Clinical and Economic Evaluation of Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Versus Tiotropium/Olodaterol Therapy in Maintenance Treatment-Naive Patients with COPD in the US.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Asif Shaikh, John Ritz, Julian Casciano, Swetha R Palli, Brendan Clark, Zenobia Dotiwala, Jennifer K Quint
{"title":"Clinical and Economic Evaluation of Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Versus Tiotropium/Olodaterol Therapy in Maintenance Treatment-Naive Patients with COPD in the US.","authors":"Asif Shaikh, John Ritz, Julian Casciano, Swetha R Palli, Brendan Clark, Zenobia Dotiwala, Jennifer K Quint","doi":"10.2147/COPD.S479504","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Long-acting bronchodilator (LABD) therapy is recommended for maintenance treatment in most patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, triple therapy (TT; dual LABDs + inhaled corticosteroid [ICS]) is often used as first-line maintenance treatment. The benefits of TT versus dual LABDs as first-line treatments are unknown, necessitating an evaluation of its effectiveness and costs versus non-ICS alternatives.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This retrospective study assessed administrative claims of maintenance treatment-naive patients in the United States with COPD aged ≥40 years initiating single-inhaler fluticasone furoate+umeclidinium+vilanterol (FF+UMEC+VI) or tiotropium+olodaterol (TIO+OLO). Patients were propensity score-matched (1:1) and followed for up to 12 months. The primary outcome was time to first COPD exacerbation. Secondary outcomes included time to first pneumonia diagnosis, pneumonia-related hospitalization, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and costs. COPD exacerbation and pneumonia risk were assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 5,121 and 3,996 patients met the eligibility criteria for the FF+UMEC+VI and TIO+OLO groups, respectively. Outcomes were assessed among 2,951 matched pairs. The risk of moderate or severe COPD exacerbation was not significantly different between FF+UMEC+VI and TIO+OLO groups (hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval {CI}]: 1.13 [0.99-1.29]; <i>P</i>=0.064). The risks of pneumonia (HR [95% CI]: 1.04 [0.85-1.27]; <i>P</i>=0.723) and pneumonia-related hospitalization (HR [95% CI]: 1.18 [0.78-1.79]; <i>P</i>=0.429) were also not significantly different between the groups. There were no significant differences in HCRU events or all-cause costs; however, FF+UMEC+VI initiators incurred greater COPD- and/or pneumonia-related pharmacy costs than TIO+OLO initiators (FF+UMEC+VI: $2,934 [$2,827-$3,041], TIO+OLO: $1,994 [$1,915-$2,073]; <i>P</i><0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In maintenance treatment-naive patients, FF+UMEC+VI offered no reduction in COPD exacerbation risk over TIO+OLO and resulted in higher pharmacy costs related to COPD and/or pneumonia treatment. These results support treatment recommendations for LAMA+LABA as initial maintenance therapy.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov identifier - NCT05169424.</p>","PeriodicalId":48818,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease","volume":"20 ","pages":"335-348"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11834697/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S479504","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Long-acting bronchodilator (LABD) therapy is recommended for maintenance treatment in most patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, triple therapy (TT; dual LABDs + inhaled corticosteroid [ICS]) is often used as first-line maintenance treatment. The benefits of TT versus dual LABDs as first-line treatments are unknown, necessitating an evaluation of its effectiveness and costs versus non-ICS alternatives.

Patients and methods: This retrospective study assessed administrative claims of maintenance treatment-naive patients in the United States with COPD aged ≥40 years initiating single-inhaler fluticasone furoate+umeclidinium+vilanterol (FF+UMEC+VI) or tiotropium+olodaterol (TIO+OLO). Patients were propensity score-matched (1:1) and followed for up to 12 months. The primary outcome was time to first COPD exacerbation. Secondary outcomes included time to first pneumonia diagnosis, pneumonia-related hospitalization, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and costs. COPD exacerbation and pneumonia risk were assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression.

