Outcomes of Patients with COPD Treated with ICS/LABA Before and After Initiation of Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy with Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI).

INTRODUCTION: Triple therapy (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol; FF/UMEC/VI) has been shown to improve symptoms and reduce exacerbations in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and a history of exacerbations. This real-world study compared exacerbation rates and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) before and after initiation of FF/UMEC/VI in patients with COPD previously treated with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included commercial and Medicare Advantage with Part D administrative claims data from September 01, 2016, to March 31, 2020, of patients diagnosed with COPD. The index date was the date of the first FF/UMEC/VI claim (September 2017-March 2019). The 12 months prior to index (baseline) were used to assess patient characteristics and outcomes; the 12 months following index (follow-up) were used to assess study outcomes. All patients had ≥ 30 consecutive days' supply of any ICS/LABA dual therapy during the 12 months prior to FF/UMEC/VI initiation. Subgroup analyses included patients with ≥ 30 consecutive days' supply of budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FORM) during baseline. Analyses of patients with ≥ 1 COPD exacerbation during baseline were reported as well. RESULTS: The overall population included 1449 patients (mean age 70.75 years; 54.18% female), of whom 540 were patients in the BUD/FORM subgroup. Significantly fewer patients experienced any exacerbation during follow-up versus baseline (overall population 53.49% vs 62.59%; p < 0.001; BUD/FORM subgroup 55.00% vs 62.41%; p = 0.004). Effects on exacerbation reduction were more pronounced among patients with ≥ 1 exacerbation during baseline. Lower COPD-related HCRU was observed during the follow-up compared with baseline for both the overall population and the BUD/FORM subgroup. CONCLUSION: Patients with COPD treated with ICS/LABA during baseline, including patients specifically treated with BUD/FORM and those with a history of ≥ 1 exacerbation, had fewer COPD exacerbations and lower COPD-related HCRU after initiating FF/UMEC/VI.

Outcomes Following Initiation of Triple Therapy with Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy Among Medicare Advantage with Part D Beneficiaries and Those Commercially Enrolled for Health Care Insurance in the United States.

Purpose: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have been shown to benefit from triple therapy commonly delivered by multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT); however, the complexity of MITT regimens may decrease patient adherence. Fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI), a once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT), became available in the United States (US) in 2017, but real-world data comparing outcomes for SITT versus MITT are currently limited. This study compared outcomes among patients with COPD initiating MITT versus SITT with FF/UMEC/VI who were either Medicare Advantage with Part D (MAPD) beneficiaries or commercial enrollees in the US. Methods: Retrospective study using administrative claims data from the Optum Research Database for patients with COPD who initiated FF/UMEC/VI or MITT between September 1, 2017, and March 31, 2019 (index date: first pharmacy claim for FF/UMEC/VI cohort; earliest day of ≥30 consecutive days-long period of overlap in the day's supply of all triple therapy components for MITT cohort). COPD exacerbations, adherence to triple therapy, and all-cause and COPD-related health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs were compared between FF/UMEC/VI and MITT initiators. Results: In total, 4659 FF/UMEC/VI initiators and 9845 MITT initiators for the MAPD population, and 821 FF/UMEC/VI initiators and 1893 MITT initiators for the commercial population were included in the study. MAPD beneficiaries initiating FF/UMEC/VI had a significantly lower annual rate of severe exacerbations compared to MITT initiators (0.26 vs 0.29; p=0.014). They also had a significantly higher mean adherence (proportion of days covered) (0.51 vs 0.37; p<0.001) and significantly lower all-cause and COPD-related inpatient stays compared to MITT initiators ([32.02% vs 34.27%; p=0.017], [16.09% vs 17.72%; p=0.037]). Trends were similar among the commercial population, but the results were not statistically significant. Conclusion: FF/UMEC/VI initiators had significantly fewer severe exacerbations, higher triple therapy adherence, and lower HCRU costs compared to MITT initiators for MAPD beneficiaries.

'How deep are your pockets?' Autoethnographic reflections on the cost of raising a child with autism.

BACKGROUND: In this article, we reflected on our experience of the cost of parenting a child with autism, including our ongoing search for educational and therapeutic intervention. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to give an academic insight into the state of autism education and care in South Africa as seen by us, with special attention to its cost and sustainability. METHODS: Using evocative autoethnography as storied scholarship together with critical autism studies, we reflected on stories of the past 5 years since our son's diagnosis. RESULTS: Our experiences agree with international studies that establish autism as the most expensive disability. In addition to the high costs of diagnosis, existing intervention and support approaches are unaffordable for the majority of South Africans. We recommend that teachers should be trained to participate in early screening and diagnosis, as well as co-therapists, to strengthen the implementation of inclusive education. CONCLUSION: The kind of autism intervention currently offered in South Africa is financially and socially unsustainable. Instead of positioning autism as an individual or family dilemma, it should be addressed as an educational and societal issue. Future research should explore cost-effective options for a developing country context, while promoting best practice within inclusive settings.

Cervical cancer disparities in South Carolina: an update of early detection, special programs, descriptive epidemiology, and emerging directions.

Through careful examination of cervical cancer incidence and mortality rates and current resources available in South Carolina, we have identified research and intervention priorities related to cervical cancer that would best serve the women of this state. Mortality rates due to cervical cancer are largely explained by the lack of early detection among women rarely and never screened and non-adherence to recommended follow-up care of cervical dysplasia; however, other factors less well explained are determinants of observed disparities between AA and EA women. Efforts are underway to implement strategies recommended by the NCI to eliminate cervical cancer disparities through improved efforts to reach out to rarely and never-screened women and prepare health care providers for implementation of HPV vaccines.