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.

Triple therapy with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and a long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) is recommended for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who still experience symptoms while taking dual therapy (LABA/LAMA or ICS/LABA). Triple therapy can be taken using single or multiple inhalers. The best time to start triple therapy for patients who may benefit from it following a short-term worsening (flare-up) of their COPD symptoms is unknown. This study assesses the effect of starting treatment with triple therapy sooner compared with later in patients with COPD.Patients who experienced a flare-up of their COPD symptoms were split into two groups ­ those who started taking triple therapy (via a single inhaler) within 30 days of their symptom flare-up and those who started taking triple therapy 31­180 days following their symptom flare-up. Over the 12 months following the initial flare-up, patients who started triple therapy earlier (within 30 days) had fewer subsequent symptom flare-ups, fewer hospital admissions, and lower healthcare costs compared with patients who started triple therapy later (31­180 days). These findings suggest that doctors should consider prescribing triple therapy (via a single inhaler) to their patients with COPD straight away if they experience a flare-up of their symptoms.

Direct healthcare costs associated with management of asthma: comparison of two treatment regimens in Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam.

OBJECTIVE: Daily inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting beta-2-agonist (LABA) combinations comprising either regular maintenance therapy with ICS/LABA plus as-needed short-acting beta-2-agonist (SABA) or ICS-formoterol combinations used as maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) are recommended for moderate asthma. This analysis compares the direct costs of twice-daily fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/salm) and budesonide/formoterol MART in three Southeast Asian countries. METHODS: A literature review identified three randomized trials in patients with asthma (≥ 12 years) comparing regular twice-daily FP/salm with as-needed SABA versus MART in moderate asthma: AHEAD (NCT00242775/17 countries/2309 patients), COMPASS (AstraZeneca study SD-039-0735/16 countries/3335 patients), and COSMOS (AstraZeneca study SD-039-0691/16 countries/2143 patients). Economic analyses, conducted from a healthcare sector perspective (medication costs + healthcare utilization costs), applied unit costs from countries where healthcare costs are publicly available: Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam. Results are expressed in British pound sterling (GBP/patient/year). RESULTS: Annual exacerbation rates were low and differences between treatment strategies were small (range, FP/salm: 0.31-0.38, MART: 0.24-0.25) although statistically significant in favor of MART. Total average (minimum-maximum) direct costs (in GBP/patient/year) across the three studies were £187 (£137-£284), £158 (£125-£190), and £151 (£141-£164) for those who used FP/salm, and £242 (£217-£267), £284 (£237-£340) and £266 (£224-£315) for MART in Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam, respectively. On average, total direct costs/patient/year with FP/salm were 22.8%, 44.6% and 43.0% lower than with MART for Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In the three countries evaluated, total treatment costs with regular twice-daily FP/salm were consistently lower than with budesonide/formoterol MART due to lower direct healthcare costs.

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).

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.

Cost-effectiveness evaluation of quadrivalent influenza vaccines for seasonal influenza prevention: a dynamic modeling study of Canada and the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: The adoption of quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV) to replace trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) in immunization programs is growing worldwide, thus helping to address the problem of influenza B lineage mismatch. However, the price per dose of QIV is higher than that of TIV. In such circumstances, cost-effectiveness analyses provide important and relevant information to inform national health recommendations and implementation decisions. This analysis assessed potential vaccine impacts and cost-effectiveness of a country-wide switch from TIV to QIV, in Canada and the UK, from a third-party payer perspective. METHODS: An age-stratified, dynamic four-strain transmission model which incorporates strain interaction, transmission-rate seasonality and age-specific mixing in the population was used. Model input data were obtained from published literature and online databases. In Canada, we evaluated a switch from TIV to QIV in the entire population. For the UK, we considered two strategies: Children aged 2-17 years who receive the live-attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) switch to the quadrivalent formulation (QLAIV), while individuals aged > 18 years switch from TIV to QIV. Two different vaccination uptake scenarios in children (UK1 and UK2, which differ in the vaccine uptake level) were considered. Health and cost outcomes for both vaccination strategies, and the cost-effectiveness of switching from TIV/LAIV to QIV/QLAIV, were estimated from the payer perspective. For Canada and the UK, cost and outcomes were discounted using 5 % and 3.5 % per year, respectively. RESULTS: Overall, in an average influenza season, our model predicts that a nationwide switch from TIV to QIV would prevent 4.6 % influenza cases, 4.9 % general practitioner (GP) visits, 5.7 % each of emergency room (ER) visits and hospitalizations, and 6.8 % deaths in Canada. In the UK (UK1/UK2), implementing QIV would prevent 1.4 %/1.8 % of influenza cases, 1.6 %/2.0 % each of GP and ER visits, 1.5 %/1.9 % of hospitalizations and 4.3 %/4.9 % of deaths. Discounted incremental cost-utility ratios of $7,961 and £7,989/£7,234 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained are estimated for Canada and the UK (UK1/UK2), both of which are well within their respective cost-effectiveness threshold values. CONCLUSIONS: Switching from TIV to QIV is expected to be a cost-effective strategy to further reduce the burden of influenza in both countries.

Cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium/vilanterol combination therapy compared to tiotropium monotherapy among symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the UK.

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium bromide-vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus tiotropium monotherapy in the UK was assessed using a UMEC/VI treatment-specific economic model based on a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) disease-progression model. METHODS: The model was implemented as a linked-equation model to estimate COPD progression and associated health service costs, and its impact on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and survival. Statistical risk equations for clinical endpoints and resource use were derived from the ECLIPSE and TORCH studies, respectively. For the selected timeframe (1-40 years) and probabilistic analysis, model outputs included disaggregated costs, total costs, exacerbations, life-years and QALYs gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: Random-effects meta-analysis of tiotropium comparator trials estimated treatment effect of UMEC/VI as 92.17 mL (95 % confidence interval: 61.52, 122.82) in forced expiratory volume in 1 s. With this benefit, UMEC/VI resulted in an estimated annual exacerbation reduction of 0.04 exacerbations/patient and 0.36 life years gained compared to tiotropium over patient lifetime. With an additional 0.18 QALYs/patient and an additional lifetime cost of £372/patient at price parity, the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of UMEC/VI compared to tiotropium was £2088/QALY. This ICER increased to £17,541/QALY when price of UMEC/VI was increased to that of indacaterol plus tiotropium in separate inhalers. The ICER improved when model duration was reduced from patient lifetime to 1 or 5 years, or when treatment effect was assumed to last for 12 months following treatment initiation. CONCLUSION: UMEC/VI can be considered a cost-effective alternative to tiotropium at a certain price.

The long-term clinical and economic benefits of treating advanced COPD patients with single-inhaler triple therapy in Quebec, Canada - The IMPACT trial.

BACKGROUND: This cost-utility analysis assessed the long-term clinical and economic benefits of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy vs FF/VI or UMEC/VI from a Quebec societal perspective in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the previous year. METHODS: The validated GALAXY disease progression model was utilized, with parameters set to baseline and efficacy data from IMPACT. Treatment costs (2017 Canadian dollars [C$]) were estimated using Quebec-specific unit costs. Costs and health outcomes were discounted at 1.5 %/year. A willingness-to-pay threshold of C$50,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was considered cost-effective. Outcomes modeled were exacerbation rates, QALYs, life years (LYs), costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Subgroup analyses were performed according to prior treatment, exacerbation history in the previous year, and baseline lung function. RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon, FF/UMEC/VI resulted in more QALYs and LYs gained, at a small incremental cost compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI. From a societal perspective, the estimated ICER for the base case was C$18,152/QALY vs FF/VI, and C$15,847/QALY vs UMEC/VI. For the subgroup analyses (FF/UMEC/VI compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI), ICERs ranged from: C$17,412-25,664/QALY and C$16,493-18,663/QALY (prior treatment); C$15,247-19,924/QALY and C$15,444-28,859/QALY (exacerbation history); C$14,025-34,154/QALY and C$16,083-17,509/QALY (baseline lung function). INTERPRETATION: FF/UMEC/VI was predicted to improve outcomes and be cost-effective vs both comparators in the base case and all subgroup analyses, and based on this analysis would be an appropriate investment of health service funds in Quebec. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: IMPACT trial NCT02164513.

Treatment pathways, economic burden and clinical outcomes in new users of inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting B2-agonist dual therapy with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in a primary care setting in England: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist (ICS/LABA) improves lung function and health status and reduces COPD exacerbation risk versus monotherapy. This study described treatment use, healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU), healthcare costs and outcomes following initiation of single-device ICS/LABA as initial maintenance therapy (IMT). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Primary care, England. DATA SOURCES: Linked data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum and Hospital Episode Statistics datasets. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with COPD and ≥1 single-device ICS/LABA prescription between July 2015 and December 2018 were included. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Treatment pathways, COPD-related HCRU and healthcare costs, COPD exacerbations, time to triple therapy, medication adherence (proportion of days covered ≥80%) and indexed treatment time to discontinuation. Data for patients without prior maintenance therapy history (IMT users) and non-triple users were assessed over a 12-month follow-up period. RESULTS: Of 13 451 new ICS/LABA users, 5162 were IMT users (budesonide/formoterol, n=1056; beclomethasone dipropionate/formoterol, n=2427; other ICS/LABA, n=1679), for whom at 3 and 12 months post-index, 45.6% and 39.4% were still receiving any ICS/LABA. At >6 to ≤12 months, the proportion of IMT users with ≥1 outpatient visit (10.1%) and proportion with ≥1 inpatient stay (12.6%) had increased from those at 3 months (9.0% and 7.4%, respectively). Inpatient stays contributed most to total COPD-related healthcare costs. For non-triple IMT users, at 3 and 12 months post-index, 4.5% and 13.7% had ≥1 moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbation. Time to triple therapy initiation and time to discontinuation of index medication ranged from 45.9 to 50.2 months and 2.3 to 2.8 months between treatments. Adherence was low across all time points (21.5-27.6%). Results were similar across indexed therapies. CONCLUSIONS: In the year following treatment initiation, ICS/LABA adherence was poor and many patients discontinued or switched therapies, suggesting that more consideration and optimisation of treatment is required in England for patients initiating single-device ICS/LABA therapy.

