Healthcare Resource Utilization, Cost and Clinical Outcomes in Patients Diagnosed with COPD Initiating Tiotropium Bromide/Olodaterol versus Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Based on Exacerbation History.

Background: ATS and GOLD guidelines recommend treating low-exacerbation risk COPD patients with dual (LAMA/LABA) agents and reserving triple therapy (TT; LAMA/LABA and inhaled corticosteroids [ICS]) for severe cases with higher-exacerbation risk. However, TT often is prescribed across the COPD spectrum. This study compared COPD exacerbations, pneumonia diagnosis, healthcare resource utilization, and costs for patients initiating tiotropium bromide/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) and a TT, fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI), stratified by exacerbation history. Methods: COPD patients who initiated TIO/OLO or FF/UMEC/VI between 06/01/2015-11/30/2019 (index date=first pharmacy fill-date with ≥30 consecutive treatment days) were identified from the Optum Research Database. Patients were ≥40 years old and continuously enrolled for 12 months during the baseline period and ≥30 days during follow-up. Patients were stratified into GOLD A/B (0-1 baseline non-hospitalized exacerbation), No exacerbation (subset of GOLD A/B), and GOLD C/D (≥2 non-hospitalized and/or ≥1 hospitalized baseline exacerbation). Baseline characteristics were balanced with propensity score matching (1:1). Adjusted risks of exacerbation, pneumonia diagnosis, and COPD and/or pneumonia-related utilization and costs were evaluated. Results: Adjusted exacerbation risk was similar in GOLD A/B and No exacerbation subgroups, and lower in GOLD C/D for FF/UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO initiators (hazard ratio: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.78, 0.98, p=0.020). Adjusted pneumonia risk was similar between cohorts across the GOLD subgroups. Adjusted COPD and/or pneumonia-related population annualized pharmacy costs were significantly higher for FF/UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO initiators across subgroups, p<0.001. Adjusted COPD and/or pneumonia-related population annualized total healthcare costs were significantly higher for FF/UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO initiators in the GOLD A/B and No exacerbation, subgroups, p<0.001 (cost ratio [95% CI]: 1.25 [1.13, 1.38] and 1.21 [1.09, 1.36], respectively), but similar in the GOLD C/D subgroup. Conclusion: These real-world results support ATS and GOLD recommendations for treating low-exacerbation risk COPD patients with dual bronchodilators and TT for more severe, higher-exacerbation risk COPD patients.

Clinical and economic outcomes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease initiating maintenance therapy with tiotropium bromide/olodaterol or fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines recommend dual long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs)/long-acting ß2agonists (LABAs) as maintenance therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and dyspnea or exercise intolerance. Escalation to triple therapy (TT) (LAMA/LABA/inhaled corticosteroid) is conditionally recommended for patients with continued exacerbations on dual LAMA/LABA therapy. Despite this guidance, TT use is widespread across COPD severities, which could impact clinical and economic outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To compare COPD exacerbations, pneumonia events, and disease-related and all-cause health care resource utilization and costs (in 2020 US dollars) in patients initiating fixed-dose combinations of either LAMA/LABA (tiotropium/olodaterol [TIO + OLO]) or TT (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol [FF + UMEC + VI]). METHODS: This retrospective observational study of administrative claims included patients with COPD aged 40 years or older initiating TIO + OLO or FF + UMEC + VI from June 2015 to November 2019. TIO + OLO and FF + UMEC + VI cohorts in the overall and maintenance-naive populations were 1:1 propensity score matched on baseline demographics, comorbidities, COPD medications, health care resource utilization, and costs. Multivariable regression compared clinical and economic outcomes up to 12 months in FF + UMEC + VI vs TIO + OLO postmatched cohorts. RESULTS: After matching, there were 5,658 and 3,025 pairs in the overall and maintenance-naive populations, respectively. In the overall population, the risk of any (moderate or severe) exacerbation was 7% lower in FF + UMEC + VI vs TIO + OLO initiators (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.86-1.0; P = 0.047). There was no difference in the adjusted risk of any exacerbation in the maintenance-naive population (aHR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.88-1.10). Pneumonia risk was not statistically different between cohorts in the overall (aHR = 1.12; 95% CI = 0.98-1.27) and maintenance-naive (aHR = 1.13; 95% CI = 0.95-1.36) populations. COPD- and/or pneumonia-related adjusted total annualized costs (95% CI) were significantly greater for FF + UMEC + VI vs TIO + OLO in the overall ($17,633 [16,661-18,604] vs $14,558 [13,709-15,407]; P < 0.001; differences [% of relative increase] = $3,075 [21.1%]) and maintenancenaive ($19,032 [17,466-20,598] vs $15,004 [13,786-16,223]; P < 0.001; $4,028 [26.8%]) populations, with significantly higher pharmacy costs with FF + UMEC + VI (overall: $6,567 [6,503-6,632] vs $4,729 [4,676-4,783]; P < 0.001; $1,838 [38.9%]; maintenance-naive: $6,642 [6,560-6,724] vs $4,750 [4,676-4,825]; P < 0.001; $1,892 [39.8%]). CONCLUSIONS: A lower risk of exacerbation was observed with FF + UMEC + VI vs TIO + OLO in the overall population but not among the maintenance-naive population. Patients with COPD initiating TIO + OLO had lower annualized costs than FF + UMEC + VI initiators in the overall and maintenance-naive populations. Thus, in the maintenance-naive population, initiation with dual LAMA/LABA therapy per practice guidelines can improve real-world economic outcomes. Study registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT05127304). DISCLOSURES: The study was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc (BIPI). To ensure independent interpretation of clinical study results and enable authors to fulfill their role and obligations under the ICMJE criteria, BIPI grants all external authors access to relevant clinical study data. In adherence with the BIPI Policy on Transparency and Publication of Clinical Study Data, scientific and medical researchers can request access to clinical study data after publication of the primary manuscript in a peer-reviewed journal, regulatory activities are complete and other criteria are met. Dr Sethi has received honoraria/fees for consulting/speaking from Astra-Zeneca, BIPI, and GlaxoSmithKline. He has received consulting fees for serving on data safety monitoring boards from Nuvaira and Pulmotect. He has received consulting fees from Apellis and Aerogen. His institution has received research funds for his participation in clinical trials from Regeneron and AstraZeneca. Ms Palli was an employee of BIPI at the time the study was conducted. Drs Clark and Shaikh are employees of BIPI. Ms Buysman and Mr Sargent are employees and Dr Bengtson was an employee of Optum, which was contracted by BIPI to conduct this study. Dr Ferguson reports grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim during the conduct of the study; grants from Novartis, Altavant, and Knopp; grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Verona, Theravance, Teva, and GlaxoSmithKline; and personal fees from Galderma, Orpheris, Dev.Pro, Syneos, and Ionis outside the submitted work. He was a paid consultant for BIPI for this study. The authors received no direct compensation related to the development of the manuscript. BIPI was given the opportunity to review the manuscript for medical and scientific accuracy as well as intellectual property considerations.

