Clinical Characteristics, Treatment Persistence, and Outcomes Among Patients With COPD Treated With Single- or Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy: A Retrospective Analysis in Spain.

BACKGROUND: COPD is a leading cause of death and disability. COPD therapy goals include reducing exacerbations and improving symptom control. Single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) or multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) is indicated for patients with frequent exacerbations despite bronchodilator therapy. No available evidence compares SITT vs MITT in Spain in terms of treatment persistence, exacerbations, and other outcomes. RESEARCH QUESTION: Do COPD patients in Spain initiating SITT vs MITT have improved persistence, exacerbations, and health care resource utilization? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This real-world, observational, retrospective cohort study analyzed electronic health records in the Spanish National Healthcare System BIG-PAC database to identify COPD patients aged ≥ 40 years initiating SITT or MITT (using two or three inhalers) between June 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019. Comparative data on persistence (allowing up to 60 days without prescription refill), exacerbation rates, and health care resource utilization and costs during 12-month follow-up were analyzed. Multivariate adjusted analyses were performed. RESULTS: Eligible patients (N = 4,625) initiating SITT (n = 1,011) or MITT (n = 3,614) had a mean age of 70.9 years; most were male (73.9%) with mainly moderate (62.0%) or severe (26.5%) airflow limitation. Between-cohort baseline characteristics were similar. At 12-month follow-up, SITT patients had higher persistence (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.37; 95% CI = 1.22-1.53; P < .001), reduced risk of exacerbations (HR = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.61-0.77; P = .001), and lower all-cause mortality risk (HR = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.63-0.71, P = .027), compared with MITT patients. SITT was associated with significantly reduced health care resource use (mean annual cost savings: €403 vs MITT). For both SITT and MITT, persistence was associated with improved exacerbation rates vs nonpersistence, and substantial adjusted mean annual cost savings (€2,115 and €2,700, respectively). INTERPRETATION: Patients initiating SITT had a clinically relevant improvement in persistence leading to reductions in mortality, incidence of exacerbations, and health care resource use with consequent mean cost savings.

Burden of Disease Among Exacerbating Patients with COPD Treated with Triple Therapy in Spain.

Background: The cost of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in Spain has been studied from different perspectives, but parameters such as the patient's phenotype have seldom been considered. Our aim was to describe the disease burden of COPD patients with frequent exacerbator phenotype, treated with triple therapy. Methods: An observational, multicenter study was carried out from December 2017 to November 2018 in pulmonology services among patients ≥40 years with COPD confirmed diagnosis receiving triple therapy (ICS/LAMA/LABA) and history of ≥2 moderate or ≥1 severe exacerbation in the 12 months prior to the inclusion visit. COPD-related healthcare resources were collected over a 12-months period prior to the inclusion visit: pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments, medical and ER visits, hospitalizations, tests and productivity loss. Costs were updated to €2019. Patients were classified according to blood eosinophil levels: <150 cells/µL and ≥150 cells/µL. Results: A total of 306 patients were included (77.1% men), with mean age of 69.9 years. Mean COPD exacerbation rate was 2.5/patient/year and 51.3% of patients had ≥150 cells/µL eosinophil level. On average, for the total population, COPD-related visits/patients/year were 6.2. Resource use in moderate exacerbation was higher in patients with eosinophils ≥150 cells/µL, whereas in severe exacerbation was higher in patients with eosinophils <150cells/µL. According to eosinophil levels, total annual mean (SD) costs/patient accounted for €8382 (9863) and €5144 (5444) for patients with eosinophils <150 cells/µL and ≥150 cells/µL, respectively. Conclusion: The impact of exacerbating COPD patients treated with triple therapy in Spain is large, especially among those with eosinophils <150 cells/µL.

A Delphi Consensus Document on the Use of Single-Inhaler Fixed-Dose Triple Therapies in COPD Patients.

Introduction: Despite the evidence provided by clinical trials, there are some uncertainties and controversies regarding the use of triple inhaled therapy. With the aim of evaluating clinical practice in specialized respiratory units, a Delphi consensus document was implemented on the use of single-inhaler fixed-dose triple therapies after 1 year of use in Spain. Methods: A scientific committee of COPD experts defined a thematic index, guided a systematic literature review and helped design the Delphi questionnaire. This was sent to the other 45 COPD experts between April and June 2019. Agreement/disagreement on 58 statements was tested in two rounds using a Likert scale. Replies were classified as a consensus when ≥80% of the panelists agreed; a majority when a degree of agreement of ≥66% was reached; and divergence if agreement was <66%. Results: After two rounds, 44.44% of the statements reached consensus, 14.81% reached majority and 40.74% were divergent. Panelists agreed that escalating from double bronchodilation should be phenotype-based and aim to prevent exacerbations but not for improving symptoms. The addition of an antimuscarinic to inhaled corticosteroids combinations achieves improvement in lung function, symptoms and exacerbation prevention. Main safety concerns included the increased risk of pneumonia as compared to bronchodilator therapies, with similar cardiovascular effects. There was no consensus agreement on patient type response based on blood eosinophil counts or obstruction severity. Conclusion: The low degree of consensus among panelists may reflect the complexity of severe COPD management. The information provided here may be useful to clinicians implementing personalized medicine for COPD patients.

The clinical implications of triple therapy in fixed-dose combination in COPD: from the trial to the patient.

