, 0.191) and reduce the number of annual exacerbations (- 0.053; 95% CI: - 0.171, 0.028) compared with TIO, with incremental cost savings of £460/patient (95% CI: - £645, - £240). Compared with GLY, UMEC increased LYs (+ 0.124; 95% CI: 0.015, 0.281) and QALYs (+ 0.101; 95% CI: 0.043, 0.179) and reduced annual exacerbation (- 0.033; 95% CI: - 0.135, 0.017) at an additional cost of £132/patient (95% CI: £12, £330), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £1310/QALY (95% CI: £284, £2060). Similar results were observed in alternative time horizons and additional sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

For treatment of patients with COPD in the UK over a lifetime horizon, treatment with UMEC dominates treatment with TIO, providing both improved health outcomes and cost savings. In comparison with GLY, treatment with UMEC achieved improved health outcomes but was associated with a higher cost.Trial registration 201316, NCT02207829; 201315, NCT02236611.

Single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus fluticasone furoate/vilanterol plus umeclidinium using two inhalers for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized non-inferiority study

Background

Single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 μg has been shown to improve lung function and health status, and reduce exacerbations, versus budesonide/formoterol in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We evaluated the non-inferiority of single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI + UMEC using two inhalers.

Methods

Eligible patients with COPD (aged ≥40 years; ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the 12 months before screening) were randomized (1:1; stratified by the number of long-acting bronchodilators [0, 1 or 2] per day during run-in) to receive 24-week FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 μg and placebo or FF/VI 100/25 μg + UMEC 62.5 μg; all treatments/placebo were delivered using the ELLIPTA inhaler once-daily in the morning. Primary endpoint: change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) at Week 24. The non-inferiority margin for the lower 95% confidence limit was set at − 50 mL.

Results

A total of 1055 patients (844 [80%] of whom were enrolled on combination maintenance therapy) were randomized to receive FF/UMEC/VI (n = 527) or FF/VI + UMEC (n = 528). Mean change from baseline in trough FEV₁ at Week 24 was 113 mL (95% CI 91, 135) for FF/UMEC/VI and 95 mL (95% CI 72, 117) for FF/VI + UMEC; the between-treatment difference of 18 mL (95% CI -13, 50) confirmed FF/UMEC/VI’s was considered non-inferior to FF/VI + UMEC. At Week 24, the proportion of responders based on St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire Total score was 50% (FF/UMEC/VI) and 51% (FF/VI + UMEC); the proportion of responders based on the Transitional Dyspnea Index focal score was similar (56% both groups). A similar proportion of patients experienced a moderate/severe exacerbation in the FF/UMEC/VI (24%) and FF/VI + UMEC (27%) groups; the hazard ratio for time to first moderate/severe exacerbation with FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI + UMEC was 0.87 (95% CI 0.68, 1.12). The incidence of adverse events was comparable in both groups (48%); the incidence of serious adverse events was 10% (FF/UMEC/VI) and 11% (FF/VI + UMEC).

Conclusions

Single-inhaler triple therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) is non-inferior to two inhalers (FF/VI + UMEC) on trough FEV₁ change from baseline at 24 weeks. Results were similar on all other measures of efficacy, health-related quality of life, and safety.

Trial registration

GSK study CTT200812; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02729051 (submitted 31 March 2016).