Improvements in health status with revefenacin, a once-daily, nebulized, long-acting muscarinic antagonist for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Replicate, 12-week, phase 3 trials (0126 and 0127) of once-daily nebulized revefenacin 175 µg vs placebo demonstrated significant bronchodilation and improvements in health status in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This post hoc analysis evaluated improvement in patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), COPD Assessment Test (CAT), and Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) in both women and men. METHODS: Participants were pooled from the two 12-week studies (411 [51%] women and 401 [49%] men). Changes in PROs were assessed overall and separately in men and women. RESULTS: Revefenacin improved SGRQ and CAT total scores from baseline in both studies; improvement in CCQ total score reached significance only in 0126. In pooled data, a greater proportion of patients achieved clinically meaningful response in SGRQ score (≥4-unit decrease from baseline) with revefenacin vs placebo (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-2.1; P = 0.012). Clinically meaningful responses were also seen in CAT (≥2-unit decrease from baseline) and CCQ (≥0.4-unit decrease from baseline) scores with revefenacin vs placebo. When stratified by sex, improvements from baseline in SGRQ, CAT, and CCQ scores following revefenacin vs placebo reached statistical significance only in women. CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance treatment with revefenacin improved health status in patients with moderate to very severe COPD; however, the effect was more pronounced for women than men. CLINICALTRIALS: GOV: NCT02459080; NCT02512510.

Measuring Peak Inspiratory Flow in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) are breath actuated, and patients using DPIs need to generate an optimal inspiratory flow during the inhalation maneuver for effective drug delivery to the lungs. However, practical and standardized recommendations for measuring peak inspiratory flow (PIF)-a potential indicator for effective DPI use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)-are lacking. To evaluate recommended PIF assessment approaches, we reviewed the Instructions for Use of the In-Check™ DIAL and the prescribing information for eight DPIs approved for use in the treatment of COPD in the United States. To evaluate applied PIF assessment approaches, we conducted a PubMed search from inception to August 31, 2021, for reports of clinical and real-life studies where PIF was measured using the In-Check™ DIAL or through a DPI in patients with COPD. Evaluation of collective sources, including 47 applicable studies, showed that instructions related to the positioning of the patient with their DPI, instructions for exhalation before the inhalation maneuver, the inhalation maneuver itself, and post-inhalation breath-hold times varied, and in many instances, appeared vague and/or incomplete. We observed considerable variation in how PIF was measured in clinical and real-life studies, underscoring the need for a standardized method of PIF measurement. Standardization of technique will facilitate comparisons among studies. Based on these findings and our clinical and research experience, we propose specific recommendations for PIF measurement to standardize the process and better ensure accurate and reliable PIF values in clinical trials and in daily clinical practice.

