An Exploratory Study of Physician Decision-Making When Treating Uncontrolled COPD.

Purpose: Current guidelines recommend triple therapy maintenance inhalers for patients with recurrent exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); however, these maintenance therapies are underutilized. This study aimed to understand how physicians make COPD treatment decisions, and how combination maintenance therapies are utilized in a real-world setting. Patients and Methods: This exploratory, hypothesis-generating, non-interventional study used a cross-sectional online survey that was administered to a sample of practicing physicians in the United States. The survey included five fictitious vignettes detailing common symptoms experienced by patients with COPD. Survey questions included factors physicians consider in their decisions, and perceived barriers to prescribing treatments. Repeated measures multivariable analyses were conducted to evaluate how likely physicians were to switch to triple therapy versus no change to patient's current maintenance therapy or change to another maintenance therapy. Results: In total, 200 physicians completed the survey. Cost of treatment and patient access to treatment were reported as the most common barriers physicians consider in their prescribing decisions. Physicians were more likely to switch a patient's maintenance inhaler to triple therapy versus no change to maintenance inhaler if they considered the patient's history of new symptoms, insurance status, and clinical guidelines in their decision. Physicians with more experience treating patients with COPD, and those who treat more patients with COPD per week, were more likely to switch to triple therapy versus no change to maintenance inhaler. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the complexity of factors that can influence physicians' decisions when prescribing treatments for patients with COPD, including considerations of treatment cost, patient access and adherence, patient comorbidities, efficacy of current treatment, clinical guidelines, and provider's level of experience treating COPD. Further research may help elucidate the relative importance of the factors influencing physicians' decisions and inform what types of decision-support tools would be most beneficial.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) symptoms can be effectively managed with maintenance therapies, which are treatments that are taken routinely to help improve symptoms. A combination of three different therapies (triple therapy maintenance) has been shown to be more effective than a combination of two different therapies (dual therapy maintenance) in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. However, maintenance therapies, including triple therapy, are underutilized. This study aimed to explore how physicians make their treatment decisions for patients with COPD, and how combination maintenance therapies are utilized. To do so, we administered a survey to a sample of practicing physicians in the United States. The survey included five clinically based, fictitious profiles, or vignettes, of patients with COPD, with common symptoms and patient characteristics being described. Physicians were then asked to answer questions about what treatment they would prescribe for each patient, and any factors they considered when deciding on a treatment for a patient. We found that cost of treatment and patient access to treatment were the most common barriers that physicians considered when choosing a treatment. Physicians were also more likely to switch a patient's maintenance inhaler to a triple therapy maintenance inhaler if they considered the patient's history of new symptoms, patient's insurance status, and clinical guidelines when making their decisions. Our study shows that there are many complex factors that influence physicians' decisions when deciding on a treatment for patients with COPD.

Bronchodilator response assessment through impulse oscillometry system and spirometry in children and adolescents with cystic fibrosis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of bronchodilator on the respiratory mechanics and pulmonary function of children and adolescents with cystic fibrosis. METHODS: Cross-sectional study on clinically stable children and adolescents with cystic fibrosis aged from six to 15 years. Participants underwent impulse oscillometry and spirometry evaluations before and 15 minutes after bronchodilator inhalation. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was applied to verify the sample distribution, and the Student's t-test and Wilcoxon test were used to compare the data before and after bronchodilator inhalation. RESULTS: The study included 54 individuals with a mean age of 9.7±2.8 years. The analysis showed a statistically significant improvement in impulse oscillometry and spirometry parameters after bronchodilator inhalation. However, according to the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and European Respiratory Society (ERS) recommendations (2020 and 2021), this improvement was not sufficient to classify it as a bronchodilator response. CONCLUSIONS: The use of bronchodilator medication improved respiratory mechanics and pulmonary function parameters of children and adolescents with cystic fibrosis; however, most patients did not show bronchodilator response according to ATS/ERS recommendations.

Adherence and quality of life assessment in patients with asthma treatment with budesonide/formoterol via the Elpenhaler device: the COMPLETE study.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease of the airways that causes recurring episodes of wheezing, breathlessness, chest tightness and coughing. Inhaled drugs on a daily basis are the cornerstone of asthma treatment, therefore, patient adherence is very important. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, open, non-interventional, observational, prospective study of 716 adult patients diagnosed with asthma receiving FDC (Fixed-dose combination) budesonide/formoterol via the Elpenhaler device. We assessed the adherence to treatment at 3 and 6 months (based on the MMAS-8: 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale), the quality of life and change in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) from baseline to follow-up. RESULTS: Approximately 80% of the patients showed medium to high adherence throughout the study. The mean (SD) MMAS-8 score at 6 months was 6.85 (1.54) and we observed a statistically significant shift of patients from the low adherence group to the high adherence group at 6 months. Moreover, after 6 months of treatment with FDC budesonide/formoterol, we observed an increase in the patients' quality of life that as expressed by a change 2.01 (95%CI 1.93-2.10) units in Mini AQLQ (p < 0.0001) that was more pronounced in the high adherence group. The same trend was also observed in terms of spirometry (mean FEV1 2.58 L (0.85) at the end of the study, increased by 220 mL from baseline) with a higher improvement in the medium and high adherence groups. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with FDC of budesonide/formoterol via the Elpenhaler device was associated with improvement in asthma-related quality of life and lung function over 6 months that were more prominent in patients with higher adherence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: 2017-HAL-EL-74 (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03300076).

