The assessment of effectiveness, tolerance, and patient satisfaction with the use of a new fixed-dose combination product, containing salmeterol and fluticasone propionate, Salflumix Easyhaler® in the treatment of asthma in the daily clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of a fix-dose salmeterol/fluticasone combination therapy in asthma was previously shown for the original product. The study aim was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of a second entry DPI - dry powder inhaler (Salflumix Easyhaler) in patients with asthma in everyday clinical practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter Investigator-Initiated Study that enrolled 2,037 adult outpatients with asthma treated with Salflumix Easyhaler, was conducted by 220 pulmonologists across Poland. Asthma control was assessed during 3 visits with 6 ± 2 weeks intervals based on the Asthma Control Test (ACT). In addition, patient Satisfaction with Asthma Treatment Questionnaire (SATQ) and adherence and adverse events (AEs) were monitored. RESULTS: During the observation (86 ± 30 days) the percentage of patients with controlled asthma (ACT 20-25 pts) increased from 35.5% at the first visit to 86.5% at the third visit (p < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis, there were more patients not obtaining asthma control among patients that switched from the treatment with other devices than in naive ones. Global SATQ scores increased from 5.8 ± 0.7 to 6.2 ± 0.6 during the observation. Patients' satisfaction with the use of the Salflumix Easyhaler was high. Adherence exceeded 95%. Eight AEs were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Salflumix Easyhaler is highly effective and well-tolerated by naïve patients with asthma and those switching from another device. In general, patients show good compliance with medical product and are satisfied with the use of this new device, and not reporting difficulties and errors related to its' use. Their physicians' overall perception of Salflumix Easyhaler use is very positive.

[Pharmacoeconomics analysis of using a fixed combination of budesonide/formoterol in patients with asthma in the health care system of the Russian Federation].

AIM: To evaluate the budgetary impact of using budesonide + formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler) as maintenance therapy in real clinical practice compared with standard therapy for asthma of varying severity: for mild asthma with on-demand salbutamol; for moderate and severe asthma with the drug salmeterol + fluticasone and salbutamol on demand. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A static mathematical model was built to assess the impact on the budget when introducing the drug budesonide + formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler) in the treatment of asthma into clinical practice from the point of view of the state. Demographic data was taken from the official data of the Federal State Statistics Service. Direct medical costs included the cost of medicines, the cost of hospitalization of patients associated with the development of asthma exacerbations, and the cost of scheduled outpatient visits. Indirect costs considered the loss of GDP due to hospitalization of patients against the background of asthma exacerbations. A one-way sensitivity analysis was performed to confirm the robustness of the study results. RESULTS: Assessment of direct costs in the treatment of mild, moderate and severe asthma showed that a gradual increase in the proportion of patients receiving the drug budesonide + formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler) over the years to 5.5, 7.7 and 9.7% accordingly, led to an increase in the cost of pharmacotherapy over 3 years by 1.7 billion rubles, while direct non-drug costs associated with the treatment of complications that developed during the treatment of asthma decreased by 8.3 billion rubles. Thus, the reduction in total direct costs amounted to RUB 6.7 billion. At the same time, indirect costs decreased by 6.0 billion rubles. The total reduction in all costs (direct and indirect) when switching patients to budesonide + formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler) amounted to 12.5 billion rubles. In addition, the use of the drug budesonide + formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler) resulted in a decrease in the number of exacerbations: in the first year by 3137, in the second by 4393 and in the third by 5534 cases. A total of 13 064 asthma exacerbations were prevented over 3 years. CONCLUSION: Increasing the proportion of patients with asthma of varying severity receiving therapy with budesonide + formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler) will reduce the financial burden on both the healthcare system and the budgetary system.

The Role of ICS/LABA Fixed-Dose Combinations in the Treatment of Asthma and COPD: Bioequivalence of a Generic Fluticasone Propionate-Salmeterol Device.

