布地奈德-福莫特罗计量吸入器与氟替卡松-沙美特罗干粉吸入器的比较。

IF 22.5 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Alexander S Rabin, Sarah M Seelye, Julien B Weinstein, Cainnear K Hogan, Taylor N Whittington, Jennifer Cano, Shelie A Miller, Catherine Kelley, Hallie C Prescott
{"title":"布地奈德-福莫特罗计量吸入器与氟替卡松-沙美特罗干粉吸入器的比较。","authors":"Alexander S Rabin, Sarah M Seelye, Julien B Weinstein, Cainnear K Hogan, Taylor N Whittington, Jennifer Cano, Shelie A Miller, Catherine Kelley, Hallie C Prescott","doi":"10.1001/jamainternmed.2025.2299","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Transitioning from metered-dose inhalers to propellant-free dry-powder inhalers could reduce health care-related greenhouse gas emissions, but the clinical difference in outcomes that may be associated with this switch is uncertain.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the clinical difference in outcomes associated with a July 2021 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) formulary change that replaced budesonide-formoterol metered-dose inhaler with fluticasone-salmeterol dry-powder inhaler for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This within-person, self-controlled case series (SCCS) and matched observational cohort study (cohort study) used data from the US Veterans Affairs health care system from January 2018 through December 2022. Veterans who were prescribed a combination inhaler before and after the formulary change were included in both the SCCS and cohort study. Data were analyzed between April 19, 2024, and April 4, 2025.</p><p><strong>Exposures: </strong>Treatment with budesonide-formoterol metered-dose inhaler vs fluticasone-salmeterol dry-powder inhaler.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>Rescue medication use (albuterol and prednisone fills), emergency department visits, and hospitalizations (all-cause, respiratory-related, and pneumonia-specific) were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Following the VHA formulary change, 260 268 patients switched from budesonide-formoterol metered-dose therapy to fluticasone-salmeterol dry-powder therapy. In the SCCS (median [IQR] age, 71 [62-75] years; 91% male), among patients who switched inhalers and experienced the adverse outcomes of interest, treatment with fluticasone-salmeterol dry-powder inhaler therapy was associated with a 10% decrease in albuterol fills (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.90 [95% CI, 0.90-0.91]), a 2% increase in prednisone fills (IRR, 1.02 [95% CI, 1.01-1.03]), a 5% increase in all-cause emergency department visits (IRR, 1.05 [95% CI, 1.04-1.06]), an 8% increase in all-cause hospitalizations (IRR, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.06-1.09]), a 10% increase in respiratory-related hospitalizations (IRR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.07-1.14]), and a 24% increase in pneumonia-specific hospitalizations (IRR, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.17-1.31]). In the cohort study of 258 557 patients (mean [SD] age, 68.9 [11.3] years; 94% male), those who switched to a fluticasone-salmeterol dry-powder inhaler had no difference in mortality (1.89% vs 1.90%; adjusted absolute difference, -0.01 percentage points [95% CI, -0.12 to 0.10 percentage points]) but had increases in all-cause hospitalizations (16.14% vs 15.64%; adjusted absolute difference, 0.49 percentage points [95% CI, 0.21-0.78 percentage points]), respiratory-related hospitalizations (3.15% vs 2.74%; adjusted absolute difference, 0.41 percentage points [95% CI, 0.27-0.55 percentage points]), and pneumonia-related hospitalizations (1.15% vs 1.03%; adjusted absolute difference, 0.12 percentage points [95% CI, 0.04-0.21 percentage points]) at 180 days after the switch compared with matched patients who did not switch.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>The study found that the VHA formulary transition from budesonide-formoterol metered-dose inhaler to fluticasone-salmeterol dry-powder inhaler was associated with increased health care utilization, suggesting potential harm and the need to reevaluate this policy change.</p>","PeriodicalId":14714,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Internal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":22.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12235531/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Budesonide-Formoterol Metered-Dose Inhaler vs Fluticasone-Salmeterol Dry-Powder Inhaler.\",\"authors\":\"Alexander S Rabin, Sarah M Seelye, Julien B Weinstein, Cainnear K Hogan, Taylor N Whittington, Jennifer Cano, Shelie A Miller, Catherine Kelley, Hallie C Prescott\",\"doi\":\"10.1001/jamainternmed.2025.2299\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Transitioning from metered-dose inhalers to propellant-free dry-powder inhalers could reduce health care-related greenhouse gas emissions, but the clinical difference in outcomes that may be associated with this switch is uncertain.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the clinical difference in outcomes associated with a July 2021 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) formulary change that replaced budesonide-formoterol metered-dose inhaler with fluticasone-salmeterol dry-powder inhaler for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This within-person, self-controlled case series (SCCS) and matched observational cohort study (cohort study) used data from the US Veterans Affairs health care system from January 2018 through December 2022. Veterans who were prescribed a combination inhaler before and after the formulary change were included in both the SCCS and cohort study. Data were analyzed between April 19, 2024, and April 4, 2025.</p><p><strong>Exposures: </strong>Treatment with budesonide-formoterol metered-dose inhaler vs fluticasone-salmeterol dry-powder inhaler.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>Rescue medication use (albuterol and prednisone fills), emergency department visits, and hospitalizations (all-cause, respiratory-related, and pneumonia-specific) were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Following the VHA formulary change, 260 268 patients switched from budesonide-formoterol metered-dose therapy to fluticasone-salmeterol dry-powder therapy. In the SCCS (median [IQR] age, 71 [62-75] years; 91% male), among patients who switched inhalers and experienced the adverse outcomes of interest, treatment with fluticasone-salmeterol dry-powder inhaler therapy was associated with a 10% decrease in albuterol fills (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.90 [95% CI, 0.90-0.91]), a 2% increase in prednisone fills (IRR, 1.02 [95% CI, 1.01-1.03]), a 5% increase in all-cause emergency department visits (IRR, 1.05 [95% CI, 1.04-1.06]), an 8% increase in all-cause hospitalizations (IRR, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.06-1.09]), a 10% increase in respiratory-related hospitalizations (IRR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.07-1.14]), and a 24% increase in pneumonia-specific hospitalizations (IRR, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.17-1.31]). In the cohort study of 258 557 patients (mean [SD] age, 68.9 [11.3] years; 94% male), those who switched to a fluticasone-salmeterol dry-powder inhaler had no difference in mortality (1.89% vs 1.90%; adjusted absolute difference, -0.01 percentage points [95% CI, -0.12 to 0.10 percentage points]) but had increases in all-cause hospitalizations (16.14% vs 15.64%; adjusted absolute difference, 0.49 percentage points [95% CI, 0.21-0.78 percentage points]), respiratory-related hospitalizations (3.15% vs 2.74%; adjusted absolute difference, 0.41 percentage points [95% CI, 0.27-0.55 percentage points]), and pneumonia-related hospitalizations (1.15% vs 1.03%; adjusted absolute difference, 0.12 percentage points [95% CI, 0.04-0.21 percentage points]) at 180 days after the switch compared with matched patients who did not switch.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>The study found that the VHA formulary transition from budesonide-formoterol metered-dose inhaler to fluticasone-salmeterol dry-powder inhaler was associated with increased health care utilization, suggesting potential harm and the need to reevaluate this policy change.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14714,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JAMA Internal Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":22.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12235531/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JAMA Internal Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2025.2299\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2025.2299","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