TRONARTO: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study of Tiotropium/Olodaterol Delivered via Soft Mist Inhaler in COPD Patients Stratified by Peak Inspiratory Flow.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled bronchodilator therapy is currently the mainstay of treatment for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Some inhalers require patients to achieve certain inhalation efforts either to activate the device or to deliver medication to the site of action. For dry powder inhalers, low peak inspiratory flow (PIF) can result in poor medication delivery but the clinical significance of this is not well understood. METHODS: TRONARTO was a 4-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, parallel-group study which stratified patients with moderate-to-severe COPD according to their PIF against medium-low resistance at screening. Patients were randomized to receive tiotropium/olodaterol (5 µg/5 µg) or matched placebo delivered via the Respimat® Soft Mist™ inhaler (SMI). After 4 weeks of treatment, we assessed change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) area under the curve 0-3 hours (FEV1 AUC0-3h) and trough FEV1. RESULTS: Overall, 213 patients were randomized, of whom 106 received tiotropium/olodaterol (PIF <60 L/min, 55; PIF ≥60 L/min, 51) and 107 received placebo (PIF <60 L/min, 55; PIF ≥60 L/min, 52). For FEV1 AUC0-3h, the adjusted mean change from baseline versus placebo was 336 mL (95% confidence interval [CI] 246-425 mL; P<0.0001) in the PIF <60 L/min group and 321 mL (95% CI 233-409 mL; P<0.0001) in the PIF ≥60 L/min group. For trough FEV1, the adjusted mean change from baseline versus placebo was 201 mL (95% CI 117-286 mL; P<0.0001) in the PIF <60 L/min group and 217 mL (95% CI 135-299 mL; P<0.0001) in the PIF ≥60 L/min group. CONCLUSION: In the TRONARTO study, which included patients with moderate-to-severe COPD and varying inspiratory flow abilities, treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol resulted in significant lung function improvements versus placebo. This SMI can be used irrespective of the PIF that a patient can generate.

Benefits of budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (BGF) on symptoms and quality of life in patients with COPD in the ETHOS trial.

BACKGROUND: We report the long-term effects of triple therapy with budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (BGF) vs glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (GFF) and budesonide/formoterol fumarate (BFF) on symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) over 52 weeks in the Phase III ETHOS study of patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. METHODS: ETHOS was a randomized, double-blind, multi-center, parallel-group study in symptomatic patients with COPD who experienced ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the previous year. Patients received twice-daily BGF 320/18/9.6 µg, BGF 160/18/9.6 µg, GFF 18/9.6 µg, or BFF 320/9.6 µg, administered via a single Aerosphere inhaler, for 52 weeks. RESULTS: The modified intent-to-treat population included 8509 patients (mean age 64.7 years; 59.7% male; mean COPD Assessment Test score, 19.6). BGF significantly reduced rescue medication use vs GFF and BFF (-0.53 puffs/day [p < 0.0001] and -0.35 puffs/day [p = 0.0002], respectively, with BGF 320 over 52 weeks). BGF 320 also significantly improved St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score over 24 and 52 weeks vs dual therapies, resulting in the greatest proportion of SGRQ responders vs dual therapies over 24 weeks (52.5% vs 42.5% [GFF] and 45.2% [BFF]) and 52 weeks (47.0% vs 37.8% [GFF] and 41.0% [BFF]). Similar results were observed with BGF 160. Benefits were also observed vs dual therapies in symptomatic endpoints including Transition Dyspnea Index focal score, EXAcerbations of Chronic pulmonary disease Tool total scores and Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD total scores over 24 and 52 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: BGF triple therapy improved symptoms and HRQoL vs dual therapies over 24 and 52 weeks in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD.

A Dose-Ranging Study of the Novel Inhaled Dual PDE 3 and 4 Inhibitor Ensifentrine in Patients with COPD Receiving Maintenance Tiotropium Therapy.

PURPOSE: Ensifentrine is an inhaled dual inhibitor of phosphodiesterase (PDE) 3 and 4 that has shown bronchodilatory effects and symptom improvement in clinical studies in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and anti-inflammatory effects in healthy volunteers in a model of COPD-like inflammation. This manuscript reports on the results of the clinical study examining if ensifentrine provides meaningful improvements in lung function when added on to tiotropium over 4 weeks in patients with COPD who have impaired lung function and symptoms despite treatment with tiotropium. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, dose-ranging study recruited patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Patients were randomized to open-label tiotropium once daily (QD) plus (+) blinded escalating doses of ensifentrine or placebo twice daily (BID). Effects on lung function, symptoms and quality of life (QoL) were assessed over 4 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 416 COPD patients were randomized and 413 received at least one dose of blinded study medication + tiotropium. All ensifentrine doses produced a significant and dose-dependent increase in peak forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) from baseline to Week 4, with placebo-corrected differences of 77.5 mL when added to tiotropium (0.375 mg; 95% CI: 4.8, 150.1 mL; p=0.037) to 124.2 mL (3 mg; 95% CI: 51.0, 196.8 mL; p<0.001). A significant increase in average FEV1 (0-12h) was shown at Week 4 with the 3 mg dose (87.3 mL; 95% CI: 20.0, 154.5 mL; p=0.011). Clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvements in the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire - COPD (SGRQ-C) additive to tiotropium were observed at Week 4, exceeding the minimally clinically important difference of 4 units with the 1.5 and 3 mg doses. Adverse events were similar in frequency between the ensifentrine and placebo arms. CONCLUSION: This clinical study demonstrated that nebulized ensifentrine added on to tiotropium produced clinically important improvements in lung function and QoL over 4 weeks in COPD patients receiving tiotropium who demonstrated symptoms and lung function impairment, with a safety profile similar to placebo.