Both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are inflammatory chronic respiratory conditions with high rates of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The objectives of this review are to briefly describe the pathophysiology and epidemiology of asthma and COPD, discuss guideline recommendations for uncontrolled disease, and review a new generic option for the treatment of asthma and COPD. Although mild forms of these diseases may be controlled with as-needed pharmacotherapy, uncontrolled or persistent asthma and moderate or severe COPD uncontrolled by bronchodilators with elevated eosinophilia or frequent exacerbations may require intervention with combination therapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting beta agonists (LABAs), according to international guidelines. Fixed-dose combinations of ICS/LABA are commonly prescribed for both conditions, with fluticasone propionate (FP) and salmeterol forming a cornerstone of many treatment plans. An oral inhalation powder containing the combination of FP and salmeterol has been available as Advair Diskus® in the United States for almost 20 years, and the first and only substitutable generic version of this product has recently been approved for use: Wixela™ Inhub™. Bioequivalence of Wixela Inhub and Advair Diskus has been established. Furthermore, the Inhub inhaler was shown to be robust and easy to use, suggesting that Wixela Inhub may provide an alternative option to Advair Diskus for patients with asthma or COPD requiring intervention with an ICS/LABA.

24-Hour Serial Spirometric Assessment of Once-Daily Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Versus Twice-Daily Budesonide/Formoterol in Patients with COPD: Analysis of the FULFIL Study.

INTRODUCTION: Few studies have utilized 24-h serial spirometry to compare the effects of inhaled chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) therapies on lung function. The FULFIL study previously reported significant lung function improvements with once-daily single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus twice-daily single-inhaler budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. METHODS: This prespecified analysis evaluated 24-h serial spirometry data from a subgroup of 406 patients in FULFIL. BUD/FOR twice-daily dosing was maintained during 24-h spirometry. A post hoc analysis evaluated serial forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at day 1 and week 24 by disease severity at screening (FEV1 < 50% predicted and no moderate or severe exacerbation in prior year, FEV1 < 50% predicted and ≥ 1 moderate or severe exacerbation in prior year, and FEV1 ≥ 50% and < 80% predicted and ≥ 2 moderate or ≥ 1 severe exacerbations in prior year). RESULTS: Odds of achieving a ≥ 100-mL increase from baseline in FEV1 within the first 6 h post dose on day 1 were significantly greater with FF/UMEC/VI than BUD/FOR [odds ratio 2.79 (95% confidence interval 1.56-4.98); p < 0.001]. FF/UMEC/VI led to greater improvements in weighted mean FEV1 over 0-6, 0-12, 0-24, and 12-24 h on day 1 and at week 24, with the greatest between-group differences at week 24 (range 196-210 mL; all p < 0.001). Significant between-treatment differences in FEV1 and forced vital capacity (FVC) in favor of FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR were seen at all time points at week 24 (FEV1 range 156-231 mL, all p < 0.001; FVC range 139-309 mL, all p ≤ 0.002). Serial FEV1 results were consistent irrespective of disease severity at screening. CONCLUSION: These findings further demonstrate sustained lung function benefits with once-daily FF/UMEC/VI single-inhaler triple therapy in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations across a range of disease severities.

Modelling the Cost-Effectiveness of Indacaterol/Glycopyrronium versus Salmeterol/Fluticasone Using a Novel Markov Exacerbation-Based Approach.

Purpose: Exacerbations drive outcomes and costs in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). While patient-level (micro) simulation cost-effectiveness models have been developed that include exacerbations, such models are complex. We developed a novel, exacerbation-based model to assess the cost-effectiveness of indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) versus salmeterol/fluticasone (SFC) in COPD, using a Markov structure as a simplification of a previously validated microsimulation model. Methods: The Markov model included three health states: infrequent or frequent exacerbator (IE or FE; ≤1 or ≥2 moderate/severe exacerbations in prior 12 months, respectively), or death. The model used data from the FLAME study and was run over a 10-year horizon. Cycle length was 1 year, after which patients remained in the same health state or transitioned to another. Analysis was conducted from a Swedish payer's perspective (Swedish healthcare costs, converted into Euros), with incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) calculated (discounted 3% annually). Results: At all post-baseline timepoints, IND/GLY was associated with more patients in the IE health state and fewer patients in the FE and dead states relative to SFC. Over a 10-year period, IND/GLY was associated with a cost saving of €1,887/patient, an incremental benefit of 0.142 QALYs, and an addition of 0.057 life-years, compared with SFC. Conclusion: This Markov model represents a novel cost-effectiveness analysis for COPD, with simpler methodology than prior microsimulation models, while retaining exacerbations as drivers of disease progression. In patients with COPD with a history of exacerbations in the previous year, IND/GLY is a cost-effective treatment option compared with SFC.

