Australian National Standards of Care for Childhood-onset Heart Disease (CoHD Standards). 1st Edition.

These first Australian National Standards of Care for Childhood-onset Heart Disease (CoHD Standards) have been developed to inform the healthcare requirements for CoHD services and enable all Australian patients, families and carers impacted by CoHD (paediatric CoHD and adult congenital heart disease [ACHD]) to live their best and healthiest lives. The CoHD Standards are designed to provide the clarity and certainty required for healthcare services to deliver excellent, comprehensive, inclusive, and equitable CoHD care across Australia for patients, families and carers, and offer an iterative roadmap to the future of these services. The CoHD Standards provide a framework for excellent CoHD care, encompassing key requirements and expectations for whole-of-life, holistic and connected healthcare service delivery. The CoHD Standards should be implemented in health services in conjunction with the National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards developed by the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. All healthcare services should comply with the CoHD Standards, as well as working to their organisation's or jurisdiction's agreed clinical governance framework, to guide the implementation of structures and processes that support safe care.

Comparison of COPD health care utilization and associated costs across patients treated with LAMA+LABA fixed-dose therapies.

BACKGROUND: There is limited clinical trial and/or real-world evidence comparing differences among currently approved fixed-dose combination (FDC) long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) treatments. OBJECTIVE: To compare chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)-related and all-cause health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs between COPD patients initiating tiotropium (TIO) + olodaterol (OLO) versus (a) other LAMA + LABA FDCs and (b) umeclidinium (UMEC) + vilanterol (VI), specifically. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, patients initiating fixed-dose LAMA + LABA therapy (earliest fill date = index date) between January 1, 2014, and September 30, 2018, were identified using administrative claims data from the Optum Research Database. Patients were followed post-index for 1-12 months. Follow-up was censored at the earliest occurrence of index therapy discontinuation or switch, health plan disenrollment, study end date, or reaching the maximum 12-month allowed duration. Propensity score matching of 1:2 was used to balance differences in baseline characteristics between cohorts for each of the 2 comparisons. Annualized population averages of HCRU and costs were calculated for each cohort as [sum of visits (or costs) for all individuals during the follow-up period] ÷ [sum of follow-up on-treatment time for all individuals] × 365 days. RESULTS: After matching, compared with patients who initiated other LAMA + LABAs or UMEC + VI, patients who initiated TIO + OLO had 14.29% and 16.95% fewer mean annualized per-patient COPD-related emergency department (ED) visits (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: 0.49 vs. 0.59, P = 0.005; vs. UMEC + VI: 0.48 vs. 0.56, P = 0.026) and 3.07% and 3.14% fewer mean annualized per-patient pharmacy fills (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: 12.66 vs. 13.07, P = 0.016; vs. UMEC + VI: 12.62 vs. 13.02, P = 0.022), leading to 17.39% and 21.47% lower mean annualized per-patient COPD-related ED costs (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: $289 vs. $368, P = 0.003; vs. UMEC + VI: $285 vs. $345, P = 0.027) and 4.56% and 5.67% lower mean annualized per-patient pharmacy spending (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: $3,570 vs. $3,741, P < 0.001; vs. UMEC + VI: $3,556 vs. $3,770, P < 0.001) in the follow-up period. Similarly, patients in the TIO + OLO cohort had 15.63% and 21.17% fewer mean annualized per-patient all-cause ED visits (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: 1.08 vs. 1.37, P < 0.001; vs. UMEC + VI: 1.08 vs. 1.28, P = 0.001), 8.29% fewer mean annualized per-patient outpatient visits (vs. UMEC + VI: 13.28 vs. 14.48, P = 0.031), 3.41% fewer mean annualized per-patient pharmacy fills (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: 56.92 vs. 58.93, P = 0.028), 19.48% and 22.28% lower mean annualized per-patient all-cause ED costs (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: $755 vs. $971, P < 0.001; vs. UMEC + VI: $749 vs. $930, P < 0.001), and 10.86% lower mean annualized per-patient outpatient setting costs (vs. UMEC + VI: $3,348 vs. $3,756, P = 0.050). There were no statistically significant differences for the other outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world setting, differences in HCRU and costs were observed between FDC LAMA + LABAs, with patients initiating TIO + OLO having lower ED visits/costs, COPD-related pharmacy fills/costs, and all-cause pharmacy use and outpatient visits/costs than those initiating other FDC LAMA + LABAs or UMEC + VI specifically. The remaining HCRU and cost measures were not significantly different. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (BIPI; Ridgefield, CT). BIPI was given the opportunity to review the manuscript for medical and scientific accuracy, as well as intellectual property considerations. Palli is an employee of BIPI. Xie, Chastek, Elliott, and Bengtson 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. Part of the results of this study were accepted and presented at the 30th European Respiratory Society (ERS) International Congress (September 7-9, 2020; virtual).