Efficacy and Safety of Budesonide/Glycopyrronium/Formoterol Fumarate versus Other Triple Combinations in COPD: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-analysis.

In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who experience further exacerbations or symptoms, despite being prescribed dual long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) or inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA therapies, triple ICS/LAMA/LABA therapy is recommended. A previous network meta-analysis showed comparable efficacy of the ICS/LAMA/LABA, budesonide/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol fumarate (BUD/GLY/FOR) 320/18/9.6 µg, to other fixed-dose and open combination triple therapies at 24 weeks in COPD. Subsequently, the ETHOS study was published, including data for 8509 patients, assessing the efficacy and safety of BUD/GLY/FOR over 52 weeks. This network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to compare the relative efficacy, safety, and tolerability of BUD/GLY/FOR 320/18/9.6 µg with other fixed-dose and open combination triple therapies in COPD over 52 weeks, including data from ETHOS. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify ≥ 10-week randomized controlled trials, including ≥ 1 fixed-dose or open combination triple-therapy arm, in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. The methodologic quality and risk of bias of included studies were assessed. Study results were combined using a three-level hierarchical Bayesian NMA model to assess efficacy and safety outcomes at or over 24 and 52 weeks. Meta-regression and sensitivity analyses were used to assess heterogeneity across studies. Nineteen studies (n = 37,741 patients) met the inclusion criteria of the review; 15 contributed to the base case network. LAMA/LABA dual combinations were combined as a single treatment group to create a connected network. Across all outcomes for exacerbations, lung function, symptoms, health-related quality of life, safety, and tolerability, the efficacy and safety of BUD/GLY/FOR were comparable to those of other triple ICS/LAMA/LABA fixed-dose (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol and beclomethasone dipropionate/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol fumarate) and open combinations at or over 24 and 52 weeks. Sensitivity analyses and meta-regression results for exacerbation outcomes were broadly in line with the base case NMA. In this NMA, BUD/GLY/FOR 320/18/9.6 µg showed comparable efficacy versus other ICS/LAMA/LABA fixed-dose or open combination therapies in terms of reducing exacerbation rates and improving lung function, symptoms and health-related quality of life in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD, in line with previously published meta-analysis results of triple combinations in COPD. The safety and tolerability profile of BUD/GLY/FOR was also found to be comparable to other triple combination therapies.

Peak Inspiratory Flow Rate in COPD: An Analysis of Clinical Trial and Real-World Data.

BACKGROUND: The influence of peak inspiratory flow (PIF) on dose delivery from dry powder inhalers (DPIs) and association with treatment efficacy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has not been fully determined. In vitro studies have demonstrated adequate dose delivery through ELLIPTA DPI at PIF ≥30 L/min. This analysis of two clinical trials and a real-world population of COPD patients determined spirometric PIF distribution, and explored the relationship between PIF and outcomes in the trials. METHODS: The replicate Phase IV, 12-week, randomized, double-blind 207608/207609 (NCT03478683/NCT03478696) trials evaluated fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol via ELLIPTA DPI versus budesonide/formoterol+tiotropium in COPD patients. This post hoc analysis assessed spirometric PIF distribution at screening and relationship between PIF and lung function outcomes in the pooled 207608/207609 population. Spirometric PIF distributions in a real-world population of COPD patients were evaluated by retrospective analysis of the Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW) database to assess similarities between clinical trial and real-world populations. RESULTS: A total of 1460 (207608/207609) and 3282 (KPNW) patients were included. There was considerable overlap between spirometric PIF distributions for both populations. Overall, 99.7% and 99.8% of the 207608/207609 and KPNW populations, respectively, reported spirometric PIF ≥50 L/min, estimated as equivalent to ELLIPTA PIFR ≥30 L/min. In the 207608/207609 combined analysis, there was no significant interaction between spirometric PIF and treatment for lung function endpoints, indicating treatment effect is independent of PIF. CONCLUSION: Nearly all COPD patients in the 207608/207609 and KPNW populations achieved spirometric PIF values estimated as equivalent to PIFR of ≥30 L/min through the ELLIPTA DPI. Lack of correlation between spirometric PIF at screening and treatment efficacy aligns with consistent dose performance from the ELLIPTA DPI across a wide range of PIFs, achieved by patients with COPD of all severities.