Long-term cost and utility consequences of short-term clinically important deterioration in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from the TORCH study.

Purpose: Clinically important deterioration (CID) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a novel composite endpoint that assesses disease stability. The association between short-term CID and future economic and quality of life (QoL) outcomes has not been previously assessed. This analysis considers 3-year data from the TOwards a Revolution in COPD Health (TORCH) study, to examine this question. Patients and methods: This post hoc analysis of TORCH (NCT00268216) compared costs and utilities at 3 years among patients without CID (CID-) and with CID (CID+) at 24 weeks. A positive CID status was defined as either: a deterioration in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) of ≥100 mL from baseline; or a ≥4-unit increase from baseline in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score; or the incidence of a moderate/severe exacerbation. Patients from all treatment arms were included. Utility change was based on the EQ-5D utility index. Costs were based on healthcare resource utilization from 24 weeks to end of follow-up combined with unit costs for the UK (2016 GBP), and reported as per patient per year (PPPY). Adjusted estimates were generated controlling for baseline characteristics, treatment assignment, and number of CID criteria met. Results: Overall, 3,769 patients completed the study and were included in the analysis (stable CID- patients, n=1,832; unstable CID+ patients, n=1,937). At the end of follow-up, CID- patients had higher mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) utility scores than CID+ patients (0.752 [0.738, 0.765] vs 0.697 [0.685, 0.71]; difference +0.054; P<0.001), and lower costs PPPY (£538 vs £916; difference: £378 [95% CI: £244, £521]; P<0.001). The cost differential was primarily driven by the difference in general hospital ward days (P=0.003). Conclusion: This study demonstrated that achieving early stability in COPD by preventing short-term CID is associated with better preservation of future QoL alongside reduced healthcare service costs.

Clinical and economic outcomes associated with the use of fluticasone propionate 250 mcg and salmeterol 50 mcg combination versus tiotropium bromide 18 mcg as initial maintenance treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in managed care.

AIMS: To examine the clinical and economic outcomes associated with the use of long-acting bronchodilators for initial maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) by analyzing health insurance claims data in the US. METHODS: A retrospective, observational, matched cohort study used health insurance claims data (January 2008 to June 2013) to assess COPD-related outcomes for subjects aged ≥40 years. Subjects were assigned to a study cohort according to the first observed prescription fill for a long-acting bronchodilator (fluticasone propionate 250 mcg/salmeterol 50 mcg [FSC] or tiotropium bromide 18 mcg [TIO]). The analysis period for each subject comprised a 1-year pre-index date and 1-year post-index date. Primary outcome measure was total COPD-related costs per-patient per-year (PPPY) during the follow-up period. Secondary outcome measures included COPD-related exacerbations and the components of COPD-related costs. RESULTS: Overall, 24,040 subjects were identified; the analysis sample consisted of 19,090 subjects (9,545 per cohort) with no significant differences between cohorts. Mean COPD-related total costs PPPY were numerically lower among the FSC cohort; however, the difference was not statistically significant ($2,224 [±4,108] vs $2,352 [±3,721], p = .057). There was no difference between cohorts for COPD-related medical costs (p = .894). COPD-related pharmacy costs were significantly, yet modestly, lower in the FSC cohort compared with the TIO cohort ($1,160 [±1,106] vs 1,275 [±1,110], p < .001). There were no statistically significant differences in the rate or number of exacerbations between the matched cohorts. LIMITATIONS: While propensity scoring achieved balance in baseline characteristics, some residual confounding unobserved in the database may be present. CONCLUSIONS: Few clinical and economic differences between subjects initiating maintenance therapy with FSC or TIO were observed.

Access to affordable medicines and diagnostic tests for asthma and COPD in sub Saharan Africa: the Ugandan perspective.