Functional respiratory imaging assessment of budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate and glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhalers in patients with COPD: the value of inhaled corticosteroids.

BACKGROUND: For patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), greater improvements in lung function have been demonstrated for triple versus dual inhaled therapies in traditional spirometry studies. This study was the first to use functional respiratory imaging (FRI), known for increased sensitivity to airway changes versus spirometry, to assess the effect of the inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) component (budesonide) on lung function in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD and a blood eosinophil count > 150 cells/mm3. METHODS: Patients in this Phase IIIb (NCT03836677), randomized, double-blind, crossover study received twice-daily budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (BGF) 320/18/9.6 µg fixed-dose triple therapy and glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (GFF) 18/9.6 µg fixed-dose dual therapy over 4 weeks, each delivered via a single metered dose Aerosphere inhaler. Primary endpoints were the improvements from baseline for each treatment in specific (i.e. corrected for lobar volume) image-based airway volume (siVaw) and resistance (siRaw) measured via FRI taken at total lung capacity (Day 29). Secondary outcomes included spirometry and body plethysmography. Adverse events were monitored throughout the study. RESULTS: A total of 23 patients were randomized and included in the intent-to-treat analysis (mean age 64.9 years, 78.3% males, 43.5% current smokers, mean predicted post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1] 63.6%). BGF and GFF both statistically significantly increased siVaw from baseline at Day 29 (geometric mean ratio [GM], 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.72 [1.38, 2.13] and 1.53 [1.28, 1.83], respectively, both p < 0.0001), with a greater increase observed for BGF versus GFF (GM, 95% CI 1.09 [1.03, 1.16], p = 0.0061). Statistically significant reductions in siRaw were also observed with both BGF and GFF (GM, 95% CI 0.50 [0.39, 0.63] and 0.52 [0.40, 0.67], respectively, both p < 0.0001). Additionally, significant improvements from baseline in post-dose FEV1 were observed with BGF and GFF (mean 346 mL, p = 0.0003 and 273 mL, p = 0.0004, respectively). Safety findings were consistent with the known profiles of BGF and GFF. CONCLUSIONS: As observed using FRI, triple therapy with BGF resulted in greater increases in airway volume, and reductions in airway resistance versus long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual therapy with GFF, reflecting the ICS component's contribution in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. TRIAL REGISTRATION:  ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03836677. Registered 11 February 2019, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03836677.

Stepping down asthma treatment.

Overview of: Bloom CL, de Preux L, Sheikh A et al Health and cost impact of stepping down asthma medication for UK patients, 2001-2017: a population-based observational study. PLOS Med 2020;17:e1003145.

Influence of government-driven quality assessment program on patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: The Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA) has launched the Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Quality Assessment Program (CQAP) since 2014. We aimed to reveal the influence of this national program on clinical outcomes and the burden of COPD in Korea. METHODS: The CQAP is conducted annually. We used healthcare claims data linked with the results of the program provided by HIRA between May 2014 and April 2017. Patients were considered to have COPD if they visited a hospital for COPD management during the assessment term. Those who visited a medical institution for COPD and were prescribed COPD medications at least twice were assessed by the CQAP (assessed subjects, AS; not-assessed subjects, NAS). CQAP evaluated the pulmonary function test conduction rate, regular visitation rate, and prescription rates of COPD medications. RESULTS: Among the 560,000 patients with COPD, about 140,000 were assessed by the CQAP annually. In both groups, the pulmonary function test conduction rate and inhaled bronchodilator prescription rate improved since 2014. Compared to the NAS group, the risk of admission and all-cause mortality rate in the AS group were significantly reduced by 21.2% and 40.7%, respectively. In patients who were assessed for 3 consecutive years, all of the above variables were high at baseline and were not improved much from implementation of CQAP. In matching analysis, we observed this improvement to be limited in the COPD quality assessment year. CONCLUSIONS: The CQAP by the health insurance bureau has improved the management protocol and prognosis of COPD.

Commercial valved spacers versus home-made spacers for delivering bronchodilator therapy in pediatric acute asthma: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Although valved spacers are the preferred method for administering metered-dose inhaler bronchodilators such as albuterol in pediatric acute asthma, their high cost and their lack of availability have limited their use, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Because of this, it is a common practice to use home-made spacers, although a formal analysis evaluating their cost-effectiveness is lacking. Therefore, the objective of this study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of home-made spacers compared to commercial valved spacers for delivering bronchodilator therapy in pediatric acute asthma. METHODS: A decision-analysis model was used to estimate health outcomes and costs of a simulated cohort of pediatric patients treated for acute asthma. Effectiveness parameters were obtained from a systematic review of the literature. Cost data were obtained from hospital bills and from the national manual of drug prices in Colombia. The study was carried out from the perspective of the national healthcare system in Colombia, a middle-income country (MIC). The main outcome of the model was avoidance of hospital admission. RESULTS: Base-case analysis showed that compared to commercial valved spacers, administering bronchodilators with home-made spacers results in lower overall treatment costs (US$126.75 vs. US$128.59 average cost per patient) without a significant difference in the probability of hospitalization avoided (0.8500 vs. 0.8500). CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows that in Colombia, an MIC, compared with commercial valved spacers, the use of home-made spacers for administering bronchodilator therapy is more cost-effective because it yields a similar probability of hospital admission at lower overall treatment costs.