Budesonide/Glycopyrrolate/Formoterol Fumarate Metered Dose Inhaler Improves Exacerbation Outcomes in Patients with COPD without a Recent Exacerbation History: A Subgroup Analysis of KRONOS.

PURPOSE: In the Phase III, 24-week KRONOS study (NCT02497001), triple therapy with budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (BGF MDI) reduced exacerbation rates versus glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (GFF) MDI in patients with moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and no requirement for a history of exacerbations. We report a post hoc analysis investigating whether the benefits observed were driven by patients with ≥1 exacerbation in the 12 months prior to the study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received BGF MDI 320/18/9.6 µg, GFF MDI 18/9.6 µg, budesonide/formoterol fumarate (BFF) MDI 320/9.6 µg, or budesonide/formoterol fumarate dry powder inhaler (BUD/FORM DPI) 400/12 µg twice-daily. Post hoc analyses were conducted on exacerbation and lung function results from patients with and without a documented exacerbation in the 12 months prior to the study. RESULTS: Overall, 74% (1411/1896) of the modified-intent-to-treat (mITT) population had no moderate/severe exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the study. BGF MDI reduced exacerbation rates versus GFF MDI in the prior (58%; unadjusted p=0.0003) and no prior (48%; unadjusted p=0.0001) exacerbations subgroups. The magnitude of reduction in exacerbation rates was generally similar within subgroups for BGF MDI versus BFF MDI and BUD/FORM DPI. In the prior exacerbations subgroup, risk during treatment for time to first exacerbation was lower with BGF MDI versus GFF MDI (p=0.0022) and BFF MDI (p=0.0110); excluding the first 30 days of data yielded similar results. The magnitude of reduction in exacerbation rates for BGF MDI compared with GFF MDI increased with eosinophil count. CONCLUSION: In patients with or without a history of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the study, BGF MDI reduced exacerbation rates versus GFF MDI, suggesting results observed in the overall population were not driven by the small subgroup with a prior history of exacerbations.

Benralizumab for adolescent patients with severe, eosinophilic asthma: Safety and efficacy after 3 years of treatment.

BACKGROUND: Adults and adolescents with severe asthma who completed the 48-week SIROCCO and 56-week CALIMA phase III benralizumab trials entered the safety extension study BORA (NCT02258542). The continued safety and efficacy of benralizumab in the first year of BORA (year 2 of treatment) have been reported. OBJECTIVE: We sought to report outcomes for adolescents during years 2 and 3 of treatment in BORA. METHODS: Patients on benralizumab 30 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) or every 8 weeks (Q8W) in SIROCCO/CALIMA continued their regimens in BORA (Q4W/Q4W and Q8W/Q8W, respectively), whereas placebo patients were rerandomized 1:1 to benralizumab (placebo/Q4W and placebo/Q8W, respectively) for 108 weeks. The primary outcome was safety; secondary outcomes included reduction in annual asthma exacerbation rate and change from baseline in prebronchodilator FEV1. RESULTS: Adolescents (N = 86) were treated with benralizumab Q8W (n = 61) or Q4W (n = 25); 69 completed treatment (Q8W: n = 51; Q4W: n = 18). For Q4W and Q8W regimens, rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were 68% (17 of 25) and 74% (45 of 61), respectively, rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were 68% (17/25) and 74% (45/61), TEAEs leading to discontinuation were 4% (1/25) and 0%, serious AEs were 8% (2/25) and 7% (4/61), and no deaths occurred. In efficacy analyses, 69% (42 of 61) Q8W patients were exacerbation-free (placebo/Q8W: 62% [18 of 29], Q8W/Q8W: 75% [24 of 32]). Mean ± SD change in FEV1 at week 108 versus BORA baseline was 0.327 ± 0.452 L (placebo/Q8W) and 0.323 ± 0.558 L (Q8W/Q8W). CONCLUSIONS: Safety and efficacy profiles in this 2-year extension study (up to 3 years of benralizumab treatment in adolescents) were consistent with previous findings.

Real-World Evidence: Bridging Gaps in Evidence to Guide Payer Decisions.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are preferred by payers for health technology assessments and coverage decisions. However, the inclusion of a highly selective patient population and the rigorously controlled conditions in RCTs may not be reflective of real-world clinical practice. Real-world evidence (RWE) obtained from an analysis of real-world data (RWD) from observational studies can bridge gaps in evidence not addressed by RCTs and is thus valuable to public and private payers for decision-making. Through a broad literature search to obtain insights into payers' experience, we found that payers have concerns about real-world studies with respect to data quality, poor internal validity, potential bias, and lack of meaningful endpoints. However, they valued RWE to fill evidence gaps not addressed by RCTs, such as high-quality, real-world, long-term effectiveness and safety data; head-to-head drug comparisons; cost analyses for tiering formulary placement; medication use and adherence patterns; identification of relevant responder and non-responder patient subpopulations; and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). RWE can be used to assess clinically meaningful endpoints and gauge the impact of interventions on the quality of healthcare. Here, we review how payers use or can use RWD on the comparative effectiveness and safety of treatments, PROs, medication adherence and persistence, prescribing patterns, healthcare resource utilization, and patient characteristics and/or biomarkers associated with treatment response when making health technology assessments and payer coverage decisions across therapeutic areas.