BACKGROUND: Equitable access to affordable medicines and diagnostic tests is an integral component of optimal clinical care of patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In Uganda, we lack contemporary data about the availability, cost and affordability of medicines and diagnostic tests essential in asthma and COPD management. METHODS: Data on the availability, cost and affordability of 17 medicines and 2 diagnostic tests essential in asthma and COPD management were collected from 22 public hospitals, 23 private and 85 private pharmacies. The percentage of the available medicines and diagnostic tests, the median retail price of the lowest priced generic brand and affordability in terms of the number of days' wages it would cost the least paid public servant were analysed. RESULTS: The availability of inhaled short acting beta agonists (SABA), oral leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA), inhaled LABA-ICS combinations and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in all the study sites was 75%, 60.8%, 46.9% and 45.4% respectively. None of the study sites had inhaled long acting anti muscarinic agents (LAMA) and inhaled long acting beta agonist (LABA)-LAMA combinations. Spirometry and peak flow-metry as diagnostic tests were available in 24.4% and 6.7% of the study sites respectively. Affordability ranged from 2.2 days' wages for inhaled salbutamol to 17.1 days' wages for formoterol/budesonide inhalers and 27.8 days' wages for spirometry. CONCLUSION: Medicines and diagnostic tests essential in asthma and COPD care are not widely available in Uganda and remain largely unaffordable. Strategies to improve access to affordable asthma and COPD medicines and diagnostic tests should be implemented in Uganda.

Initiating or changing to a fixed-dose combination of Fluticasone propionate/Formoterol over Fluticasone propionate/Salmeterol: A real-life effectiveness and cost impact evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: Asthma has a substantial impact on quality of life and health care resources. The identification of a more cost-effective, yet equally efficacious, treatment could positively influence the economic burden of this disease. Fluticasone propionate/Formoterol (FP/FOR) may be as effective as Fluticasone Salmeterol (FP/SAL). We evaluated non-inferiority of asthma control in terms of the proportion of patients free from exacerbations, and conducted a cost impact analysis. METHODS: This historical, matched cohort database study evaluated two treatment groups in the Optimum Patient Care Research Database in the UK: 1) an FP/FOR cohort of patients initiating treatment with FP/FOR or changing from FP/SAL to FP/FOR and; 2) an FP/SAL cohort comprising patients initiating, or remaining on FP/SAL pMDI combination therapy. The main outcome evaluated non-inferiority of effectiveness (defined as prevention of severe exacerbations, lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the mean difference between groups in patient proportions with no exacerbations is -3.5% or higher) in patients treated with FP/FOR versus FP/SAL. RESULTS: After matching 1:3, we studied a total of 2472 patients: 618 in the FP/FOR cohort (174 patients initiated on FP/FOR and 444 patients changed to FP/FOR) and 1854 in the FP/SAL cohort (522 patients initiated FP/SAL and 1332 continued FP/SAL). The percentage of patients prescribed FP/FOR met non-inferiority as the adjusted mean difference in proportion of no severe exacerbations (95%CI) was 0.008 (-0.032, 0.047) between the two cohorts. No other significant differences were observed except acute respiratory event rates, which were lower for patients prescribed FP/FOR (rate ratio [RR] 0.82, 95% CI 0.71, 0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Changing to, or initiating FP/FOR combination therapy, is associated with a non-inferior proportion of patients who are severe exacerbation-free at a lower average annual cost compared with continuing or initiating treatment with FP/SAL.

Apreciación crítica del estudio "Cost-effectiveness analysis of glycopyrronium versus tiotropium and fixed-dose combinations (formoterol/budesonide and salmeterol/fluticasone) for copd in the colombian health care system" / Critical appraisal of the study "Cost-effectiveness analysis of glycopyrronium versus tiotropium and fixed-dose combinations (formoterol/budesonide and salmeterol/fluticasone) for COPD in the Colombian health care system"

