Adding tiotropium or long-acting ß2-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids: Asthma-related exacerbation risk and healthcare resource utilization.

Background: Based on current clinical guidelines, long-acting ß2-agonists (LABA) are frequently prescribed before long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) as an add-on to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in uncontrolled asthma. However, there is insufficient real-world evidence that supports this therapeutic approach. Objective: The objective was to compare asthma exacerbations and healthcare resource utilization in patients with asthma using the LAMA tiotropium bromide (Tio) or a LABA as an add-on to ICS (ICS + Tio or ICS/LABA) in a real-world setting. Methods: This retrospective, observational study included patients aged ≥12 years with asthma diagnoses identified in a U.S. longitudinal claims database (October 2015 to August 2020). The ICS + Tio and ICS/LABA cohorts were 1:2 propensity score matched for baseline variables. Outcomes were compared in the postmatched cohorts, and the risk of exacerbation was evaluated by using Kaplan-Meier curves. Results: After propensity score matching, there were 633 and 1266 patients in the ICS + Tio and ICS/LABA cohorts, respectively. The proportion of patients who experienced a severe or a moderate-or-severe exacerbation during follow-up was similar between the ICS + Tio versus ICS/LABA cohorts (4% versus 3%, p = 0.472, and 50% versus 45%, p = 0.050, respectively). The mean time to first severe (ICS + Tio 43.8 days versus ICS/LABA 49.4 days, p = 0.758) and moderate-or-severe exacerbation (ICS + Tio 65.8 days versus ICS/LABA 58.9 days, p = 0.474) was not statistically different between cohorts. The treatments had no effect on the risk of severe exacerbation, although it was 36% lower in ICS + Tio users than in ICS/LABA users (hazard ratio 0.64 [95% confidence interval, 0.22-1.84]). All-cause and asthma-related average monthly healthcare resource utilization were comparable between the treatments for hospitalizations and emergency department visits but were significantly greater in the ICS + Tio cohort than in the ICS/LABA cohort for asthma-related outpatient visits (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: This study provides real-world evidence that ICS + Tio may be a valid alternative when ICS/LABA cannot be used as first-line treatment for asthma maintenance therapy.

Add-on tiotropium versus step-up inhaled corticosteroid plus long-acting beta-2-agonist in real-world patients with asthma.

Background: A step-up approach (increasing inhaled corticosteroid [ICS] dose and/or add-on treatment) is recommended for asthma that is uncontrolled despite ICS plus long-acting beta-2-agonist (LABA) combination treatment. Understanding the impact of different treatment options on health outcomes can help guide treatment decision-making. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of add-on tiotropium 1.25 µg (two puffs once daily) versus an increased ICS plus LABA dose in a real-world cohort of patients with asthma initiated on ICS plus LABA. Methods: De-identified data from patients ages ≥12 years and with asthma who were initiated on ICS plus LABA, and then had tiotropium added (Tio group; index date) or an ICS plus LABA dose increased (inc-ICS group; index date) were collected from two medical and pharmacy claims data bases (2014-2018). To account for population/group differences, propensity score matching was performed. The primary end point was the exacerbation risk after the index date. Secondary end points included exacerbation rates 6 and 12 months postindex, health-care resource utilization, costs, and short-acting beta-2-agonist (SABA) refills 12 months postindex. Results: Overall, 7857 patients (Tio group, 2619; inc-ICS group, 5238) were included. The exacerbation risk was 35% lower in the Tio group than in the inc-ICS group (hazard ratio 0.65 [95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.99]; p = 0.044). Exacerbation rates in the Tio group also were significantly lower within 6 and 12 months postindex (64% and 73%, respectively). All-cause and asthma-related emergency department (ED) visits were 47% and 74% lower, respectively (p < 0.0001 for both), and all-cause and asthma-related hospitalizations were 48% (p < 0.01) and 76% (p < 0.001) lower, respectively, in the Tio group. Also, significantly fewer patients in the Tio group versus the inc-ICS group required SABA refills (56% versus 67%, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Add-on tiotropium significantly decreased the risk and rate of exacerbations, decreased all-cause and asthma-related ED visits and hospitalizations, and reduced SABA refills compared with increasing the ICS plus LABA dose. The findings supported the use of add-on tiotropium for patients with uncontrolled asthma taking ICS plus LABA.

Immediate, early (3 weeks) and conventional loading (4 months) of single implants: Preliminary data at 1 year after loading from a pragmatic multicenter randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcome of single implants which underwent immediate nonocclusal loading with implants subjected to early non-occlusal loading at 3 weeks, and implants conventionally loaded at 4 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and five patients in five private practices requiring a single implant-supported crown were randomised to immediate loading (35 patients), early loading (35 patients) and conventional loading (35 patients) groups. To be immediately or early loaded, implants had to be inserted with a torque superior to 45 Ncm. Immediately and early loaded implants received non-occluding temporary crows, whereas conventionally loaded implants were directly restored with definitive crowns. Temporary crowns were replaced by definitive ones after 4 months. Outcome measures were crown and implant failures, complications and peri-implant marginal bone level changes recorded by a blinded assessor. RESULTS: Two patients dropped out from the immediate loading group up to 1-year post-loading. Two implants failed, one in the immediately loaded and one in the early loaded group (P=0.601). One immediately loaded implant and two early loaded implants were affected by one complication each (P=0.162). Mean peri-implant marginal bone loss after 1 year was -0.120±0.230 mm (95% CI -0.35, 0.10) for immediate, -0.390±0.840 mm (95% CI -1.23, 0.45) for early and -0.201±0.306 mm (95% CI -0.51; 0.11) for conventionally loaded implants. There were no statistically significant differences for any of the outcome measures between the three loading strategies up to 1-year post-loading. CONCLUSIONS: No major clinical differences were observed with regard to implant survival, complications and marginal bone level changes when loading single implants immediately, early or conventionally.