Nurse-delivered outpatient asthma education for children and caregivers: a pilot study to promote shared asthma management.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility of nurse-delivered asthma education for caregiver/child dyads in a busy clinic setting, and measure the preliminary effectiveness of the intervention. METHODS: We conducted a pilot study of nurse-delivered asthma education in a busy outpatient clinic. We enrolled a convenience sample of children (7-16 years) with uncontrolled persistent asthma who had a prescription for an inhaled controller medication and public health insurance. After provider visits, nurses taught dyads using picture-based materials, teach-back methods, and colored labels applied to asthma medications. The intervention was repeated at 1-month follow-up. We assessed feasibility by reviewing nurse documentation in the electronic medical record, detailing whether each component was implemented and the time required for education at each visit. We measured preliminary effectiveness by surveying children and caregivers separately before each clinic visit about asthma management responsibility, self-efficacy, caregiver quality of life, and symptoms; caregivers also completed a final telephone survey 2 months after the follow-up visit. We examined pre-post differences in continuous outcomes within-subjects using Wilcoxon signed rank tests. RESULTS: We enrolled 22 child/caregiver dyads. Nursing documentation indicated a high rate of component delivery at each visit; the initial and 1-month visits required 25 and 15 min, respectively. We observed significant increases in child responsibility, child/caregiver self-efficacy, caregiver quality of life, and child symptoms at each follow-up. CONCLUSION: This intervention of patient-centered asthma education can be delivered by nurses to caregiver/child dyads with high fidelity in a busy pediatric practice. Preliminary data indicate potential benefit for both children and caregivers.

Medication Discontinuation in Adults With COPD Discharged From the Hospital: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients admitted to the hospital with COPD are commonly managed with inhaled short-acting bronchodilators, sometimes in lieu of the long-acting bronchodilators they take as outpatients. If held on admission, these long-acting inhalers should be re-initiated upon discharge; however, health-care transitions sometimes result in unintentional discontinuation. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the risk of unintentional discontinuation of long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and long-acting beta-agonist and inhaled corticosteroid (LABA-ICS) combination medications following hospital discharge in older adults with COPD? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted by using health administrative data from 2004 to 2016 from Ontario, Canada. Adults with COPD aged ≥ 66 years who had filled prescriptions for a LAMA or LABA-ICS continuously for ≥ 1 year were included. Log-binomial regression models were used to determine risk of medication discontinuation following hospitalization in each medication cohort. RESULTS: Of the 27,613 hospitalization discharges included in this study, medications were discontinued 1,466 times. Among 78,953 patients with COPD continuously taking a LAMA or LABA-ICS, those hospitalized had a higher risk of having medications being discontinued than those who remained in the community (adjusted risk ratios of 1.50 [95% CI, 1.34-1.67; P < .001] and 1.62 [95% CI, 1.39, 1.90; P < .001] for LAMA and LABA-ICS, respectively). Crude rates of discontinuation for people taking LAMAs were 5.2% in the hospitalization group and 3.3% in the community group; for people taking LABA-ICS, these rates were 5.5% in the hospitalization group and 3.1% in the community group. INTERPRETATION: In an observational study of highly compliant patients with COPD, hospitalization was associated with an increased risk of long-acting inhaler discontinuation. These Results suggest a likely larger discontinuation problem among less adherent patients and should be confirmed and quantified in a prospective cohort of patients with COPD and average compliance. Quality improvement efforts should focus on safe transitions and patient medication reconciliation following discharge.

Effect of Age on the Efficacy and Safety of Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple-Therapy Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Patients With COPD: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Informing the Pathway of COPD Treatment Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the Informing the Pathway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) trial, single-inhaler triple-therapy fluticasone furoate (FF), umeclidinium (UMEC), and vilanterol (VI) reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates vs FF/VI and UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations, with a similar safety profile. RESEARCH QUESTION: Are trial outcomes with single-inhaler triple-therapy FF/UMEC/VI vs FF/VI and UMEC/VI affected by age in patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: IMPACT was a phase III, double-blind, 52-week trial. Patients ≥ 40 years of age with symptomatic COPD and ≥ 1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the previous year were randomly assigned 2:2:1 to FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg, FF/VI 100/25 µg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg. End points assessed by age included annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations, change from baseline (CFB) in trough FEV1, proportion of St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) responders (≥ 4 units decrease from baseline in SGRQ total score), and safety. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat population comprised 10,355 patients; 4,724 (46%), 4,225 (41%), and 1,406 (14%) were ≤ 64, 65 to 74, and ≥ 75 years of age, respectively. FF/UMEC/VI reduced on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rates vs FF/VI (% reduction [95% CI]: ≤ 64 years, 8% [-1 to 16]; P = .070; 65-74 years, 22% [14-29]; P < .001; ≥ 75 years, 18% [3-31]; P = .021) and vs UMEC/VI (≤ 64 years, 16% [7-25]; P = .002; 65-74 years, 33% [25-41]; P < .001; ≥ 75 years, 24% [6-38]; P = .012), with greatest rate reduction seen in the 65 to 74 and ≥ 75 years subgroups. Post hoc analyses of CFB in trough FEV1 and proportion of SGRQ responders at week 52 were significantly greater with FF/UMEC/VI than with FF/VI or UMEC/VI in all subgroups. No new safety signals were identified. INTERPRETATION: FF/UMEC/VI reduced the rate of moderate/severe exacerbations and improved lung function and health status vs FF/VI and UMEC/VI irrespective of age for most end points, with a similar safety profile. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02164513; URL: www.clinicaltrials.govCTT116855.