INTRODUCCIÓN: El Instituto de Evaluación Tecnológica en Salud ­ IETS mediante el contrato interadministrativo No. 243 de 2016 suscrito con el Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social (MinSalud) acordó realizar una apreciación crítica de las evaluaciones de tecnologías enviadas por terceros y que fueran priorizadas por dicho Ministerio. Entre las tecnologías priorizadas se encuentra el glicopirronio (Seebri®) para pacientes con Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica (EPOC), medicamento nominado por Novartis de Colombia S.A. En este documento se presenta los resultados de la apreciación crítica de la evaluación económica "Cost-effectiveness analysis of glycopyrronium versus tiotropium and fixed-dose combinations (formoterol/budesonide and salmeterol/fluticasone) for COPD in the Colombian health care system" y los resultados de los nuevos análisis realizados por el IETS. Para adelantar esta apreciación crítica, se contrastó la metodología propuesta en el estudio nominado por la industria con las recomendaciones del manual metodológico para la elaboración de evaluaciones económicas del IETS. En los casos en los cuales se identificaran diferencias, el IETS realizó el respectivo ajuste y calculó nuevamente la efectividad y costos de las tecnologías incluidas en la evaluación, empleando la plantilla de Excel con el modelo remitido por Novartis de Colombia S.A. como base para realizar los cálculos. HORIZONTE TEMPORAL: Aunque el horizonte temporal de 5 años con ciclos trimestrales parece adecuado, se deben mencionar algunos detalles. En primer lugar, en varios apartes de los informes se menciona que la medición de las exacerbaciones del EPOC se debe realizar a las 52 semanas de iniciado el tratamiento según expertos clínicos y la práctica clínica del American Thoracic Society. Esto genera un conflicto con los ciclos de 3 meses, ya que parecerían muy cortos para tener en cuenta la temporalidad de este desenlace. Adicionalmente, en el modelo de Excel se puede apreciar que los resultados presentados en el informe, corresponden a un horizonte temporal de 10 años y no de 5, lo que genera una incongruencia entre lo mencionado en el informe y lo plasmado en el modelo. PERSPECTIVA: A pesar de que en el informe se menciona la perspectiva del sistema de salud colombiano, en el archivo de Excel se indica una perspectiva social de Suecia. Aunque es posible que esto no afecte los resultados y que sea una cuestión de etiquetas del archivo de Excel, es recomendable modificarlo para tener mayor consistencia entre los documentos enviados. CÁLCULO E INTERPRETACIÓN DE RESULTADOS: Respecto a los resultados el informe indica que para la comparación entre glicopirronio y salmeterol/fluticasona no se puede extraer una conclusión sobre su costo-efectividad debido a que tienen una efectividad y costos muy similares, sin adicionar ninguna explicación adicional. Aunque no poder concluir sobre la costo-efectividad de una alternativa puede ser factible metodológicamente, es necesario realizar una justificación exhaustiva al respecto, especialmente sobre las limitaciones de información. Por otro lado, en la situación presentada, también puede ser factible calcular la RICE, a pesar de que las alternativas tengan similares costos y AVAC. Esto puede justificarse con el argumento de que se debe verificar si ese pequeño aumento en los costos justifica el pequeño aumento en la efectividad. Si se decantara por esta opción, se deberían ordenar las alternativas no dominadas (en este caso glicopirronio y salmeterol/fluticasona) de menor a mayor costo y calcular la RICE para la alternativa más costosa. En la tabla 6 se presentan estos cálculos, en donde se puede observar una RICE de $9.157.617 a favor de salmeterol/fluticasona. Asumiendo un umbral entre 1 y 3 veces el PIB per cápita del país, esto implicaría que la tecnología costo-efectiva sería salmeterol/fluticasona. CONCLUSIONES: Los resultados de esta apreciación crítica permiten concluir que existen limitaciones importantes en el desarrollo metodológico de esta evaluación económica y la confianza en sus conclusiones. Se resalta la falta de inclusión de alternativas potencialmente relevantes (sin justificar su exclusión), la falta de claridad sobre las fuentes y método de cálculo de las ponderaciones de utilidad, probabilidades de transición y costos, la falta de congruencia de la evaluación económica con los resultados del reporte de efectividad y seguridad y la decisión de no concluir sobre la comparación entre glicopirronio y salmeterol/fluticasona. En varios de los análisis realizados en esta apreciación crítica y en la actualización de precios de las alternativas se encuentra que glicopirronio no es una alternativa costoefectiva comparada con salmeterol/fluticasona y formoterol/budesonida. Por esto, no se recomienda que las conclusiones de este estudio sean utilizadas para la toma de decisiones de MinSalud. En su lugar, se recomienda realizar una evaluación económica de novo en donde se incluyan todos los comparadores relevantes y se superen las limitaciones encontradas en este reporte, para poder determinar si glicopirronio es una alternativa costo-efectiva para el país.

Comparative analysis of budesonide/formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol combinations in COPD patients: findings from a real-world analysis in an Italian setting.

