The comparative effectiveness and safety of fluticasone-salmeterol via metered-dose versus dry powder inhalers for COPD: A new user cohort study.

IF 15.8 1区 医学 Q1 Medicine
PLoS Medicine Pub Date : 2025-05-14 eCollection Date: 2025-05-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1004596
Brandon J Demkowicz, Kevin Rader, Shirley V Wang, Aaron S Kesselheim, William B Feldman
{"title":"The comparative effectiveness and safety of fluticasone-salmeterol via metered-dose versus dry powder inhalers for COPD: A new user cohort study.","authors":"Brandon J Demkowicz, Kevin Rader, Shirley V Wang, Aaron S Kesselheim, William B Feldman","doi":"10.1371/journal.pmed.1004596","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Fluticasone-salmeterol is available in both metered-dose and dry powder inhaler formulations for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Metered-dose inhalers are associated with substantially higher greenhouse gas emissions than dry powder inhalers; however, data on their comparative effectiveness and safety in COPD remain limited. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of fluticasone-salmeterol delivered via metered-dose inhaler (Advair HFA) versus dry powder inhaler (Advair Diskus) among patients with COPD treated in routine care.</p><p><strong>Methods and findings: </strong>We conducted a retrospective cohort study using Optum's de-identified Clinformatics DataMart (January 1, 2007 to November 30, 2023). The study included 202,052 commercially insured patients aged 40 years or older with COPD who had continuous insurance coverage for 180 days prior to cohort entry and had not initiated any inhaled corticosteroid-long-acting β₂-agonist during that period. Patients receiving fluticasone-salmeterol via a metered-dose inhaler (exposure) were compared to those receiving these drugs via a dry powder inhaler (referent), with stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting applied for covariate adjustment. The primary effectiveness outcome was the incidence of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation within 365 days of cohort entry. The primary safety outcome was the incidence of first pneumonia hospitalization during the same period. Use of fluticasone-salmeterol via metered-dose inhaler was associated with a similar hazard of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation (hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99 to 1.08) and first pneumonia hospitalization (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.14) compared to the dry powder inhaler. Primary study limitations include potential residual confounding despite weighting and short follow-up times.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this cohort study comparing two brand-name fluticasone-salmeterol inhalers prescribed for COPD in routine clinical practice, effectiveness and safety outcomes were similar for patients receiving metered-dose and dry powder versions.</p>","PeriodicalId":49008,"journal":{"name":"PLoS Medicine","volume":"22 5","pages":"e1004596"},"PeriodicalIF":15.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12077913/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004596","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Fluticasone-salmeterol is available in both metered-dose and dry powder inhaler formulations for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Metered-dose inhalers are associated with substantially higher greenhouse gas emissions than dry powder inhalers; however, data on their comparative effectiveness and safety in COPD remain limited. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of fluticasone-salmeterol delivered via metered-dose inhaler (Advair HFA) versus dry powder inhaler (Advair Diskus) among patients with COPD treated in routine care.

Methods and findings: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using Optum's de-identified Clinformatics DataMart (January 1, 2007 to November 30, 2023). The study included 202,052 commercially insured patients aged 40 years or older with COPD who had continuous insurance coverage for 180 days prior to cohort entry and had not initiated any inhaled corticosteroid-long-acting β₂-agonist during that period. Patients receiving fluticasone-salmeterol via a metered-dose inhaler (exposure) were compared to those receiving these drugs via a dry powder inhaler (referent), with stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting applied for covariate adjustment. The primary effectiveness outcome was the incidence of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation within 365 days of cohort entry. The primary safety outcome was the incidence of first pneumonia hospitalization during the same period. Use of fluticasone-salmeterol via metered-dose inhaler was associated with a similar hazard of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation (hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99 to 1.08) and first pneumonia hospitalization (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.14) compared to the dry powder inhaler. Primary study limitations include potential residual confounding despite weighting and short follow-up times.

Conclusions: In this cohort study comparing two brand-name fluticasone-salmeterol inhalers prescribed for COPD in routine clinical practice, effectiveness and safety outcomes were similar for patients receiving metered-dose and dry powder versions.

氟替卡松-沙美特罗计量吸入器与干粉吸入器治疗COPD的有效性和安全性比较:一项新的用户队列研究
背景:氟替卡松-沙美特罗有用于治疗慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)的计量吸入剂和干粉吸入剂剂型。与干粉吸入器相比,计量吸入器的温室气体排放量要高得多;然而,关于它们在COPD中的相对有效性和安全性的数据仍然有限。我们的目的是比较在常规治疗的COPD患者中,氟替卡松-沙美特罗通过计量吸入器(Advair HFA)和干粉吸入器(Advair Diskus)给药的有效性和安全性。方法和研究结果:我们使用Optum的去识别临床数据进行了一项回顾性队列研究(2007年1月1日至2023年11月30日)。该研究包括202,052名40岁或以上的商业保险COPD患者,他们在队列进入前连续180天有保险,并且在此期间没有使用任何吸入皮质类固醇-长效β 2激动剂。通过计量吸入器(暴露)接受氟替卡松-沙美特罗治疗的患者与通过干粉吸入器(参照)接受这些药物治疗的患者进行比较,采用稳定的治疗加权逆概率进行协变量调整。主要疗效指标为队列进入后365天内首次中度或重度COPD恶化的发生率。主要安全性指标是同期首次肺炎住院的发生率。通过计量吸入器使用氟替卡松-沙美特罗与首次中度或重度COPD加重的相似风险相关(风险比[HR], 1.03;95%可信区间[CI], 0.99 ~ 1.08)和首次肺炎住院(HR, 1.06;95% CI, 0.98 - 1.14)与干粉吸入器相比。研究的主要局限性包括潜在的残留混淆,尽管加权和随访时间短。结论:在这项队列研究中,比较了两种品牌氟替卡松-沙美特罗吸入器在常规临床实践中的疗效和安全性,对于接受计量和干粉版本的患者来说,疗效和安全性是相似的。
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
PLoS Medicine
PLoS Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
17.60
自引率
0.60%
发文量
227
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: PLOS Medicine is a prominent platform for discussing and researching global health challenges. The journal covers a wide range of topics, including biomedical, environmental, social, and political factors affecting health. It prioritizes articles that contribute to clinical practice, health policy, or a better understanding of pathophysiology, ultimately aiming to improve health outcomes across different settings. The journal is unwavering in its commitment to uphold the highest ethical standards in medical publishing. This includes actively managing and disclosing any conflicts of interest related to reporting, reviewing, and publishing. PLOS Medicine promotes transparency in the entire review and publication process. The journal also encourages data sharing and encourages the reuse of published work. Additionally, authors retain copyright for their work, and the publication is made accessible through Open Access with no restrictions on availability and dissemination. PLOS Medicine takes measures to avoid conflicts of interest associated with advertising drugs and medical devices or engaging in the exclusive sale of reprints.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信