Tiotropium/Olodaterol Delays Clinically Important Deterioration Compared with Tiotropium Monotherapy in Patients with Early COPD: a Post Hoc Analysis of the TONADO® Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Since chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a heterogeneous condition, a composite endpoint of clinically important deterioration (CID) may provide a more holistic assessment of treatment efficacy. We compared long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist combination therapy with tiotropium/olodaterol versus tiotropium alone using a composite endpoint for CID. CID was evaluated overall and in patients with low exacerbation history (at most one moderate exacerbation in the past year [not leading to hospitalisation]), Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2 patients and maintenance-naïve patients with COPD. We assessed whether early treatment optimisation is more effective with tiotropium/olodaterol versus tiotropium in delaying and reducing the risk of CID. METHODS: Data were analysed from 2055 patients treated with either tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg or tiotropium 5 µg (delivered via Respimat®) in two replicate, 52-week, parallel-group, double-blind studies (TONADO® 1/2). CID was defined as a decline of at least 0.1 L from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s, increase from baseline of at least 4 units in St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire score, or moderate/severe exacerbation. Time to first occurrence of one of these events was recorded as time to first CID. RESULTS: Overall, treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol significantly increased the time to, and reduced the risk of, CID versus tiotropium (median time to CID 226 versus 169 days; hazard ratio [HR] 0.76 [95% confidence interval 0.68, 0.85]; P < 0.0001). Significant reductions were also observed in patients with low exacerbation history (241 versus 170; HR 0.73 [0.64, 0.83]; P < 0.0001), GOLD 2 patients (241 versus 169; 0.72 [0.61, 0.84]; P < 0.0001) and maintenance-naïve patients (233 versus 171; 0.75 [0.62, 0.91]; P = 0.0030). CONCLUSION: In patients with COPD, including patients with low exacerbation history, GOLD 2 patients and maintenance-naïve patients, tiotropium/olodaterol reduced the risk of CID versus tiotropium. These results demonstrate the advantages of treatment optimisation with tiotropium/olodaterol over tiotropium monotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: TONADO® 1 and 2 (NCT01431274 and NCT01431287, registered 8 September 2011).

COPD is a complicated disease that deteriorates over time. Worsening of COPD is associated with the lungs working less effectively, a fall in quality of life and a rise in sudden flare-ups of the disease. In this study, we looked at lung function, quality of life and flare-ups together using a measure called "clinically important deterioration" (CID). We looked at 2055 people with COPD to compare the effects of taking two bronchodilators (tiotropium and olodaterol) against taking one bronchodilator (tiotropium alone). Bronchodilators are a type of inhaled medication that relax the muscles in the lungs and widen airways, making it easier to breathe. They have also been shown to reduce sudden flare-ups of COPD. Across a wide range of people with COPD, we found that treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol reduced the risk of a CID compared with tiotropium alone. This includes in those patients at an early stage of disease, who may benefit from finding the best treatment option for them as early as possible.

Reduced All-Cause Mortality in the ETHOS Trial of Budesonide/Glycopyrrolate/Formoterol for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. A Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter, Parallel-Group Study.

Rationale: In the phase III, 52-week ETHOS (Efficacy and Safety of Triple Therapy in Obstructive Lung Disease) trial in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (NCT02465567), triple therapy with budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (BGF) significantly reduced all-cause mortality compared with glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (GFF). However, 384 of 8,509 patients were missing vital status at Week 52 in the original analyses.Objectives: To assess the robustness of the ETHOS mortality findings after additional data retrieval for patients missing Week 52 vital status in the original analyses.Methods: Patients with moderate to very severe COPD and prior history of exacerbation received twice-daily dosing with 320/18/9.6 µg of BGF (BGF 320), 160/18/9.6 µg of BGF (BGF 160), 18/9.6 µg of GFF, or 320/9.6 µg of budesonide/formoterol fumarate (BFF) (all delivered via a single metered-dose Aerosphere inhaler). Time to death (all-cause) was a prespecified secondary endpoint.Measurements and Main Results: In the final retrieved dataset, which included Week 52 vital status for 99.6% of the intent-to-treat population, risk of death with BGF 320 was significantly lower than GFF (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.80; unadjusted P = 0.0035). There were no significant differences in mortality when comparing BGF 320 with BFF (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-1.16; P = 0.1721), nor were significant differences observed when comparing BGF 160 against either dual comparator. Results were similar when the first 30, 60, or 90 days of treatment were excluded from the analysis. Deaths from cardiovascular causes occurred in 0.5%, 0.8%, 1.4%, and 0.5% of patients in the BGF 320, BGF 160, GFF, and BFF groups, respectively.Conclusions: Using final retrieved vital status data, triple therapy with BGF 320 reduced the risk of death compared with GFF, but was not shown to significantly reduce the risk of death compared with BFF, in patients with COPD. Triple therapy containing a lower dose of inhaled corticosteroid (BGF 160) was not shown to significantly reduce the risk of death compared with the dual therapy comparators.