Healthcare Resource Utilization, Exacerbations, and Readmissions Among Medicare Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease After Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist Therapy Initiation with Soft Mist versus Dry Powder Inhalers.

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is often managed with inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), yet real-world data on healthcare resource utilization (HRU) by inhaler type are lacking. This study compared HRU after LAMA initiation with a soft mist inhaler (SMI) versus a dry powder inhaler (DPI). Patients and Methods: Inclusion criteria were COPD diagnosis, age ≥40 years, LAMA initiation (index date = first LAMA SMI or DPI claim 9/1/14-6/30/18), and Medicare Advantage enrollment 1 year pre-index (baseline) to ≥30 days post-index (follow-up). Patients were followed to the earliest of discontinuation, switch, disenrollment, 1 year, or study end (7/31/18). Exclusion criteria were asthma, cystic fibrosis, or lung cancer diagnoses, unavailable demographics, multiple index LAMAs, or baseline LAMA use. Cohorts (SMI or DPI) were balanced on baseline characteristics using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Outcomes included per patient per month (PPPM) COPD-related HRU encounters, and exacerbations (defined as moderate [ambulatory visit with corticosteroid or antibiotic within ±7 days] or severe [emergency visit or inpatient admission]); and 30-day readmissions following COPD-related hospitalizations. Results: After weighting, cohorts (SMI [n=5360] and DPI [n=22,880]) were similar in age (72 and 73 years, respectively), gender (both 52% female), and COPD severity score (31.3 and 31.5, respectively). Cohorts had similar counts of follow-up HRU encounters. However, the SMI cohort had fewer (mean ± standard deviation) COPD-related exacerbations (0.054±0.082 vs DPI cohort 0.059±0.088 PPPM, p<0.001) overall. Moreover, the SMI cohort had fewer severe exacerbations (0.030±0.058 vs DPI: 0.034±0.065 PPPM, p<0.001). Hospitalizations among SMI patients had a lower adjusted odds of readmission versus hospitalizations among DPI patients (odds ratio: 0.656, 95% confidence interval= 0.460, 0.937; p=0.020). Conclusion: SMI initiators had significantly fewer COPD-related exacerbations than DPI initiators. In addition, lower odds of readmissions were observed following COPD-related hospitalizations among the SMI cohort, as compared with the DPI cohort.

Symptom Burden and GOLD Classification in Medicare Advantage Patients with COPD Initiating Umeclidinium/Vilanterol or Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol Therapy.

Background: Long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) provide greater improvements in lung function and symptoms than inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study evaluated symptom burden and Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) categorization among patients who recently initiated umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI; LAMA/LABA) or fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL; ICS/LABA) single-inhaler dual therapy. Methods: COPD-diagnosed Medicare Advantage enrollees aged ≥65 years were identified from the Optum Research Database (ORD). Eligible patients had ≥1 pharmacy claim for UMEC/VI or FP/SAL in the 6-month period before sample identification, with no evidence of triple therapy (ICS/LAMA/LABA), asthma, or lung cancer. Symptom burden was assessed via cross-sectional surveys using the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea scale. Patients were classified into GOLD categories using patient-reported symptoms and claims-based exacerbation history. Treatment groups were balanced on potential confounders using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). CAT and mMRC scores were analyzed with generalized linear regression models using IPTW propensity scores. Results: The final analytic sample included 789 respondents (UMEC/VI: N=392; FP/SAL: N=397). Approximately 66% patients were classified as GOLD B when assessing symptoms with CAT and mMRC together, or CAT alone; more patients were classified as GOLD A (~40%) than GOLD B (~36%) using mMRC alone. Proportions of patients in each GOLD group were similar between treatment cohorts. Post-IPTW multivariable modeling showed similar symptom burden between treatment groups. Conclusion: After controlling for baseline characteristics, symptom burden was similar between patients receiving UMEC/VI or FP/SAL. GOLD classification using mMRC produced more conservative results compared with CAT, potentially underestimating patient symptoms. Many patients receiving FP/SAL were classified as GOLD A or B, despite GOLD recommending non-ICS-containing therapy in these patients. These findings support the need for routine assessment of symptoms in patients with COPD.