The emergence of a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of a long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) in a single inhalation device has changed the approach to inhaled therapy. Although clinical trials describe the efficacy and safety of these FDCs, their use in daily clinical practice can present challenges for the clinician in two specific scenarios. In patients who are already receiving triple therapy via different devices, switching to FDCs could confer benefits by reducing critical errors in the management of inhalers, improving therapeutic adherence, and lowering costs, while maintaining the same clinical efficacy. In patients who are not receiving triple therapy in different devices and who require a change in treatment, triple therapy FDC has shown benefits in clinical trials. Although methodological differences among the trials advise against direct comparison, clinical results show good efficacy, but also considerable variability, and a number of clinical outcomes have yet to be explored. In the future, trials must be developed to complete clinical efficacy data. Real-world efficacy trials are needed, and studies must be designed to determine the profile of patients who present a greater therapeutic response to each FDC in order to pave the way towards more personalized treatment.

Medical Care According to Risk Level and Adaptation to Spanish COPD Guidelines (Gesepoc): The Epoconsul Study. / Atención médica según el nivel de riesgo y su adecuación a las recomendaciones de la guía española de la enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica (EPOC) (GesEPOC): Estudio EPOCONSUL.

INTRODUCTION: EPOCONSUL is the first national audit to analyze medical care for COPD in pulmonology departments in Spain. The main objective was to perform a retrospective analysis to determine the distribution of GesEPOC 2017 COPD risk levels and to evaluate clinical activity according to the new recommendations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a cross-sectional clinical audit in which consecutive COPD cases were recruited over one year. The study evaluated risk and clinical phenotype according to GesEPOC 2017, and their correlation with the clinical interventions employed. RESULTS: The most common risk category was high risk (79.8% versus 20.2%; p < 0.001), characterized by a higher level of severity on BODE and BODEx indexes, and a higher comorbidity burden. The most common phenotype was non-exacerbator. The most commonly used treatment in low-risk patients was bronchodilator monotherapy (34.8%) and triple therapy in high-risk patients (53.7%). High risk was most frequently characterized by phenotype (57.6% versus 52%; p = 0.014) and pulmonary function test results: lung volume (47.7% versus 35.8%; p < 0.001), lung diffusion (51.4% versus 42.1%; p < 0.001) and walk test (37.8% versus 15.8%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients treated in pulmonology departments were high-risk and non-exacerbator phenotype. Clinical interventions differed according to risk level and mainly followed GesEPOC recommendations, although there is significant room for improvement.

Comparative Efficacy of Once-Daily Umeclidinium/Vilanterol and Tiotropium/Olodaterol Therapy in Symptomatic Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Randomized Study.

INTRODUCTION: We report the results of the first direct comparison of the once-daily fixed-dose long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) combinations umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) and tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) in patients with COPD. METHODS: This was a randomized, two-period crossover open-label study in symptomatic patients with COPD [age 40 years or older, postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) of 70% or less and 50% or more of predicted normal values, and modified Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale score of 2 or greater] not receiving inhaled corticosteroid therapy. Patients were randomized to receive UMEC/VI (62.5/25 µg once daily) via a multidose dry powder inhaler (ELLIPTA) followed by TIO/OLO (5/5 µg once daily) via a soft mist inhaler (Respimat), each for 8 weeks with an interim 3-week washout or vice versa. The primary end point was the change from baseline in trough FEV1 at week 8 with a noninferiority margin of - 50 mL in the per-protocol (PP) population. The incidence of adverse events was also assessed. RESULTS: In total, 236 patients (mean age 64.4 years, 60% male) were included in the intent-to-treat population and 227 were included in the PP population. UMEC/VI treatment was noninferior in the PP population and superior in the intent-to-treat population to TIO/OLO treatment with regard to trough FEV1 at week 8 [FEV1 change from baseline 180 mL vs 128 mL; difference 52 mL (95% confidence interval 28-77 mL); p < 0.001]. Patients receiving UMEC/VI had twofold increased odds of experiencing a clinically meaningful increase (100 mL or more) from baseline in trough FEV1 at week 8 compared with patients receiving TIO/OLO (odds ratio 2.05; 95% confidence interval 1.34-3.14). Adverse events occurred in 25% of patients in the UMEC/VI group and in 31% of patients in the TIO/OLO group. CONCLUSION: In this first direct comparison of two once-daily fixed-dose LAMA/LABA combinations, superiority was observed for the primary end point of trough FEV1 at week 8 with UMEC/VI compared with TIO/OLO in patients with symptomatic COPD. Both treatments had similar safety profiles. These findings confirm the results of previous indirect LAMA/LABA comparisons, and show that an efficacy gradient exists within the LAMA/LABA class. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02799784. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

The concept of control of COPD in clinical practice.

Treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) requires a personalized approach according to the clinical characteristics of the patients, the level of severity, and the response to the different therapies. Furthermore, patients with the same level of severity measured by the degree of airflow obstruction or even with multidimensional indices may have very different symptoms and limitations for daily activities. The concept of control has been extensively developed in asthma but has not been defined in COPD. Here, we propose a definition of COPD control based on the concepts of impact and stability. Impact is a cross-sectional concept that can be measured by questionnaires such as the COPD Assessment Test or the Clinical COPD Questionnaire. Alternatively, impact can be assessed by the degree of dyspnea, the use of rescue medication, the level of physical activity, and sputum color. Stability is a longitudinal concept that requires the absence of exacerbations and deterioration in the aforementioned variables or in the COPD Assessment Test or Clinical COPD Questionnaire scores. Control is defined by low impact (adjusted for severity) and stability. The concept of control in COPD can be useful in the decision making regarding an increase or decrease in medication in the stable state.