Dataset Information

Real-world effectiveness of early intervention with fixed-dose tiotropium/olodaterol vs tiotropium in Japanese patients with COPD: a high-dimensional propensity score-matched cohort analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Escalation to triple therapy (long-acting muscarinic antagonist/β₂-agonist, inhaled corticosteroid [ICS]) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD) is recommended for patients on LAMA/LABA combinations with frequent exacerbations and severe symptoms. An extended time-to-escalation to triple therapy suggests patients are in a stable condition and is an indicator of treatment effectiveness. No studies in Japanese clinical practice have compared the effectiveness of LAMA/LABA fixed-dose combination therapies with LAMA monotherapy in terms of time-to-escalation to triple therapy. The primary objective of this real-world study in Japan was to compare time-to-escalation to triple therapy among new users of tiotropium/olodaterol or tiotropium monotherapy for COPD without asthma.

Methods

In this active-comparator cohort study, new users of tiotropium/olodaterol (n = 1436) and tiotropium monotherapy (n = 5352) were identified from a large Japanese hospital-based database (Medical Data Vision Co., Ltd., Tokyo; prespecified study period: 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2019); patients in each group were matched 1:1 using high-dimensional propensity scores (hdPS). The primary outcome was time-to-escalation to triple therapy.

Results

For the prespecified study period in the hdPS-matched cohort, escalation to triple therapy was infrequent among new users of tiotropium/olodaterol (n = 1302, 7 escalation events) and tiotropium monotherapy (n = 1302, 8 escalation events). The difference in time-to-escalation to triple therapy between groups was not statistically significant (median [interquartile range]: 28 days [15.0-139.2] for tiotropium monotherapy vs 193 days [94.5-302.0] for tiotropium/olodaterol; hazard ratio: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.32-2.46). Similar findings (hazard ratio: 0.71; 95% Cl: 0.36-1.40) were observed in a post hoc analysis, which extended the study period by 1 year to 31 March 2020. Risks of first moderate and/or severe COPD exacerbation were lower for tiotropium/olodaterol than tiotropium monotherapy (between-group differences not significant). There were no significant between-group differences for the risks of all-cause inpatient mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, and first use of home oxygen therapy.

Conclusions

ICS monotherapy or ICS/LABA added to tiotropium or tiotropium/olodaterol is limited in Japanese clinical settings. The number of escalations to triple therapy was very limited in the dataset and there was insufficient power to detect differences between the treatment groups in the primary hdPS-matched cohort.

SUBMITTER: Muro S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8212527 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionDuring the clinical development of a fixed-dose combination of drugs, it is best practice to conduct dose-finding studies to determine the optimal dose of each component. The aims of this phase II dose-finding study were to confirm the lung function benefit of adding olodaterol to tiotropium, describe the dose-response relationship of olodaterol in combination with tiotropium 5 μg, and compare it with the dose response of olodaterol monotherapy.MethodsIn this double-blind, parallel-group trial, patients were randomized to receive either tiotropium 5 μg or a fixed-dose combination of tiotropium 5 μg with olodaterol 2 μg, 5 μg, or 10 μg, delivered once daily via the Respimat® for 4 weeks (NCT00696020). Patients had a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) ≥ 30 and < 80% of predicted normal. The primary endpoint was trough FEV1 response (change from baseline) after 4 weeks. Secondary endpoints included FEV1 and forced vital capacity (FVC) over 6 h after dosing.ResultsCompared with tiotropium 5 μg, mean (standard error) trough FEV1 increased with the addition of olodaterol 2 μg by 0.024 L (0.027), olodaterol 5 μg by 0.033 L (0.027), and olodaterol 10 μg by 0.057 L (0.027). Statistically significant improvements in FEV1 versus tiotropium were seen across all timepoints up to 6 h with all doses of tiotropium/olodaterol. Similar results were observed for FVC.ConclusionThere was a benefit of tiotropium/olodaterol compared with tiotropium monotherapy in FEV1 and FVC. There was a dose-response relationship for olodaterol on top of tiotropium for FEV1 and FVC similar to the dose response previously seen for olodaterol monotherapy. These results, together with the results of a study investigating the dose response of tiotropium on top of olodaterol, helped to inform the dose selection for the phase III studies.FundingBoehringer Ingelheim International GmbH.

