在吸入皮质类固醇中添加噻托溴铵或长效β2-拮抗剂:哮喘相关恶化风险和医疗资源利用。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 ALLERGY
Nicola A Hanania, Russell A Settipane, Samir Khoury, Asif Shaikh, Zenobia Dotiwala, Julian Casciano, Michael B Foggs
{"title":"在吸入皮质类固醇中添加噻托溴铵或长效β2-拮抗剂:哮喘相关恶化风险和医疗资源利用。","authors":"Nicola A Hanania, Russell A Settipane, Samir Khoury, Asif Shaikh, Zenobia Dotiwala, Julian Casciano, Michael B Foggs","doi":"10.2500/aap.2023.44.230060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Based on current clinical guidelines, long-acting β2-agonists (LABA) are frequently prescribed before long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) as an add-on to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in uncontrolled asthma. However, there is insufficient real-world evidence that supports this therapeutic approach. <b>Objective:</b> The objective was to compare asthma exacerbations and healthcare resource utilization in patients with asthma using the LAMA tiotropium bromide (Tio) or a LABA as an add-on to ICS (ICS + Tio or ICS/LABA) in a real-world setting. <b>Methods:</b> This retrospective, observational study included patients aged ≥12 years with asthma diagnoses identified in a U.S. longitudinal claims database (October 2015 to August 2020). The ICS + Tio and ICS/LABA cohorts were 1:2 propensity score matched for baseline variables. Outcomes were compared in the postmatched cohorts, and the risk of exacerbation was evaluated by using Kaplan-Meier curves. <b>Results:</b> After propensity score matching, there were 633 and 1266 patients in the ICS + Tio and ICS/LABA cohorts, respectively. The proportion of patients who experienced a severe or a moderate-or-severe exacerbation during follow-up was similar between the ICS + Tio versus ICS/LABA cohorts (4% versus 3%, p = 0.472, and 50% versus 45%, p = 0.050, respectively). The mean time to first severe (ICS + Tio 43.8 days versus ICS/LABA 49.4 days, p = 0.758) and moderate-or-severe exacerbation (ICS + Tio 65.8 days versus ICS/LABA 58.9 days, p = 0.474) was not statistically different between cohorts. The treatments had no effect on the risk of severe exacerbation, although it was 36% lower in ICS + Tio users than in ICS/LABA users (hazard ratio 0.64 [95% confidence interval, 0.22-1.84]). All-cause and asthma-related average monthly healthcare resource utilization were comparable between the treatments for hospitalizations and emergency department visits but were significantly greater in the ICS + Tio cohort than in the ICS/LABA cohort for asthma-related outpatient visits (p < 0.0001). <b>Conclusion:</b> This study provides real-world evidence that ICS + Tio may be a valid alternative when ICS/LABA cannot be used as first-line treatment for asthma maintenance therapy.</p>","PeriodicalId":7646,"journal":{"name":"Allergy and asthma proceedings","volume":"44 6","pages":"413-421"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Adding tiotropium or long-acting β2-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids: Asthma-related exacerbation risk and healthcare resource utilization.\",\"authors\":\"Nicola A Hanania, Russell A Settipane, Samir Khoury, Asif Shaikh, Zenobia Dotiwala, Julian Casciano, Michael B Foggs\",\"doi\":\"10.2500/aap.2023.44.230060\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Based on current clinical guidelines, long-acting β2-agonists (LABA) are frequently prescribed before long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) as an add-on to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in uncontrolled asthma. However, there is insufficient real-world evidence that supports this therapeutic approach. <b>Objective:</b> The objective was to compare asthma exacerbations and healthcare resource utilization in patients with asthma using the LAMA tiotropium bromide (Tio) or a LABA as an add-on to ICS (ICS + Tio or ICS/LABA) in a real-world setting. <b>Methods:</b> This retrospective, observational study included patients aged ≥12 years with asthma diagnoses identified in a U.S. longitudinal claims database (October 2015 to August 2020). The ICS + Tio and ICS/LABA cohorts were 1:2 propensity score matched for baseline variables. Outcomes were compared in the postmatched cohorts, and the risk of exacerbation was evaluated by using Kaplan-Meier curves. <b>Results:</b> After propensity score matching, there were 633 and 1266 patients in the ICS + Tio and ICS/LABA cohorts, respectively. The proportion of patients who experienced a severe or a moderate-or-severe exacerbation during follow-up was similar between the ICS + Tio versus ICS/LABA cohorts (4% versus 3%, p = 0.472, and 50% versus 45%, p = 0.050, respectively). The mean time to first severe (ICS + Tio 43.8 days versus ICS/LABA 49.4 days, p = 0.758) and moderate-or-severe exacerbation (ICS + Tio 65.8 days versus ICS/LABA 58.9 days, p = 0.474) was not statistically different between cohorts. The treatments had no effect on the risk of severe exacerbation, although it was 36% lower in ICS + Tio users than in ICS/LABA users (hazard ratio 0.64 [95% confidence interval, 0.22-1.84]). All-cause and asthma-related average monthly healthcare