Assessment of bronchial obstruction and its reversibility by shape indexes of the flow-volume loop in asthmatic children.

Asthma assessment by spirometry is challenging in children as forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) is frequently normal at baseline. Bronchodilator (BD) reversibility testing may reinforce asthma diagnosis but FEV1 sensitivity in children is controversial. Ventilation inhomogeneity, an early sign of airway obstruction, is described by the upward concavity of the descending limb of the forced expiratory flow-volume loop (FVL), not detected by FEV1. The aim was to test the sensitivity and specificity of FVL shape indexes as ß-angle and forced expiratory flow at 50% of the forced vital capacity (FEF50)/peak expiratory flow (PEF) ratio, to identify asthmatics from healthy children in comparison to "usual" spirometric parameters. Seventy-two school-aged asthmatic children and 29 controls were prospectively included. Children performed forced spirometry at baseline and after BD inhalation. Parameters were expressed at baseline as z-scores and BD reversibility as percentage of change reported to baseline value (Δ%). Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated and sensitivity and specificity at respective thresholds reported. Asthmatics presented significantly smaller zß-angle, zFEF50/PEF and zFEV1 (p ≤ .04) and higher BD reversibility, significant for Δ%FEF50/PEF (p = .02) with no difference for Δ%FEV1. zß-angle and zFEF50/PEF exhibited better sensitivity (0.58, respectively 0.60) than zFEV1 (0.50), and similar specificity (0.72). Δ%ß-angle showed higher sensitivity compared to Δ%FEV1 (0.72 vs. 0.42), but low specificity (0.52 vs. 0.86). Quantitative and qualitative assessment of FVL by adding shape indexes to spirometry interpretation may improve the ability to detect an airway obstruction, FEV1 reflecting more proximal while shape indexes peripheral bronchial obstruction.

Differences in Real-World Health and Economic Outcomes Among Patients with COPD Treated with Combination Tiotropium/Olodaterol Versus Triple Therapy.

BACKGROUND: The 2018 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) recommends combination long-acting muscarinic antagonists/long-acting beta2-agonists (LAMA + LABA) as preferred maintenance therapy for patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD) after monotherapy and stepping up to triple therapy (TT; LAMA + LABA + inhaled corticosteroids [ICS]) in case of further exacerbations. Restrictions on TT recommendations have primarily been driven by higher pneumonia risk associated with regular ICS use. Evidence suggests that TT is overprescribed, which may affect economic and clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To compare health plan-paid costs, COPD exacerbations, and pneumonia diagnoses among patients newly treated with a LAMA + LABA regimen composed of tiotropium (TIO) + olodaterol (OLO) in a fixed-dose combination inhaler (TIO + OLO) or TT in a U.S. Medicare Advantage Part D insured population. METHODS: This retrospective study identified COPD patients aged ≥ 40 years who were initiating TIO + OLO or TT (index regimen) between January 1, 2014, and March 31, 2018, from a national administrative claims database. Continuous insurance coverage for 12 months pretreatment (baseline) and ≥ 30 days posttreatment (follow-up) was required. Patients were followed until the earliest of study end (May 31, 2018), discontinuation of index regimen (≥ 60-day gap in index regimen coverage), switch to a different regimen, or health plan disenrollment. Before analysis of outcomes, TIO + OLO and TT patients were 1:1 propensity score-matched on baseline demographics, comorbidities, COPD medication use, medical resource use, and costs. Cohort differences in post-match outcomes were assessed by Wald Z-test (annualized costs) and Kaplan-Meier method (time to first COPD exacerbation and pneumonia diagnosis). RESULTS: After matching, each cohort had 1,454 patients who were well balanced on baseline characteristics. Compared with TT, the TIO + OLO cohort incurred $7,041 (41.1%) lower mean COPD-related total costs ($10,094 vs. $17,135; P < 0.001); cohort differences in the medical component ($3,666 lower for TIO + OLO) were driven by lower mean acute inpatient costs ($3,053 lower for TIO + OLO). Combined mean COPD plus pneumonia-related medical costs were $5,212 (39.0%) lower for TIO + OLO versus TT ($8,209 vs. $13,421; P = 0.006), and total mean all-cause costs were $9,221 (30.4%) lower for TIO + OLO versus TT ($21,062 vs. $30,283; P < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier analysis found longer time to first severe COPD exacerbation (P = 0.020) and first pneumonia diagnosis (P = 0.002) for TIO + OLO versus TT and a lower percentage of TIO + OLO patients experiencing these events (severe COPD exacerbation: 9.0% vs. 16.1%; pneumonia: 14.5% vs. 19.3%). A secondary analysis, which expanded the TIO + OLO cohort to include any LAMA + LABA regimen, had similar findings for all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: COPD patients initiating TIO + OLO incurred lower costs to health plans and experienced fewer COPD exacerbation and pneumonia events relative to TT. These findings provide important real-world economic and clinical insight into the GOLD recommendations for TIO + OLO and LAMA + LABA therapy. The study findings also indicate the continued inconsistency between the recommendations and real-world clinical practices pertaining to TT. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (BIPI). Palli and Franchino-Elder are employees of BIPI. Frazer, DuCharme, Buikema, and Anderson are employees of Optum, which was contracted by BIPI to conduct 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.