重要性:从计量吸入器过渡到不含推进剂的干粉吸入器可以减少与卫生保健相关的温室气体排放,但可能与此转换相关的临床结果差异尚不确定。目的:评估2021年7月退伍军人健康管理局(VHA)改变处方,用氟替卡松-沙美特罗干粉吸入器取代布地奈德-福莫特罗计量吸入器治疗慢性阻塞性肺疾病和哮喘相关结果的临床差异。设计、环境和参与者:本研究采用了2018年1月至2022年12月期间美国退伍军人事务医疗保健系统的数据,采用了自我对照病例系列(SCCS)和匹配的观察性队列研究(队列研究)。在改变处方前后服用联合吸入器的退伍军人被纳入SCCS和队列研究。研究人员分析了2024年4月19日至2025年4月4日之间的数据。暴露:布地奈德-福莫特罗计量吸入器与氟替卡松-沙美特罗干粉吸入器治疗。主要结局和措施:对抢救用药(沙丁胺醇和泼尼松填充剂)、急诊就诊和住院(全因、呼吸相关和肺炎特异性)进行评估。结果:改变VHA处方后,260 268例患者从布地奈德-福莫特罗计量治疗转为氟替卡松-沙美特罗干粉治疗。在SCCS中(中位[IQR]年龄为71[62-75]岁;91%男性),在更换吸入器并经历相关不良结果的患者中,氟替卡松-沙美特罗干粉吸入器治疗与沙丁胺醇填充减少10%(发病率比[IRR], 0.90 [95% CI, 0.90-0.91]),泼尼松填充增加2% (IRR, 1.02 [95% CI, 1.01-1.03]),全因急诊就诊增加5% (IRR, 1.05 [95% CI, 1.04-1.06]),全因住院率增加8% (IRR, 1.08 [95% CI,1.06-1.09]),呼吸相关住院率增加10% (IRR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.07-1.14]),肺炎特异性住院率增加24% (IRR, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.17-1.31])。在258 557例患者的队列研究中(平均[SD]年龄,68.9[11.3]岁;94%男性),改用氟替卡松-沙美特罗干粉吸入器的患者死亡率无差异(1.89% vs 1.90%;调整后的绝对差异为-0.01个百分点[95% CI, -0.12至0.10个百分点]),但全因住院率有所增加(16.14%对15.64%;调整绝对差,0.49个百分点[95% CI, 0.21-0.78个百分点]),呼吸相关住院(3.15% vs 2.74%;调整后的绝对差异,0.41个百分点[95% CI, 0.27-0.55个百分点]),以及肺炎相关住院(1.15% vs 1.03%;与未转换的匹配患者相比,转换后180天的调整绝对差值为0.12个百分点[95% CI, 0.04-0.21个百分点])。结论和相关性:研究发现,VHA处方从布地奈德-福莫特罗计量吸入器转变为氟替卡松-沙美特罗干粉吸入器与医疗保健使用率增加有关,提示潜在危害,需要重新评估这一政策变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Budesonide-Formoterol Metered-Dose Inhaler vs Fluticasone-Salmeterol Dry-Powder Inhaler.