resource utilization were comparable between the treatments for hospitalizations and emergency department visits but were significantly greater in the ICS + Tio cohort than in the ICS/LABA cohort for asthma-related outpatient visits (p < 0.0001). <b>Conclusion:</b> This study provides real-world evidence that ICS + Tio may be a valid alternative when ICS/LABA cannot be used as first-line treatment for asthma maintenance therapy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7646,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Allergy and asthma proceedings\",\"volume\":\"44 6\",\"pages\":\"413-421\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Allergy and asthma proceedings\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2500/aap.2023.44.230060\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ALLERGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Allergy and asthma proceedings","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2500/aap.2023.44.230060","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:根据目前的临床指南,在不受控制的哮喘患者中,长效β2-拮抗剂(LABA)经常在长效毒蕈碱拮抗剂(LAMA)之前作为吸入皮质类固醇(ICS)的补充用药。然而,没有足够的现实世界证据支持这种治疗方法。目的:比较在现实世界中使用LAMA噻托溴铵(Tio)或LABA作为ICS(ICS+Tio或ICS/LLABA)的附加品的哮喘患者的哮喘恶化和医疗资源利用情况。方法:这项回顾性观察性研究纳入了在美国纵向索赔数据库中(2015年10月至2020年8月)确诊为哮喘的年龄≥12岁的患者。ICS+Tio和ICS/LLABA队列的倾向得分为1:2,与基线变量匹配。比较接种疫苗后的队列的结果,并使用Kaplan-Meier曲线评估病情恶化的风险。结果:在倾向评分匹配后,ICS+Tio和ICS/LABA队列中分别有633和1266名患者。在随访期间经历严重、中度或重度恶化的患者比例在ICS+Tio与ICS/LBA队列之间相似(分别为4%与3%,p=0.472和50%与45%,p=0.050)。首次严重发作的平均时间(ICS+Tio 43.8天与ICS/LABA 49.4天,p=0.758)和中度或重度发作(ICS+Tio65.8天与ICS/LABA 58.9天,p=0.474)在队列之间没有统计学差异。这些治疗对严重恶化的风险没有影响,尽管ICS+Tio患者的月医疗资源利用率比ICS/LABA患者低36%(危险比0.64[95%置信区间,0.22-1.84]结论:本研究提供了现实世界的证据,当ICS/LABA不能用作哮喘维持治疗的一线治疗时,ICS+Tio可能是一种有效的替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Adding tiotropium or long-acting β2-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids: Asthma-related exacerbation risk and healthcare resource utilization.

Background: Based on current clinical guidelines, long-acting β2-agonists (LABA) are frequently prescribed before long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) as an add-on to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in uncontrolled asthma. However, there is insufficient real-world evidence that supports this therapeutic approach. Objective: The objective was to compare asthma exacerbations and healthcare resource utilization in patients with asthma using the LAMA tiotropium bromide (Tio) or a LABA as an add-on to ICS (ICS + Tio or ICS/LABA) in a real-world setting. Methods: This retrospective, observational study included patients aged ≥12 years with asthma diagnoses identified in a U.S. longitudinal claims database (October 2015 to August 2020). The ICS + Tio and ICS/LABA cohorts were 1:2 propensity score matched for baseline variables. Outcomes were compared in the postmatched cohorts, and the risk of exacerbation was evaluated by using Kaplan-Meier curves. Results: After propensity score matching, there were 633 and 1266 patients in the ICS + Tio and ICS/LABA cohorts, respectively. The proportion of patients who experienced a severe or a moderate-or-severe exacerbation during follow-up was similar between the ICS + Tio versus ICS/LABA cohorts (4% versus 3%, p = 0.472, and 50% versus 45%, p = 0.050, respectively). The mean time to first severe (ICS + Tio 43.8 days versus ICS/LABA 49.4 days, p = 0.758) and moderate-or-severe exacerbation (ICS + Tio 65.8 days versus ICS/LABA 58.9 days, p = 0.474) was not statistically different between cohorts. The treatments had no effect on the risk of severe exacerbation, although it was 36% lower in ICS + Tio users than in ICS/LABA users (hazard ratio 0.64 [95% confidence interval, 0.22-1.84]). All-cause and asthma-related average monthly healthcare resource utilization were comparable between the treatments for hospitalizations and emergency department visits but were significantly greater in the ICS + Tio cohort than in the ICS/LABA cohort for asthma-related outpatient visits (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: This study provides real-world evidence that ICS + Tio may be a valid alternative when ICS/LABA cannot be used as first-line treatment for asthma maintenance therapy.

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
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
35.70%
发文量
106
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Allergy & Asthma Proceedings is a peer reviewed publication dedicated to distributing timely scientific research regarding advancements in the knowledge and practice of allergy, asthma and immunology. Its primary readership consists of allergists and pulmonologists. The goal of the Proceedings is to publish articles with a predominantly clinical focus which directly impact quality of care for patients with allergic disease and asthma. Featured topics include asthma, rhinitis, sinusitis, food allergies, allergic skin diseases, diagnostic techniques, allergens, and treatment modalities. Published material includes peer-reviewed original research, clinical trials and review articles.
×
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