The cost-saving switch from inhaled corticosteroid-containing treatments to dual bronchodilation: a two-country projection of epidemiological and economic burden in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

PURPOSE: The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2018 recommendations support maintenance treatment with long-acting bronchodilators in most symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). While restricting the overuse of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) may influence healthcare utilization required to treat inadvertent respiratory (exacerbations and pneumonia) and diabetes-related events, it may also change the total medication cost. This analysis was performed to estimate the 5-year budget impact of switching from ICS-containing treatment combinations to dual bronchodilation, in line with the recommendations. METHODS: The model quantified the budget impact of treatment and healthcare resource utilization when COPD patients were anticipated to switch from ICS-containing treatments to dual bronchodilation. Three switch scenarios were calculated with increasing proportions of patients on dual long-acting bronchodilators, to the detriment of ICS-containing double and triple combinations. Clinical and cost input data were based on results from clinical trials and Greek and Portuguese healthcare cost databases. RESULTS: Healthcare resource use to manage exacerbations, pneumonia and diabetes-related events were projected to increase between 2019 and 2023 in parallel with the growing COPD patient population and associated costs were estimated at 52-57% of the total disease cost in the Greek and Portuguese base case scenarios. Total cost savings between 21 and 112 million EUR were projected when the proportion of patients on double and triple ICS-containing treatments was gradually reduced to 50% in scenario A, 20% in scenario B and 7% in scenario C. Sensitivity analyses showed that none of the model assumptions had a major impact on the projected savings. CONCLUSION: The alignment of COPD treatment with current recommendations may bring clinical benefits to patients, without substantial cost increases and even cost savings for payers. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Functional respiratory imaging assessment of glycopyrrolate and formoterol fumarate metered dose inhalers formulated using co-suspension delivery technology in patients with COPD.

BACKGROUND: Functional respiratory imaging (FRI) is a quantitative postprocessing imaging technique used to assess changes in the respiratory system. Using FRI, we characterized the effects of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), glycopyrrolate metered dose inhaler (GP MDI), and the long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA), formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (FF MDI), on airway volume and resistance in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. METHODS: Patients in this phase IIIb, randomized, double-blind crossover study received twice-daily GP MDI (18 µg) and FF MDI (9.6 µg). Primary endpoints were specific (i.e. corrected for lobar volume) image-based airway volume (siVaw) and specific image-based airway resistance (siRaw), measured using FRI. Secondary and other endpoints included additional FRI, spirometry, and body plethysmography parameters. Postdose efficacy assessments were performed within 60-150 min of dosing on day 15. RESULTS: A total of 23 patients were randomized and 19 completed both treatment periods. GP MDI and FF MDI both achieved significant improvements from baseline to day 15 in siVaw [11% (p = 0.0187) and 23% (p < 0.0001) increases, respectively] and siRaw [25% (p = 0.0219) and 44% (p < 0.0001) reductions, respectively]. Although, on average, improvements were larger for FF MDI than GP MDI, some individuals displayed greater responses with each of the two treatments. These within-patient differences increased with airway generation number. Spirometry and body plethysmography endpoints showed significant improvements from baseline in inspiratory capacity for both treatments, and numeric improvements for other endpoints. CONCLUSION: Both GP MDI and FF MDI significantly improved siRaw and siVaw at day 15 versus baseline. FRI endpoints demonstrated increased sensitivity relative to spirometry and body plethysmography in detecting differences between treatments in a small number of patients. Intra-patient differences in treatment response between the LAMA and the LABA provide further support for the benefit of dual bronchodilator therapies. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02937584 The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