Project description:ObjectivesChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) guidelines advocate treatment with combinations of long-acting bronchodilators for patients with COPD who have persistent symptoms or continue to have exacerbations while using a single bronchodilator. This study assessed the cost-utility of the fixed dose combination of the bronchodilators tiotropium and olodaterol versus two comparators, tiotropium monotherapy and long-acting β2 agonist/inhaled corticosteroid (LABA/ICS) combinations, in three European countries: Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands.MethodsA previously published COPD patient-level discrete event simulation model was updated with most recent evidence to estimate lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs for COPD patients receiving either tiotropium/olodaterol, tiotropium monotherapy or LABA/ICS. Treatment efficacy covered impact on trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), total and severe exacerbations and pneumonias. The unit costs of medication, maintenance treatment, exacerbations and pneumonias were obtained for each country. The country-specific analyses adhered to the Finnish, Swedish and Dutch pharmacoeconomic guidelines, respectively.ResultsTreatment with tiotropium/olodaterol gained QALYs ranging from 0.09 (Finland and Sweden) to 0.11 (the Netherlands) versus tiotropium and 0.23 (Finland and Sweden) to 0.28 (the Netherlands) versus LABA/ICS. The Finnish payer's incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of tiotropium/olodaterol was €11 000/QALY versus tiotropium and dominant versus LABA/ICS. The Swedish ICERs were €6200/QALY and dominant, respectively (societal perspective). The Dutch ICERs were €14 400 and €9200, respectively (societal perspective). The probability that tiotropium/olodaterol was cost-effective compared with tiotropium at the country-specific (unofficial) threshold values for the maximum willingness to pay for a QALY was 84% for Finland, 98% for Sweden and 99% for the Netherlands. Compared with LABA/ICS, this probability was 100% for all three countries.ConclusionsBased on the simulations, tiotropium/olodaterol is a cost-effective treatment option versus tiotropium or LABA/ICS in all three countries. In both Finland and Sweden, tiotropium/olodaterol is more effective and cost saving (ie, dominant) in comparison with LABA/ICS.

Project description:BackgroundCommunity-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide despite correct antibiotic use. Corticosteroids have long been evaluated as a treatment option, but heterogeneous effects on survival have precluded their widespread implementation. We aimed to evaluate whether corticosteroids might improve clinical outcomes in patients with severe CAP and high inflammatory responses.Study design and methodsWe analyzed two prospective observational cohorts of patients with CAP in Barcelona and Rome who were admitted to intensive care with a high inflammatory response. Propensity score (PS) matching was used to obtain balance among the baseline variables in both groups, and we excluded patients with viral pneumonia or who received hydrocortisone.ResultsOf the 610 patients admitted with severe CAP, 198 (32%) received corticosteroids and 387 had major criteria for severe CAP. All patients had a baseline serum C-reactive protein above 15 mg/dL. Patients who received corticosteroids were more commonly male, had more comorbidities (e.g., cancer or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), and presented with significantly higher sequential organ failure assessment scores. Eighty-nine patients met major severity criteria (invasive mechanical ventilation and/or septic shock) and were matched per group. Twenty-eight-day mortality was lower among patients receiving corticosteroids (16 patients, 18%) than among those not receiving them (28 patients, 31%; p = 0.037). After PS matching, corticosteroid therapy reduced the 28-day mortality risk in patients who met major severity criteria (hazard ratio (HR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29-0.98) (p = 0.043). In patients who did not meet major severity criteria, no benefits were observed with corticosteroid use (HR 0.88 (95%CI 0.32-2.36).ConclusionsCorticosteroid treatment may be of benefit for patients with CAP who have septic shock and/or a high inflammatory response and requirement for invasive mechanical ventilation. Corticosteroids appear to have no impact on mortality when these features are not present.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) show signs of reduced physical activity from the early stages of the disease, impacting morbidity and mortality. Data suggest treatment with tiotropium, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and olodaterol, a long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA), as monotherapies and in combination, increases exercise capacity. This study assessed the effects of fixed-dose tiotropium/olodaterol (delivered via Respimat®) on physical function in Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease A-D patients requiring long-acting dual bronchodilation treatment in a real-world setting.MethodsThis open-label, single arm, noninterventional study measured changes in physical function in COPD patients treated with tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 μg for approximately 6 weeks (between Visit 1 [baseline] and Visit 2). Primary end point was therapeutic success, defined as a minimum 10-point increase in Physical Functioning Questionnaire (PF-10) score. Secondary end points included change in PF-10 from Visit 1 to Visit 2, the patient's general condition (measured by Physician's Global Evaluation score) at Visit 1 and Visit 2, and patient satisfaction with treatment delivered via the Respimat® device (assessed by Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire) at study end.ResultsTherapeutic success was observed in 51.5% of 1578 patients (95% confidence interval [CI] 49.0, 54.0) after approximately 6 weeks of treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol. Mean change in PF-10 score between Visit 1 and Visit 2 was 11.6 points (95% CI 10.7, 12.6). Patient general condition improved as indicated by a general improvement in scores between visits. Most patients were very satisfied or satisfied with tiotropium/olodaterol treatment (82.5%), inhalation (87.5%), and handling of Respimat® (85.2%). One percent of patients reported an investigator-defined drug-related adverse events (AE).ConclusionTiotropium/olodaterol treatment improved physical functioning in COPD patients. An associated increase in patient general condition was observed. Most patients were very satisfied or satisfied with tiotropium/olodaterol treatment, inhaling, and handling of the Respimat® device. No unexpected drug-related AE occurred.