Two-year integrated steroid-sparing analysis and safety of benralizumab for severe asthma.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment with benralizumab significantly reduces exacerbations and improves lung function after 1 year and decreases oral corticosteroid (OCS) use after 28 weeks for patients with severe, uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma. We assessed whether these effects on OCS reduction are sustained for up to an additional year of treatment while maintaining an acceptable safety profile. METHODS: Data on OCS maintenance dosage were collected for adult patients with baseline blood eosinophil counts ≥150 cells/µL treated with add-on benralizumab 30 mg (every 4 [Q4W] or 8 weeks [Q8W; first three doses Q4W]) from the 28-week ZONDA study and were integrated with results from the predefined 56-week adult completion phase of the BORA extension study. Efficacy and safety were summarized descriptively. RESULTS: For patients receiving benralizumab Q8W, the median daily OCS dosage reduction of 75% from baseline to end of treatment achieved in ZONDA was sustained at the end of the BORA extension period (median 67% reduction from baseline). This was estimated to result in a median cumulative OCS dosage of 2.98 g over the 1.5-year period for patients receiving benralizumab Q8W compared with 5.74 g if these patients had remained on their baseline OCS dosages prior to benralizumab initiation. All adverse event rates were similar between the BORA extension and ZONDA periods, with no new or unexpected safety findings. CONCLUSION: This benralizumab 1.5-year integrated analysis demonstrates that OCS reductions and safety were maintained with further follow up and supports long-term use of benralizumab for patients with severe, uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma.

Unreported and Overlooked: A Post Hoc Analysis of COPD Symptom-Related Attacks from the RISE Study.

Purpose: Moderate and severe COPD exacerbations are a significant health-care burden, but patients also experience "mild" exacerbations, or COPD symptom-related attacks, which often go unreported. We aimed to define and then determine the incidence of COPD symptom-related attacks and their impact on future risk of moderate/severe exacerbations, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and lung function. The effect of COPD maintenance therapy on the attack definition was then evaluated by comparing budesonide/formoterol with formoterol alone. Patients and Methods: This post hoc analysis of the RISE study defined COPD symptom-related attacks as ≥2 consecutive days of both worsening symptoms and increased daily rescue medication use based upon thresholds of >2 and >4 short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) inhalations/day above baseline. The impact of these events on subsequent moderate/severe exacerbation risk was estimated using a time-varying Cox proportional hazards model. The effects of COPD symptom-related attacks on St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) were evaluated as average changes from baseline to first post-attack measurement. Rates of attacks were compared between treatment groups using negative binomial regression models. Results: COPD symptom-related attacks elevated the risk of subsequent moderate/severe exacerbations at both >2 and >4 inhalations/day above baseline (HR 1.86 and 2.21, respectively; p<0.0001), with a cumulative increase in risk with increasing attacks. HRQoL and lung function were reduced for patients with ≥1 versus no COPD symptom-related attacks at both rescue medication thresholds. There were fewer COPD symptom-related attacks with budesonide/formoterol versus formoterol alone, with no increased risk of pneumonia and lower respiratory tract infections. Conclusion: COPD symptom-related attacks are common and typically unreported. Importantly, these attacks can account for considerable morbidity and should not be regarded as "mild". Detection of such exacerbations may be valuable in identifying patients at greater risk and guiding preventive therapeutic interventions.

Long-term safety of tiotropium/olodaterol in older patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD in the TONADO® studies.

Older patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may be at increased risk of adverse events (AEs) due to decreased protective organ function and increased comorbidities. TONADO® 1 + 2 were replicate, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 52-week, Phase III trials comparing the efficacy and safety of tiotropium/olodaterol (5/5 µg) versus the monocomponents via the Respimat® inhaler in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD. In this prespecified safety analysis, patients were grouped by age. Of 3100 patients, 1585 (51.1%) were aged <65 years, 1198 (38.7%) 65-<75 years, 309 (10.0%) 75-<85 years, and eight (0.3%) ≥85 years. At baseline, 23.4% had a pre-existing cardiac disorder, 45.6% had hypertension, and 13.3% had glucose metabolism disorders, including diagnosed diabetes. Overall, there was no increase in major adverse cardiac events, other AEs, or serious AEs with tiotropium/olodaterol versus the monocomponents in any age group, supporting the safety of tiotropium/olodaterol in older patients with COPD.