COPD exacerbation costs in the IMPACT study: a within-trial analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Exacerbations account for the greatest proportion of costs associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Here we aimed to evaluate, from the US payer perspective, the costs associated with moderate and severe COPD exacerbation events for patients treated with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI. STUDY DESIGN: This post hoc, within-trial economic analysis used data derived from the InforMing the PAthway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) study (NCT02164513). METHODS: Treatment groups within the IMPACT trial received either triple therapy with FF/UMEC/VI (100/62.5/25 mcg) or dual therapy (FF/VI [100/25 mcg] or UMEC/VI [62.5/25 mcg]). The primary end point for this IMPACT post hoc analysis was cost differences between the treatment arms related to 1-year on-treatment combined moderate and severe COPD exacerbation events. RESULTS: The final study sample for this within-trial analysis consisted of 10,355 patients, 49% of whom experienced an on-treatment moderate or severe exacerbation during the study. The mean 1-year on-treatment cost estimate associated with combined moderate and severe exacerbations was highest with UMEC/VI and lowest with FF/UMEC/VI ($6205 vs $4913, respectively). Mean cost differences were statistically significant for all pairwise comparisons of FF/UMEC/VI with FF/VI or UMEC/VI (-$549 [95% CI, -$565 to -$533] and -$1292 [95% CI, -$1313 to -$1272], respectively; both P <.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with FF/UMEC/VI compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI in the US healthcare system resulted in lower exacerbation-related costs for combined moderate/severe exacerbation events, as well as moderate and severe exacerbations separately.

Impact of a change of bronchodilator medications in a hospital drug formulary on intra- and out-of-hospital drug prescriptions: interrupted time series design with comparison group.

BACKGROUND: Hospital drug formularies are reduced lists of drugs designed to optimise inpatient care. Adherence to the drugs included in such formularies is not always 100% but is generally very high. Little research has targeted the impact of a change in these formularies on outpatient drug prescriptions. This study therefore sought to evaluate the impact of a change affecting bronchodilator medications in a hospital drug formulary on intra- and out-of-hospital drug prescriptions in a region in north-western Spain. Two new drugs belonging to this same class were brought onto the out-of-hospital market, overlapping with the intervention. METHODS: We used a natural before-after quasi-experimental design with control group based on monthly data. The intervention evaluated was the modification of a hospital drug formulary, which involved withdrawing salmeterol/fluticasone in order to retain formoterol/budesonide as the sole inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta-agonist (ICS/LABA). Using official data sources, we extracted the following dependent variables: defined daily doses (DDD) per 1000 inhabitants per day, DDD per 100 bed-days, and cost per DDD. RESULTS: Intra-hospital use showed a 173.2% rise (95% CI 47.3-299.0%) in the medication retained in the formulary, formoterol/budesonide, and a 94.9% drop (95% CI 77.9-111.9%) in the medication withdrawn from the formulary, salmeterol/fluticasone. This intervention led to an immediate reduction of 75.9% (95% CI 82.8-68.9%) in the intra-hospital cost per DDD of ICS/LABA. No significant changes were observed in out-of-hospital use. CONCLUSIONS: Although this intervention was cost-effective in the intra-hospital setting, the out-of-hospital impact of a change in the drug formulary cannot be generalised to all types of medications and situations.

Impact of Single Combination Inhaler versus Multiple Inhalers to Deliver the Same Medications for Patients with Asthma or COPD: A Systematic Literature Review.

With increasing choice of medications and devices for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatment, comparative evidence may inform treatment decisions. This systematic literature review assessed clinical and economic evidence for using a single combination inhaler versus multiple inhalers to deliver the same medication for patients with asthma or COPD. In 2016, Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane library were searched for publications reporting studies in asthma or COPD comparing a single-inhaler combination medicine with multiple inhalers delivering the same medication. Publications included English-language articles published since 1996 and congress abstracts since 2013. Clinical, economic and adherence endpoints were assessed. Of 2031 abstracts screened, 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in asthma and four in COPD, nine retrospective and three prospective observational studies in asthma, and four observational studies in COPD were identified. Of these, five retrospective and one prospective study in asthma, and two retrospective studies in COPD reported greater adherence with a single inhaler than multiple inhalers. Nine observational studies reported significantly (n=7) or numerically (n=2) higher rates of adherence with single- versus multiple-inhaler therapy. Economic analyses from retrospective and prospective studies showed that use of single-inhaler therapies was associated with reduced healthcare resource use (n=6) and was cost-effective (n=5) compared with multiple-inhaler therapies. Findings in 18 asthma RCTs and one prospective study reporting lung function, and six RCTs reporting exacerbation rates, showed no significant differences between a single inhaler and multiple inhalers. This was in contrast to several observational studies reporting reductions in healthcare resource use or exacerbation events with single-inhaler treatment, compared with multiple inhalers. Retrospective and prospective studies showed that single-inhaler use was associated with decreased healthcare resource utilization and improved cost-effectiveness compared with multiple inhalers. Lung function and exacerbation rates were mostly comparable in the RCTs, possibly due to study design.