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 ß2-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.

Triple therapy (a combination of three different respiratory inhaled medications) is recommended for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who experience repeated short-term symptom flare-ups when taking dual therapy (a combination of two different respiratory medications). Previously, patients had to take triple therapy using two or three separate inhalers. More recently, single-inhaler triple therapies have been developed, meaning patients can take all three different medications at the same time via one single inhaler. This study assessed the characteristics of patients who were already receiving triple therapy, or who started triple therapy (either via multiple inhalers or a single inhaler), in Germany between January 2015 and December 2019. In total, 18,630 patients who were already receiving triple therapy during the study period, and 2932 patients who newly started using triple therapy were included. The study reported that more than two-thirds of included patients had experienced at least one flare-up of COPD symptoms in the 2 years before starting triple therapy. Most patients had also received another therapy for COPD before starting triple therapy. A small proportion of patients started taking triple therapy after receiving no other therapy for COPD in the previous 2 years. The results of the study suggest that triple therapy for COPD in Germany is most often used in accordance with recommendations (patients already receiving therapy and experiencing repeated symptom flare-ups).

Evaluation of Adherence and Persistence to Triple Therapy in Patients with COPD: A German Claims Data Study.

Purpose: Triple therapy (long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist/inhaled corticosteroid) is recommended for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who experience recurrent exacerbations. Multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) is associated with poor adherence and persistence. This study assessed comparative adherence and persistence to single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) versus MITT among patients with COPD in a real-world setting in Germany. Patients and Methods: This retrospective analysis using the WIG2 benchmark database identified patients with COPD newly initiating triple therapy with MITT or SITT (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol [FF/UMEC/VI] or formoterol/beclomethasone/glycopyrronium bromide [FOR/BDP/GLY]) November 2017-June 2019. Eligible patients were ≥35 years with 1 year's continual insurance prior to triple therapy initiation and no previous record of triple therapy. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance baseline characteristics. Adherence was measured using proportion of days covered (PDC) at 6, 12, and 18 months post-treatment initiation; persistence (time until treatment discontinuation) was measured at 6, 12, and 18 months, with a gap of >30 days used to define non-persistence. Results: Of 5710 patients included in the analysis (mean age 66 years), 71.4% initiated MITT and 28.6% initiated SITT (FF/UMEC/VI: 41.4%; FOR/BDP/GLY: 58.6%). Mean PDC was higher among SITT versus MITT users at all time points; at each time point, mean PDC was highest among FF/UMEC/VI users. During the first 6 months following treatment initiation, higher adherence was exhibited by FF/UMEC/VI (29%) and FOR/BDP/GLY (19%) users versus MITT users. Over the entire observation period, FF/UMEC/VI users had the highest proportion of persistent patients; at 18 months, 16.5% of FF/UMEC/VI users were persistent versus 2.3% of MITT users. Conclusion: Patients initiating SITT in Germany had significantly higher adherence and persistence compared with patients initiating MITT over 6 to 18 months following treatment initiation. Among SITT, FF/UMEC/VI users had the highest proportion of adherence and persistence.

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.

Clinical, economic, and humanistic burden of asthma in Canada: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Asthma, one of the most common chronic respiratory diseases, affects about 3 million Canadians. The objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the published literature that reports on the clinical, economic, and humanistic burden of asthma in Canada. METHODS: A search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and EMCare databases was conducted to identify original research published between 2000 and 2011 on the burden of asthma in Canada. Controlled vocabulary with "asthma" as the main search concept was used. Searches were limited to articles written in English, involving human subjects and restricted to Canada. Articles were selected for inclusion based on predefined criteria like appropriate study design, disease state, and outcome measures. Key data elements, including year and type of research, number of study subjects, characteristics of study population, outcomes evaluated, results, and overall conclusions of the study, were abstracted and tabulated. RESULTS: Thirty-three of the 570 articles identified by the clinical and economic burden literature searches and 14 of the 309 articles identified by the humanistic burden literature searches met the requirements for inclusion in this review. The included studies highlighted the significant clinical burden of asthma and show high rates of healthcare resource utilization among asthma patients (hospitalizations, ED, physician visits, and prescription medication use). The economic burden is also high, with direct costs ranging from an average annual cost of $366 to $647 per patient and a total annual population-level cost ranging from ~ $46 million in British Columbia to ~ $141 million in Ontario. Indirect costs due to time loss from work, productivity loss, and functional impairment increase the overall burden. Although there is limited research on the humanistic burden of asthma, studies show a high (31%-50%) prevalence of psychological distress and diminished QoL among asthma patients relative to subjects without asthma. CONCLUSIONS: As new therapies for asthma become available, economic evaluations and assessment of clinical and humanistic burden will become increasingly important. This report provides a comprehensive resource for health technology assessment that will assist decision making on asthma treatment selection and management guidelines in Canada.

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 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.

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.

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.

Treatment Patterns, Healthcare Utilization and Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Initiating Single-Inhaler Long-Acting ß2-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 ß2-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.

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.