AIM: The objective of this study was to evaluate the different outcomes associated with the use of budesonide/formoterol compared to fluticasone/salmeterol in fixed combinations in patients with COPD in a "real-world" setting. The outcomes included exacerbation rates and health care costs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An observational retrospective cohort analysis, based on administrative databases of three local health units, was conducted. Patients with at least one prescription of fixed-dose combination of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting ß2-agonists (budesonide/formoterol or fluticasone/salmeterol), at dosages and formulations approved for COPD in Italy, between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2011 (inclusion period), were included. Patients were followed until December 2012, death or end of treatment (follow-up period), whichever occurred first. Patients were included if they were aged ≥40 years and had at least 6 months of follow-up. Propensity score matching was performed to check for confounding effects. Number of hospitalizations for COPD and number of oral corticosteroid and antibiotic prescriptions during follow-up were analyzed using Poisson regression models. The cost analysis was conducted from the perspective of the National Health System. RESULTS: After matching, 4,680 patients were analyzed, of which 50% were males with a mean age of 64±13 years. In the Poisson regression models, the incidence rate ratio for budesonide/formoterol as compared to fluticasone/salmeterol was 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74-0.96, P=0.010) for number of hospitalizations, 0.89 (95% CI: 0.87-0.92, P<0.001) for number of oral corticosteroid prescriptions and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.86-0.89, P<0.001) for number of antibiotic prescriptions. The mean annual expenditure for COPD management was €2,436 for patients treated with budesonide/formoterol and €2,784 for patients treated with fluticasone/salmeterol. CONCLUSION: Among patients with COPD, treatment with a fixed combination of budesonide/formoterol was associated with fewer exacerbations and a lower, but not significant, cost of illness than the treatment with fluticasone/salmeterol. Real-world analyses are requested to ameliorate interventions to address unmet needs, optimizing treatment pathways to improve COPD-related burden and outcomes.

Evaluation of a Therapeutic Interchange from Fluticasone/Salmeterol to Mometasone/Formoterol in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

BACKGROUND: Combination treatment with an inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta2-agonist is among the many treatment options for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that has been shown to improve clinical outcomes. While mometasone/formoterol does not currently have an FDA-approved indication for COPD, evidence from 2 phase 3 trials demonstrated that mometasone/formoterol can improve lung function and was well tolerated in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. Based on these data, a therapeutic interchange was implemented in the Kaiser Permanente Mid-Atlantic States region to convert patients with a COPD diagnosis from fluticasone/salmeterol to mometasone/formoterol. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a therapeutic interchange from fluticasone/salmeterol to mometasone/formoterol on health outcomes in patients with COPD in a large ambulatory and managed care setting. METHODS: The investigators retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records of patients with a COPD diagnosis who had a prescription for fluticasone/salmeterol converted to mometasone/formoterol between March 6, 2011, to March 6, 2013. Kaiser Permanente's Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee provided recommended equivalent doses for conversion from fluticasone/salmeterol to mometasone/formoterol. Nonetheless, the final approval for the change in medication and selection of the dose was left to each physician's clinical judgment. Patients were excluded if they were (a) prescribed fluticasone/salmeterol 100/50 mcg, which has no equivalent mometasone/formoterol dose; (b) less than aged 18 years; or (c) prescribed fluticasone/salmeterol for a duration of less than 6 months preconversion to mometasone/formoterol. In addition, patients who left the Kaiser Permanente network or became deceased during the study period of interest were excluded. After the application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 521 patients were included in the data analysis. The primary endpoint was the determination of the difference in the occurrence of COPD exacerbations 6 months pre- and postconversion from fluticasone/salmeterol to mometasone/formoterol. COPD exacerbations were defined by the diagnosis or documentation of a COPD exacerbation during any hospitalizations, urgent care (UC)/emergency department (ED) visits, or clinic encounters. Secondary outcomes included the determination of the difference in the occurrence of intensive care unit admissions, hospitalizations, UC/ED visits, and clinic encounters for COPD exacerbations 6 months pre- and postconversion; number of patients who required modification in therapy; and any reasons for mometasone/for-moterol discontinuation postconversion. Patients served as their own controls to compare any differences in outcomes while taking mometasone/formoterol versus fluticasone/salmeterol. RESULTS: Within our patient population, 34.2% (n = 178) of patients experienced at least 1 COPD exacerbation while prescribed fluticasone/salmeterol compared with 28.6% (n = 149) of patients while prescribed mometasone/formoterol (P = 0.030). Mometasone/formoterol therapy did not demonstrate any statistically significant differences in the secondary outcomes (P < 0.050). A later subgroup analysis of the primary outcome revealed that factors associated with a statistically significant decrease in the occurrence of COPD exacerbations were male sex (P = 0.023), comorbid asthma (P = 0.026), and conversion from fluticasone/salmeterol to a more potent dose of mometasone/formoterol (P = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: There was a statistically significant decrease in the proportion of patients who experienced COPD exacerbations postconversion from fluticasone/salmeterol to mometasone/formoterol. This study is an example of a real-world therapeutic interchange that provides additional data to support the use of mometasone/formoterol for its unlabeled COPD indication. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors report no financial or other conflicts of interest related to the subject of this article. All authors contributed to study design and manuscript revision. Yip collected and analyzed data and prepared the manuscript.