Uso de nebulización versus aerocámara en pacientes con diagnostico de COVID-19 / Use of nebulization versus aerochamber in patients with COVID-19 diagnosis

CONTEXTO: El paciente con diagnóstico de COVID19 puede desarrollar dentro de sus complicaciones, compromiso pulmonar y neumonía, esto se traduce en síntomas como dificultad para respirar (distress respiratorio); de confirmarse el diagnóstico se debe realizar el manejo del cuadro causado por el virus SARS-CoV-2. En ese contexto se aplican medicamentos como los broncodilatadores. Gracias a su acción beta-2- agonista, llegan por vía inhalada a los pulmones y al músculo liso bronquial donde incrementa el diámetro del bronquio, lo que mejora la ventilación pulmonar. La vía de administración del medicamento puede realizarse mediante: (a) nebulización, utilizando una mascarilla que cubra la región de nariz y boca conectada a una solución que contenga el broncodilatador, donde la solución se convierte en aerosol lo que es impulsado hacia los pulmones con ayuda de un pequeño motor eléctrico o a baterías; (b) aerocámara, es un dispositivo que por un extremo cubre la región de nariz y boca, que tiene en el otro extremo una desembocadura que encaja en la boquilla de un inhalador (producto que contiene el medicamento precargado y dosificado en puffs). Ante el escenario de administrar un broncodilatador por vía inhalada mediante nebulización versus aerocámara en pacientes con COVID19, es que nos planteamos los siguientes escenarios: (a) determinar si existen diferencias en la eficacia de la administración de medicamento (como el broncodilatador) mediante nebulización versus aerocámara, en pacientes con diagnostico de COVID19 que se encuentren estables y (b) determinar si la nebulización del paciente con diagnóstico de COVID19 con medicamentos tipo broncodilatadores, incrementan el riesgo de contagio al personal de salud. EFICACIA DE LA ADMINISTRACIÓN DE MEDICAMENTO (COMO EL BRONCODILATADOR) MEDIANTE NEBULIZACIÓN VERSUS AEROCÁMARA, EN PACIENTES CON DIAGNÓSTICO DE COVID19 QUE SE ENCUENTREN ESTABLES: Encontramos que a la fecha (21 marzo 2020), no existen estudios comparativos que evalúen la eficacia de la administración de medicamento (como el broncodilatador) mediante nebulización versus aerocámara, en pacientes con diagnóstico de COVID19 que se encuentren estables. Sin embargo, como antecedente tomamos información de una revisión sistemática (RS) donde se hace la misma comparación en pacientes con diagnóstico de asma (Cates, Welsh, and Rowe 2013). En dicha RS, se tuvo como objetivo evaluar la efectividad comparada de las aerocámaras vs nebulizadores para administración de broncodilatadores (beta-2-agonistas) en pacientes con asma aguda. No se encontraron diferencias significativas entre la cantidad de hospitalizaciones en los pacientes atendidos con broncodilatador mediante aerocámara comparada con nebulización en niños (RR=0.71 IC95% 0.47 a 1.08) ni en adultos (RR=0.94 IC95% 0.61 a 1.43) con asma (que no llegaba a comprometer la vida del paciente). En el grupo de pacientes pediátricos, los que recibieron broncodilatador mediante aerocámara permanecieron en la emergencia durante menos tiempo (media tiempo de permanencia=33 minutos), comparado con los niños que recibieron el broncodilatador mediante nebulizador (media de tiempo= 103 minutos), (IC95% -43 a -24 minutos). Por ello, los autores concluyeron de manera indirecta, que la recuperación de la crisis asmática en el paciente pediátrico con el uso de aerocámara fue más rápida que cuando se utilizó el nebulizador. LA NEBULIZACIÓN DEL PACIENTE CON DIAGNÓSTICO DE COVID19 CON MEDICAMENTOS TIPO BRONCODILATADORES, INCREMENTAN EL RIESGO DE CONTAGIO AL PERSONAL DE SALUD: Guías de Práctica Clínica: La ANZICS, publicó el 16 de marzo 2020, recomendaciones sobre el manejo de aerosoles por parte del personal de salud y del uso de equipo de protección personal (EPP). La guía recomienda el uso de equipo de protección personal (EPP) contra infecciones trasmitidas por aerosoles como precaución en la atención de pacientes hospitalizados en la UCI, con diagnóstico de COVID19. Recomienda aplicar la mínima cantidad de procedimientos que generen aerosoles en el paciente con COVID19 en la UCI, como la intubación, extubación, broncoscopía, uso de oxígeno de alto flujo, ventilación no invasiva (con pobre sello hermético), realizar procedimientos en niños en llanto, traqueostomía, resucitación cardiopulmonar antes de la intubación; en habitaciones a presión negativa (de preferencia) o en habitaciones con aire ambiental. Manifiestan una recomendación en contra de la nebulización de medicamentos como broncodilatadores o solución salina. Además, se manifiestan en contra de utilizar el EPP que no cumpla con las recomendaciones señaladas. REPORTE DE CASO: Este es el reporte de un paciente en China que ejemplifica que, si se utiliza adecuadamente la EPP, los contagios a personal de salud se pueden minimizar. En este reporte se presenta un paciente con neumonía severa inicialmente con sospecha de COVID19, en quien se realizó los siguientes procedimientos: administración de oxígeno. por presentar dificultad respiratoria, intubación endotraqueal, laringoscopía y ventilación mecánica (VM) en la UCI. El paciente mejoró y a los 3 días salió de VM. La confirmación de que el paciente tenía COVID19 se obtuvo cuando se extubó al paciente. El punto de interés es que 41 profesionales de la salud estuvieron en contacto con el paciente durante procedimientos que generaron aerosoles, por lo menos durante 10 minutos y a una distancia de menos de 2 metros del paciente. Todos los trabajadores fueron aislados por dos semanas, tuvieron monitorización cercana de los síntomas, con realización de PCR para determinar infección. Sin embargo, ninguno de los 41 trabajadores de salud desarrolló síntomas y todos los PCR fueron negativos. Este reporte no pretende determinar que no existen contagios de pacientes con COVID19 a profesionales de la salud, sino ser un ejemplo, de que cuando se tienen las medidas de protección adecuada (EPP), el riesgo de contagio puede llegar a ser muy bajo. CONCLUSIONES: No se han encontrado estudios que evalúen si hay diferencias respecto a usar nebulizadores o aerocámaras en aliviar la dificultad respiratoria en pacientes con COVID-19. No obstante, se tiene evidencia científica proveniente de estudios en asma que muestra que, para el desenlace clínico de cantidad de hospitalizaciones en el contexto de pacientes con asma aguda, no existen diferencias entre usar nebulizadores o aerocámaras. Lo que sugiere que, desde la perspectiva del paciente, podría ser igual de beneficioso usar uno u otro método para mejorar los síntomas de dificultad respiratoria. Sin embargo, al ser el SARS-CoV-2 un agente infeccioso con alto índice de transmisión existiría un riesgo de infección para los trabajadores de salud si se nebuliza a estos pacientes debido a la alta dispersión de aerosol exhalado, por lo que sería recomendable preferir administrar el broncodilatador por aerocámara.

