Adequacy of Therapy for People with Both COPD and Heart Failure in the UK: Historical Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and heart failure (HF) often occur concomitantly, presenting diagnostic and therapeutic challenges for clinicians. We examined the characteristics of patients prescribed adequate versus inadequate therapy within 3 months after newly diagnosed comorbid COPD or HF. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients in longitudinal UK electronic medical record databases had pre-existing HF and newly diagnosed COPD (2017 GOLD groups B/C/D) or pre-existing COPD and newly diagnosed HF. Adequate COPD therapy was defined as long-acting bronchodilator(s) with/without inhaled corticosteroid; adequate HF therapy was defined as beta-blocker plus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and/or angiotensin receptor blocker. RESULTS: Of 2439 patients with HF and newly diagnosed COPD (mean 75 years, 61% men), adequate COPD therapy was prescribed for 726 (30%) and inadequate for 1031 (42%); 682 (28%) remained untreated for COPD. Adequate (vs inadequate) COPD therapy was less likely for women (35%) than men (45%), smokers (36%) than ex-/non-smokers (45%), and non-obese (41%) than obese (47%); spirometry was recorded for 57% prescribed adequate versus 35% inadequate COPD therapy. Of 12,587 patients with COPD and newly diagnosed HF (mean 75 years, 60% men), adequate HF therapy was prescribed for 2251 (18%) and inadequate for 5332 (42%); 5004 (40%) remained untreated for HF. Adequate (vs inadequate) HF therapy was less likely for smokers (27%) than ex-/non-smokers (32%) and non-obese (30%) than obese (35%); spirometry was recorded for 65% prescribed adequate versus 39% inadequate HF therapy. CONCLUSION: Many patients with comorbid COPD/HF receive inadequate therapy after new diagnosis. Improved equity of access to integrated care is needed for all patient subgroups.

Real-life effectiveness of inhaler device switch from dry powder inhalers to pressurized metred-dose inhalers in patients with asthma treated with ICS/LABA.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Mixed inhaler device use for asthma is associated with worse inhaler technique and outcomes. Given that relievers are commonly prescribed as pressurized metred-dose inhalers (pMDI), changing preventers from dry powder inhalers (DPI) to pMDI may improve asthma outcomes. This study aimed to assess the persistence and effectiveness of switching from DPI to pMDI for inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting ß2 -agonist combination therapy (ICS/LABA). METHODS: This was a historical cohort study using Ajou University Hospital (Korea) patient records. Persistence of switch was defined as receiving ≥1 pMDI and no DPI after the switch. Effectiveness of switch was assessed as the proportion without severe asthma exacerbation and the proportion achieving risk domain asthma control (RDAC; no asthma-related hospitalization, antibiotics without upper respiratory diagnosis or acute course of oral corticosteroids) and overall asthma control (OAC; RDAC and ≤ 200 µg salbutamol/≤500 µg terbutaline average daily dose) comparing 1 year after and before the switch. RESULTS: Within 85 patients who switched from DPI to pMDI and persisted for a year, higher proportion were free from asthma exacerbation after the switch (mean difference in proportion = 0.129, 95% CI: 0.038-0.220). Switching to pMDI was also associated with better RDAC (75.3% vs 57.7%, P = 0.001) and OAC (57.7% vs 45.9%, P = 0.021). From the entire 117 patients who switched to fixed-dose combination (FDC)/ICS LABA pMDI, 76.1% (95% CI: 69.0-100.0%) patients persisted in the following 6 months. CONCLUSION: Switching to and persisting with pMDI was associated with decreased asthma exacerbations and improved asthma control. The majority of patients persisted with the switch to pMDI for ICS/LABA treatment.

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.

Real-life effectiveness and safety of the inhalation suspension budesonide comparator vs the originator product for the treatment of patients with asthma: a historical cohort study using a US health claims database.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether the effectiveness of budesonide comparator is non-inferior to budesonide reference in the prevention of asthma exacerbations. Asthma-related hospitalizations and safety were also examined. METHODS: This study used a matched, historic cohort design. Data were drawn from the Clinformatics™ Data Mart US claims database and included a 1-year baseline, starting 1 year before the index prescription date, and a 1-year outcome period. Patients received budesonide comparator or reference treatment. The primary outcome was the rate of asthma exacerbations. Non-inferiority for budesonide comparator vs budesonide reference was established if the 95% confidence interval (CI) upper limit of mean difference in proportions between treatments was <15%. Secondary outcomes examined rate of asthma-related hospitalizations and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: The budesonide comparator and reference-matched cohorts each included 3109 patients. The adjusted upper 95% CI for the difference in proportions of patients experiencing asthma exacerbations was 0.035 (3.5%), demonstrating non-inferiority. Cohorts did not significantly differ in the rate of asthma exacerbations (adjusted rate ratio [RR]=1.04, 95% CI: 0.95-1.14) or rate of asthma-related hospitalizations (adjusted RR=1.10, 95% CI: 0.99-1.24) after adjusting for baseline confounders. No asthma exacerbations occurred during the outcome period in 72.9% of budesonide comparator patients and 71.8% of budesonide reference patients. No asthma-related hospitalizations occurred in 77.9% of patients in the budesonide comparator cohort and 79.0% of patients in the budesonide reference cohort. The most frequent AEs were throat irritation (≤0.4% of patients) and hoarseness/dysphonia (0.02% of patients). AEs did not significantly differ between treatment cohorts. CONCLUSION: In this real-life study, non-inferiority of the budesonide comparator vs reference was met for the primary end point of asthma exacerbation rates. Asthma-related hospitalization and AE rates did not differ between the two treatment cohorts. The budesonide comparator is an effective and safe treatment alternative for asthma exacerbations.

The use of multiple respiratory inhalers requiring different inhalation techniques has an adverse effect on COPD outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Patients with COPD may be prescribed multiple inhalers as part of their treatment regimen, which require different inhalation techniques. Previous literature has shown that the effectiveness of inhaled treatment can be adversely affected by incorrect inhaler technique. Prescribing a range of device types could worsen this problem, leading to poorer outcomes in COPD patients, but the impact is not yet known. AIMS: To compare clinical outcomes of COPD patients who use devices requiring similar inhalation technique with those who use devices with mixed techniques. METHODS: A matched cohort design was used, with 2 years of data from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database. Matching variables were established from a baseline year of follow-up data, and two cohorts were formed: a "similar-devices cohort" and a "mixed-devices cohort". COPD-related events were recorded during an outcome year of follow-up. The primary outcome measure was an incidence rate ratio (IRR) comparing the rate of exacerbations between study cohorts. A secondary outcome compared average daily use of short-acting beta agonist (SABA). RESULTS: The final study sample contained 8,225 patients in each cohort (mean age 67 [SD, 10], 57% males, 37% current smokers). Patients in the similar-devices cohort had a lower rate of exacerbations compared with those in the mixed-devices cohort (adjusted IRR 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-0.84) and were less likely to be in a higher-dose SABA group (adjusted proportional odds ratio 0.54, 95% CI 0.51-0.57). CONCLUSION: COPD patients who were prescribed one or more additional inhaler devices requiring similar inhalation techniques to their previous device(s) showed better outcomes than those who were prescribed devices requiring different techniques.