Importance: Transitioning from metered-dose inhalers to propellant-free dry-powder inhalers could reduce health care-related greenhouse gas emissions, but the clinical difference in outcomes that may be associated with this switch is uncertain.

Objective: To evaluate the clinical difference in outcomes associated with a July 2021 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) formulary change that replaced budesonide-formoterol metered-dose inhaler with fluticasone-salmeterol dry-powder inhaler for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma.

Design, setting, and participants: This within-person, self-controlled case series (SCCS) and matched observational cohort study (cohort study) used data from the US Veterans Affairs health care system from January 2018 through December 2022. Veterans who were prescribed a combination inhaler before and after the formulary change were included in both the SCCS and cohort study. Data were analyzed between April 19, 2024, and April 4, 2025.

Exposures: Treatment with budesonide-formoterol metered-dose inhaler vs fluticasone-salmeterol dry-powder inhaler.

Main outcomes and measures: Rescue medication use (albuterol and prednisone fills), emergency department visits, and hospitalizations (all-cause, respiratory-related, and pneumonia-specific) were assessed.

Results: Following the VHA formulary change, 260 268 patients switched from budesonide-formoterol metered-dose therapy to fluticasone-salmeterol dry-powder therapy. In the SCCS (median [IQR] age, 71 [62-75] years; 91% male), among patients who switched inhalers and experienced the adverse outcomes of interest, treatment with fluticasone-salmeterol dry-powder inhaler therapy was associated with a 10% decrease in albuterol fills (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.90 [95% CI, 0.90-0.91]), a 2% increase in prednisone fills (IRR, 1.02 [95% CI, 1.01-1.03]), a 5% increase in all-cause emergency department visits (IRR, 1.05 [95% CI, 1.04-1.06]), an 8% increase in all-cause hospitalizations (IRR, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.06-1.09]), a 10% increase in respiratory-related hospitalizations (IRR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.07-1.14]), and a 24% increase in pneumonia-specific hospitalizations (IRR, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.17-1.31]). In the cohort study of 258 557 patients (mean [SD] age, 68.9 [11.3] years; 94% male), those who switched to a fluticasone-salmeterol dry-powder inhaler had no difference in mortality (1.89% vs 1.90%; adjusted absolute difference, -0.01 percentage points [95% CI, -0.12 to 0.10 percentage points]) but had increases in all-cause hospitalizations (16.14% vs 15.64%; adjusted absolute difference, 0.49 percentage points [95% CI, 0.21-0.78 percentage points]), respiratory-related hospitalizations (3.15% vs 2.74%; adjusted absolute difference, 0.41 percentage points [95% CI, 0.27-0.55 percentage points]), and pneumonia-related hospitalizations (1.15% vs 1.03%; adjusted absolute difference, 0.12 percentage points [95% CI, 0.04-0.21 percentage points]) at 180 days after the switch compared with matched patients who did not switch.

Conclusions and relevance: The study found that the VHA formulary transition from budesonide-formoterol metered-dose inhaler to fluticasone-salmeterol dry-powder inhaler was associated with increased health care utilization, suggesting potential harm and the need to reevaluate this policy change.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JAMA Internal Medicine
JAMA Internal Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
43.50
自引率
1.30%
发文量
371
期刊介绍: JAMA Internal Medicine is an international, peer-reviewed journal committed to advancing the field of internal medicine worldwide. With a focus on four core priorities—clinical relevance, clinical practice change, credibility, and effective communication—the journal aims to provide indispensable and trustworthy peer-reviewed evidence. Catering to academics, clinicians, educators, researchers, and trainees across the entire spectrum of internal medicine, including general internal medicine and subspecialties, JAMA Internal Medicine publishes innovative and clinically relevant research. The journal strives to deliver stimulating articles that educate and inform readers with the latest research findings, driving positive change in healthcare systems and patient care delivery. As a member of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed medical publications, JAMA Internal Medicine plays a pivotal role in shaping the discourse and advancing patient care in internal medicine.
×
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