Trends and Factors Associated with Nebulized Therapy Prescription in Older Adults with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease from 2008 to 2015.

Background: Medical management of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) includes nebulized therapy as an option for inhalational drug delivery. A broad variety of short- and long-acting bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids in the nebulized form are available. Despite this, limited information exists on the pattern and predictors of nebulized prescription. We examined the trend and factors associated with prescription of nebulized therapy among Medicare beneficiaries with COPD. Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study of 5% Medicare beneficiaries with COPD (n = 66,032) who were enrolled in parts A, B, and D and received nebulized prescription from 2008 to 2015 was conducted. This sample has shown to be representative of the entire fee-for-service Medicare population. The primary outcome was a prescription of nebulized medications. Reliever nebulized medications included short-acting beta agonist (SABA), short-acting muscarinic agents (SAMAs), and a combination of SABA and SAMA, while maintenance nebulized medications included long-acting beta agonists, long-acting muscarinic agents, and corticosteroid solutions as well as combinations of these agents. The secondary outcome was prescription of other inhaler respiratory medications not administered with a nebulizer. Results: Overall, 38.9% patients were prescribed nebulized medication and their prescription significantly declined from 42.4% in 2008 to 35.1% in 2015, majority of which was related to decreased prescriptions of nebulized relievers. Factors associated with the prescription of nebulized medications include female gender (odds ratio [OR] = 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.02-1.09), dual eligibility or low-income subsidy beneficiaries (OR = 1.49; CI = 1.44-1.53), hospitalization for COPD in the previous year (OR = 1.29; CI = 1.25-1.34), home oxygen therapy (OR = 2.29; CI = 2.23-2.36), pulmonary specialist visit (OR = 1.24; CI = 1.20-1.27), and moderate (OR = 1.61; CI = 1.57-1.65) or high (OR = 1.52; CI = 1.46-1.59) severity of COPD. Conclusion: Between 2008 and 2015, prescriptions for nebulized therapy for COPD declined among Medicare beneficiaries, probably related to increase in use of maintenance non-nebulized medications.

Metered-dose inhalers vs nebulization for the delivery of albuterol in pediatric asthma exacerbations: A cost-effectiveness analysis in a middle-income country.

OBJECTIVES: Although the benefits of albuterol delivered via metered-dose inhalers with a spacer (MDI+S) have been increasingly recognized, the evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of MDI+S compared to nebulization (NEB) is not sufficient, especially in less-affluent countries, where the clinical and economic burden of the disease is the greatest. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of MDI+S vs NEB for delivering albuterol for the treatment of pediatric asthma exacerbations. METHODS: A decision-analysis model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of MDI+S vs NEB for delivering albuterol for the treatment of pediatric asthma exacerbations. Effectiveness parameters were obtained from a systematic review of the literature. Cost data were obtained from hospital bills and from the national manual of drug prices in Colombia. The study was carried out from the perspective of the national healthcare system in Colombia, a middle-income country (MIC). The main outcome of the model was the avoidance of hospital admission. RESULTS: For the base-case analysis, the model showed that compared to NEB, using MDI+S for the delivery of albuterol was associated with lower total costs (US$96.68 vs US$121.41 average cost per patient) and a higher probability of hospital admission avoided (0.9219 vs 0.8900), thus leading to dominance. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that in Colombia, an MIC, compared with NEB, the use of MDI+S for delivering albuterol for the treatment of pediatric asthma exacerbations is the preferred strategy because it is associated with a lower probability of hospital admission at lower total treatment costs.