Economic evaluations of fluticasone-propionate/salmeterol combination therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a review of published studies.

This review identifies and evaluates the comprehensive reporting of peer-reviewed economic evaluations of the effectiveness of fluticasone-propionate/salmeterol combination (FSC) therapy for maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Economic evaluations were included if published in English since 2003. Evaluation categories included in the review were cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and cost-consequence analyses. FSC is cost-effective in comparison to short-acting bronchodilators (SABDs). Cost and outcome differences between FSC and other long-acting therapies were modest. Studies exhibited large variations in populations, designs and environment, limiting the ability to draw conclusions. Many new maintenance treatments for COPD have been approved since 2010. Most have yet to be compared to older treatments like FSC. Evaluations are needed that consider costs and outcomes from a societal perspective (e.g., patients' ability to keep working) and evaluations that include subgroup analyses to investigate differential impacts according to clusters of patient characteristics.

Comparative effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol combination and tiotropium bromide among COPD patients new to these controller treatments.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist combinations and/or long-acting muscarinic antagonists are recommended first-line therapies for preventing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation. Comparative effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol combination (BFC, an inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist combination) vs tiotropium (long-acting muscarinic antagonist) in the US has not yet been studied. METHODS: Using US claims data from the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment, COPD patients (with or without comorbid asthma) ≥40 years old initiating BFC or tiotropium between March 1, 2009 and February 28, 2012 and at risk for exacerbation were identified and followed for 12 months. Patients were propensity score matched on demographics and COPD disease severity indicators. The primary outcome was time to first COPD exacerbation. Secondary outcomes included COPD exacerbation rate, health care resource utilization, and costs. RESULTS: The Cox proportional hazards model for time to first exacerbation yielded a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.78 (95% CI =[0.70, 0.87], P<0.001), indicating a 22% reduction in risk of COPD exacerbation associated with initiation of BFC versus tiotropium. A post hoc sensitivity analysis found similar effects in those who had a prior asthma diagnosis (HR =0.72 [0.61, 0.86]) and those who did not (HR =0.83 [0.72, 0.96]). BFC initiation was associated with lower COPD-related health care resource utilization and costs ($4,084 per patient-year compared with $5,656 for tiotropium patients, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: In COPD patients new to controller therapies, initiating treatment with BFC was associated with improvements in health and economic outcomes compared with tiotropium.

Role of the fixed combination of fluticasone and salmeterol in adult Chinese patients with asthma and COPD.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma are common airway disorders characterized by chronic airway inflammation and airflow obstruction, and are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the People's Republic of China. These two diseases pose a high economic burden on the family and the whole of society. Despite evidence-based Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease and Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines being available for the diagnosis and management of COPD and asthma, many of these patients are not properly diagnosed or managed in the People's Republic of China. The value of combination therapy with inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting ß2-agonists has been established in the management of asthma and COPD globally. Combinations of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting ß2-agonists such as fluticasone and salmeterol, have been shown to be effective for improving symptoms, health status, and reducing exacerbations in both diseases. In this review, we discuss the efficacy and safety of this combination therapy from key studies, particularly in the People's Republic of China.