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.
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.