Effect of Inhaled Corticosteroid Withdrawal on Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbations in Patients Taking Triple Therapy at Baseline.

Purpose: In the Withdrawal of Inhaled Steroids during Optimized Bronchodilator Management (WISDOM) trial, inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) withdrawal in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease receiving triple therapy (long-acting ß2-agonist+long-acting muscarinic antagonist+ICS) did not change moderate/severe exacerbation risk. However, many patients were not taking triple therapy before study participation. This analysis was conducted to eliminate the impact of non-ICS users on WISDOM results by re-analyzing the data using only the subset of patients who were taking triple therapy at screening. Patients and Methods: The effect of ICS withdrawal on moderate/severe exacerbation risk in the subgroup of WISDOM patients taking triple therapy before enrolling in the study was evaluated in this post hoc analysis. Additionally, the effect of ICS withdrawal in patients with a history of ≥2 exacerbations in the previous year and various blood eosinophil counts was assessed. Results: Overall, 39.0% (n=970: ICS continuation, 479; ICS withdrawal, 491) of the WISDOM trial population were taking triple therapy at screening. Baseline characteristics were generally similar between groups. Moderate/severe exacerbation risk between the ICS withdrawal and continuation groups (hazard ratio [HR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-1.25) was not increased in patients taking triple therapy at screening versus the overall trial population (HR [95% CI]: 1.06 [0.94-1.19]). However, in patients with a history of ≥2 exacerbations, exacerbation risk (HR [95% CI]) increased nominally with blood eosinophil count from 1.07 [0.81-1.41] (≥100 cells/µL) to 1.45 [0.58-3.60] (≥400 cells/µL). Conclusion: Consistent with results from the overall WISDOM trial population, ICS withdrawal did not increase exacerbation risk in patients taking triple therapy at screening. Patients with a history of frequent exacerbations and higher blood eosinophil counts could benefit from continuation of ICS-based therapy.

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

The American Thoracic Society guidelines recommend long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) dual bronchodilation over LAMA or LABA monotherapy as maintenance therapy for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease suffering from dyspnea or exercise intolerance. Previous studies, which included patients receiving background inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), have shown the benefits of dual bronchodilation over monotherapy. This analysis aimed to confirm the benefits of LAMA/LABA over LAMA alone, without any confounding effects from ICS use. This pooled post hoc analysis compared the efficacy of tiotropium/olodaterol with tiotropium alone in patients from the TONADO® and OTEMTO® clinical trials who were not receiving ICS at study entry or during the studies. We analyzed change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score and Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) score in all patients, by Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) stage, baseline SGRQ score, and Baseline Dyspnea Index score. In this analysis of 1596 patients, tiotropium/olodaterol improved trough FEV1, SGRQ and TDI compared with tiotropium alone. The observed mean differences were: trough FEV1, 0.054 L (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.036, 0.073; p < 0.001); SGRQ, -1.918 (95% CI -2.994, -0.843; p < 0.001); and TDI, 0.575 (95% CI 0.301, 0.848; p < 0.001). Similar improvements were seen in each of the subgroup analyses. Tiotropium/olodaterol therapy significantly improved lung function, symptoms and health status compared with tiotropium alone. In a population free from ICS treatment, these data confirm the benefits of dual bronchodilation versus monotherapy.

The Effect of Metabolic Syndrome Status on Lung Function and Patient-reported Outcomes in Patients with COPD Receiving Nebulized Glycopyrrolate.

BACKGROUND: Concurrent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and metabolic syndrome (MetS) represent an important clinical phenotype with overlapping symptomology. The effect of MetS in COPD patients was assessed following treatment with nebulized glycopyrrolate (GLY; administered via eFlow® Closed System Nebulizer). METHODS: Posthoc analyses were performed on pooled lung function, patient-reported outcome (PRO) and safety data by MetS status from patients treated with placebo, GLY 25 and 50 mcg twice daily in two 12-week studies (GOLDEN 3 and 4; N=1293). Patients with MetS were characterized as having ≥ 3 of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m2 risk factors. The results are presented for the Food and Drug Administration-approved GLY 25 mcg dose. RESULTS: A total of25% of patients met MetS criteria.At baseline, the MetS subgroup had higher BMIs, more ex-smokers, greater incidences of cardiovascular risk factors, and MetS-specific risk factors were 2-14 times higher than non-MetS. At 12 weeks, GLY produced significant, clinically important improvements (MetS: 0.121 L; non-MetS: 0.083 L) in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second. In the non-MetS group, significant improvements occurred in the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (MetS: -2.28, p=0.157; non-MetS: -3.71) and Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD tool (MetS: 0.42, p=0.574; non-MetS: -1.61) total scores. Incidence of adverse events was similar with GLY versus placebo regardless of MetS status. CONCLUSION: GLY was well-tolerated and significantly improved lung function regardless of MetS status, while significant PRO improvements occurred in non-MetS patients. These results highlight the importance of comorbidities on bronchodilator responses and patient symptoms in COPD patients.