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.

Comparison of Budesonide/formoterol versus Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol as maintenance and reliever therapy for asthma control: a real-world observational study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have reported reduced acute exacerbation rates and improved symptom control in asthma patients treated using inhaled corticosteroids plus formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy (MART). Fluticasone furoate (FF) and vilanterol (VIL) also provide rapid bronchodilation and sustained anti-inflammatory effects, however no studies have investigated FF/VIL as MART for asthma control. METHODS: From October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2023, this retrospective study included asthma patients classified as step 3 or 4 according to the Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines, who were then divided into two groups. One group received BUD/FOR as MART, while the other received FF/VIL as MART. Pulmonary function tests, exacerbation rates, Asthma Control Test (ACT), fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) levels, and blood eosinophil counts were measured before and after 12 months of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 161 patients were included, of whom 36 received BUD/FOR twice daily as MART, and 125 received FF/VIL once daily as MART. After 12 months of treatment, the FF/VIL group showed a significant increase in ACT scores by 1.57 (p < 0.001), while the BUD/FOR group had an increase of 0.88 (p = 0.11). In terms of FeNO levels, the BUD/FOR group experienced a decline of -0.2 ppb (p = 0.98), whereas the FF/VIL group had a mild increase of + 0.8 ppb (p = 0.7). Notably, there was a significant difference in the change of FeNO between the two groups (∆ FeNO: -0.2 ppb in BUD/FOR; + 0.8 ppb in FF/VIL, p < 0.001). There were no significant alterations observed in FEV1, blood eosinophil count, or acute exacerbation decline in either group. CONCLUSIONS: In the current study, patients treated with FF/VIL as MART showed improvements in ACT scores, while those treated with BUD/FOR as MART exhibited a reduction in FeNO levels. However, the difference between the two treatment groups did not reach clinical significance. Thus, FF/VIL as MART showed similar effectiveness to BUD/FOR as MART.

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.

Triple Therapy and Clinical Control in B+ COPD Patients: A Pragmatic, Prospective, Randomized Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment with LABA/LAMA is recommended in GOLD B patients. We hypothesized that triple therapy (LABA/LAMA/ICS) will be superior to LABA/LAMA in achieving and maintaining clinical control (CC), a composite outcome that considers both impact and disease stability in a subgroup of GOLD B patients (here termed GOLD B+ patients) characterized by: (1) remaining symptomatic (CAT≥10) despite regular LABA/LAMA therapy; (2) having suffered one moderate exacerbation in the previous year; and (3) having blood eosinophil counts (BEC) ≥150cells/µL. METHODS: The ANTES B+ study is a prospective, multicenter, open label, randomized, pragmatic, controlled trial designed to test this hypothesis. It will randomize 1028 B+ patients to continue with their usual LABA/LAMA combination prescribed by their attending physician or to begin fluticasone furoate (FF) 92µg/umeclidinium (UMEC) 55µg/vilanterol (VI) 22µg in a single inhaler q.d. for 12 months. The primary efficacy outcome will be the level of CC achieved. Secondary outcomes include the clinical important deterioration index (CID), annual rate of exacerbations, and FEV1. Exploratory objectives include the interaction of BEC and smoking status, all-cause mortality and proportion of patients on LABA/LAMA arm that switch therapy arms. Safety analysis include adverse events and incidence of pneumonia. RESULTS: The first patient was recruited on February 29, 2024; results are expected in the first quarter of 2026. CONCLUSIONS: The ANTES B+ study is the first to: (1) explore the efficacy and safety of triple therapy in a population of B+ COPD patients and (2) use a composite index (CC) as the primary result of a COPD trial.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol and umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol in the management of moderate and severe COPD in China.

OBJECTIVE: A study has analyzed the long-term cost-effectiveness of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol combination therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) versus umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol dual therapy (UMEC/VI) in the treatment of moderate or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), providing evidence for decision-making in COPD treatment. METHODS: From the perspective of the whole society, a Markov model based on the severity of COPD was established, consisting of four states: moderate, severe, very severe, and death. The cycle of the model is three months, and the time frame of the study is 20 years. Data such as initial states, transition probabilities, costs, and utilities were collected from published literature, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) COPD economic report, Yaozh database, and the National Statistics Office. The discount rate is 5 %, and the willingness to pay threshold is set at three times the per capita GDP of China in 2022. TreeAge Pro 2011 was used to obtain the results of multiplication analyses, and one-way factor analysis and probability sensitivity analysis were conducted. RESULTS: The study findings demonstrate that for patients treated with FF/UMEC/VI and UMEC/VI, the 20-year treatment costs amount to $10,126.46 and $10,685.74, respectively. Similarly, the effectiveness is 32.94 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and 32.19 QALYs, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is $-745.70/QALY, which is lower than the willingness to pay threshold. The tornado plot from one-way factor analysis indicates that the first two factors impacting the results are the utility values for severe COPD of UMEC/VI and FF/UMEC/VI. Probability sensitivity analysis indicates that FF/UMEC/VI compared to UMEC/VI can be considered a more cost-effective treatment at the willingness to pay threshold of $35,806.96. CONCLUSION: The triple therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) is more affordable than dual therapy (UMEC/VI) when compared to China's three times GDP per capita criterion.

Baseline Characteristics and ICS/LAMA/LABA Response in Asthma: Analyses From the CAPTAIN Study.

BACKGROUND: Findings from CAPTAIN (NCT02924688) suggest that treatment response to fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) differs according to baseline type 2 inflammation markers in patients with moderate to severe asthma. Understanding how other patient physiologic and clinical characteristics affect response to inhaled therapies may guide physicians toward a personalized approach for asthma management. OBJECTIVE: To investigate, using CAPTAIN data, the predictive value of key demographic and baseline physiologic variables in patients with asthma (lung function, bronchodilator reversibility, age, age at asthma onset) on response to addition of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist UMEC to inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist combination FF/VI, or doubling the FF dose. METHODS: Prespecified and post hoc analyses of CAPTAIN data were performed using categorical and continuous variables of key baseline characteristics to understand their influence on treatment outcomes (lung function [trough FEV1], annualized rate of moderate/severe exacerbations, and asthma control [Asthma Control Questionnaire]) following addition of UMEC to FF/VI or doubling the FF dose in FF/VI or FF/UMEC/VI. RESULTS: Adding UMEC to FF/VI led to greater improvements in trough FEV1 versus doubling the FF dose across all baseline characteristics assessed. Doubling the FF dose was generally associated with numerically greater reductions in the annualized rate of moderate/severe exacerbations compared with adding UMEC, independent of baseline characteristics. Adding UMEC and/or doubling the FF dose generally led to improvements in Asthma Control Questionnaire scores irrespective of baseline characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike previous findings with type 2 biomarkers, lung function, bronchodilator reversibility, age and age at asthma onset do not appear to predict response to inhaled therapy.