Results: A total of 5,121 and 3,996 patients met the eligibility criteria for the FF+UMEC+VI and TIO+OLO groups, respectively. Outcomes were assessed among 2,951 matched pairs. The risk of moderate or severe COPD exacerbation was not significantly different between FF+UMEC+VI and TIO+OLO groups (hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval {CI}]: 1.13 [0.99-1.29]; P=0.064). The risks of pneumonia (HR [95% CI]: 1.04 [0.85-1.27]; P=0.723) and pneumonia-related hospitalization (HR [95% CI]: 1.18 [0.78-1.79]; P=0.429) were also not significantly different between the groups. There were no significant differences in HCRU events or all-cause costs; however, FF+UMEC+VI initiators incurred greater COPD- and/or pneumonia-related pharmacy costs than TIO+OLO initiators (FF+UMEC+VI: $2,934 [$2,827-$3,041], TIO+OLO: $1,994 [$1,915-$2,073]; P<0.001).

Conclusion: In maintenance treatment-naive patients, FF+UMEC+VI offered no reduction in COPD exacerbation risk over TIO+OLO and resulted in higher pharmacy costs related to COPD and/or pneumonia treatment. These results support treatment recommendations for LAMA+LABA as initial maintenance therapy.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier - NCT05169424.

糠酸氟替卡松/乌莫利维尼/维兰特罗与替托溴铵/奥替特罗治疗初治COPD患者的临床和经济评价
目的:在大多数慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者中,推荐长效支气管扩张剂(LABD)治疗作为维持治疗。然而,三联疗法(TT;双labd +吸入皮质类固醇[ICS])常被用作一线维持治疗。TT与双labd作为一线治疗的优势尚不清楚,因此有必要评估其与非ics替代方案的有效性和成本。患者和方法:这项回顾性研究评估了美国年龄≥40岁的COPD患者首次接受维持治疗的行政索赔,这些患者开始使用单吸入器糠酸氟替卡松+乌莫利维+维兰特罗(FF+UMEC+VI)或噻托溴铵+奥洛特罗(TIO+OLO)。患者倾向评分匹配(1:1),随访长达12个月。主要终点是首次COPD恶化的时间。次要结局包括首次肺炎诊断时间、肺炎相关住院、医疗资源利用(HCRU)和费用。采用Cox比例风险回归评估COPD加重和肺炎风险。结果:FF+UMEC+VI组和TIO+OLO组分别有5121例和3996例患者符合入选标准。对2,951对配对夫妇的结果进行了评估。FF+UMEC+VI组和TIO+OLO组发生中度或重度COPD加重的风险无显著差异(风险比[HR][95%可信区间{CI}]: 1.13 [0.99-1.29];P = 0.064)。肺炎风险(HR [95% CI]: 1.04 [0.85-1.27];P=0.723)和肺炎相关住院(HR [95% CI]: 1.18 [0.78-1.79];P=0.429),组间差异无统计学意义。HCRU事件或全因成本无显著差异;然而,FF+UMEC+VI启动剂比TIO+OLO启动剂产生了更高的COPD和/或肺炎相关的药房费用(FF+UMEC+VI: 2934美元[2827美元- 3041美元],TIO+OLO: 1994美元[1,915美元- 2,073美元];结论:在未接受维持治疗的患者中,FF+UMEC+VI与TIO+OLO相比没有降低COPD恶化风险,并且导致与COPD和/或肺炎治疗相关的更高药费。这些结果支持将LAMA+LABA作为初始维持治疗的建议。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov标识符- NCT05169424。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
10.70%
发文量
372
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: An international, peer-reviewed journal of therapeutics and pharmacology focusing on concise rapid reporting of clinical studies and reviews in COPD. Special focus will be given to the pathophysiological processes underlying the disease, intervention programs, patient focused education, and self management protocols. This journal is directed at specialists and healthcare professionals
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信