Dataset Information

Single-inhaler triple therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Guidelines recommend that treatment with a long-acting β2 agonist (LABA), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), i.e. triple therapy, is reserved for a select group of symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who continue to exacerbate despite treatment with dual therapy (LABA/LAMA). A number of single-inhaler triple therapies are now available and important clinical questions remain over their role in the patient pathway. We compared the efficacy and safety of single-inhaler triple therapy to assess the magnitude of benefit and to identify patients with the best risk-benefit profile for treatment. We also evaluated and compared study designs and population characteristics to assess the strength of the evidence base. METHODS:We conducted a systematic search, from inception to December 2018, of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of single-inhaler triple therapy in patients with COPD. The primary outcome was the annual rate of moderate and severe exacerbations. RESULTS:We identified 523 records, of which 15 reports/abstracts from six RCTs were included. Triple therapy resulted in the reduction of the annual rate of moderate or severe exacerbations in the range of 15-52% compared with LAMA/LABA, 15-35% compared to LABA/ICS and 20% compared to LAMA. The patient-based number needed to treat for the moderate or severe exacerbation outcome ranged between approximately 25-50 (preventing one patient from having an event) and the event-based number needed to treat of around 3-11 (preventing one event). The absolute benefit appeared to be greater in patients with higher eosinophil counts or historical frequency of exacerbations and ex-smokers. In the largest study, there was a significantly higher incidence of pneumonia in the triple therapy arm. There were important differences in study designs and populations impacting the interpretation of the results and indicating there would be significant heterogeneity in cross-trial comparisons. CONCLUSION:The decision to prescribe triple therapy should consider patient phenotype, magnitude of benefit and increased risk of adverse events. Future research on specific patient phenotype thresholds that can support treatment and funding decisions is now required from well-designed, robust, clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO #CRD42018102125 .

SUBMITTER: Langham S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6829989 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMultiple inhaler triple therapy (MITT), comprising inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), long-acting beta-agonists (LABA), and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), has been used as an escalation treatment for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, real-world use of MITT has not been investigated in Asia, including South Korea. This study reports baseline characteristics of patients with COPD initiated on MITT in South Korea, and their treatment patterns. Healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs associated with COPD exacerbations following MITT initiation were also assessed.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study using the South Korea National Health Insurance database (2014-2018). Included patients were ≥ 40 years, had a COPD diagnosis, were newly initiated on MITT and had ≥ 12 months' data both before (baseline) and after index date (the first day with overlapping supply of all MITT components). Treatment immediately before initiation and immediately following discontinuation of MITT were identified, and proportion of days covered (PDC) by MITT was calculated. HRU and costs (per person per year [PPPY]) associated with exacerbations were identified following MITT initiation; costs were calculated using the average 2020 exchange rate (0.0008 USD/KRW).ResultsAmong 37,400 patients, the mean age was 69 (SD 10) years and 73% were males; 56% had ≥ 1 COPD exacerbation during the baseline period, with a mean of 2 (SD 5) events/year. ICS/LABA was the most frequent regimen prescribed immediately before initiation (37%) and immediately following discontinuation (41% of 34,264 patients) of MITT. At 3, 6, and 12 months from treatment initiation, mean PDC was 81%, 63% and 49%, respectively; median treatment duration was 102 days. The mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) number of total visits for severe COPD exacerbations was 0.77 PPPY (0.75-0.78); mean PPPY total healthcare costs were 2093 USD.ConclusionsPatients with COPD in South Korea experienced frequent exacerbations prior to MITT, and PDC by MITT was low. Patients may benefit from early optimization of COPD therapy, and greater emphasis on adherence to inhaled COPD therapy. Severe exacerbations were found to incur substantial costs; treatment alternatives that can reduce the rate of severe exacerbations are likely to minimize healthcare costs.

Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) vs twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at risk of exacerbations, from the Spanish National Healthcare System perspective.Patients and methodsThe validated GALAXY-COPD model was used to simulate disease progression and predict healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) over a 3-year time horizon for a Spanish population. Patient characteristics from published literature were supplemented by data from FULFIL (NCT02345161), which compared FF/UMEC/VI vs BUD/FOR in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. Treatment effects, extrapolated to 3 years, were based on Week 24 results in the FULFIL intent-to-treat population, including change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire score, and exacerbation rates. Treatment, exacerbations, and COPD management costs (2019€) were informed by Spanish public sources and published literature. A 3% discount rate for costs and benefits was applied. One-way sensitivity and scenario analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), were performed.ResultsFF/UMEC/VI treatment led to fewer moderate and severe exacerbations (2.126 and 0.306, respectively) vs BUD/FOR (2.608 and 0.515, respectively), with a mean incremental cost of €69 and gain of 0.107 QALYs, which resulted in an ICER of €642 per QALY gained. In sensitivity analyses, the ICER was most sensitive to treatment effect variations in exacerbations and healthcare resource utilization/event costs. Overall, 95% of 1000 PSA simulations resulted in an ICER less than €11,000 per QALY gained for FF/UMEC/VI vs BUD/FOR, confirming robustness of the results. The probability of FF/UMEC/VI being cost-effective vs BUD/FOR was 100% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY gained.ConclusionAt the accepted Spanish ICER threshold of €30,000, FF/UMEC/VI represents a cost-effective treatment option vs BUD/FOR in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations.

Project description:BackgroundIn the FULFIL trial, once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) resulted in reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates and conferred significant improvements in lung function and health status in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) versus twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) dual therapy.MethodsFULFIL was a Phase III, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study. Patients ≥40 years of age with symptomatic COPD were randomized 1:1 to FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 mcg or BUD/FOR 400/12 mcg. In this post hoc analysis, patients were categorized by exacerbation history in the year prior to study entry (≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation [recent exacerbation] versus no recent exacerbation). Endpoints included annual rate of on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbations up to Week 24, annual rate of on-treatment severe exacerbations up to Week 24, change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second at Week 24, and change from baseline in health status as measured by St George's respiratory questionnaire total score at Week 24.ResultsOf the 1810 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 1180 (65%) had one or more moderate/severe exacerbation in the year prior to entry, while 630 (35%) patients did not. FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR significantly reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates in the recent exacerbation subgroup (mean annualized rate: 0.19 vs 0.29; rate ratio [95% confidence interval [CI]]: 0.64: [0.45, 0.91]; p=0.014) and numerically reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates in the no recent exacerbation subgroup (mean annualized rate: 0.29 vs 0.43; rate ratio [95% CI]: 0.67 [0.43, 1.04]; p=0.073). Severe exacerbation rates were numerically reduced with FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR treatment across both subgroups. FF/UMEC/VI conferred significant improvements in lung function and health status versus BUD/FOR, regardless of recent exacerbation history.ConclusionFF/UMEC/VI reduced moderate/severe and severe exacerbation rates and improved lung function and health status versus BUD/FOR in patients with symptomatic COPD, regardless of recent exacerbation history.

Dataset Information

Single-inhaler triple therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets