Optimizing maintenance therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: strategies for improving patient-centered outcomes

Burden of Disease in Patients with Mild or Mild-to-Moderate Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease Group A or B): A Systematic Literature Review

Background

Patients with mild or mild-to-moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), defined as Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group A/B, are regarded as having a lower risk of experiencing multiple or severe exacerbations compared with patients classified as GOLD group C/D. Current guidelines suggest that patients in GOLD A/B should commence treatment with a bronchodilator; however, some patients within this population who have a higher disease burden may benefit from earlier introduction of dual bronchodilator or inhaled corticosteroid-containing therapies. This study aimed to provide research-based insights into the burden of disease experienced by patients classified as GOLD A/B, and to identify characteristics associated with poorer outcomes.

Methods

A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to identify evidence (burden of disease and prevalence data) relating to the population of interest (patients with COPD classified as GOLD A/B).

Results

A total of 79 full-text publications and four conference abstracts were included. In general, the rates of moderate and severe exacerbations were higher among patients in GOLD group B than among those in group A. Among patients classified as GOLD A/B, the risk of exacerbation was higher in those with more symptoms (modified Medical Research Council or COPD Assessment Test scales) and more severe airflow limitation (forced expiratory volume in 1 second % predicted).

Conclusion

Data from this SLR provide clear evidence of a heavier burden of disease for patients in GOLD B, compared with those in GOLD A, and highlight factors associated with worse outcomes for patients in GOLD A/B.

Benefit of Prompt versus Delayed Use of Single-Inhaler Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) Following a COPD Exacerbation

Purpose

Triple therapy (TT; inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and long-acting β₂-agonist) is recommended for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at risk of exacerbation, although the optimum timing of TT initiation remains unclear. This study evaluated the impact of prompt versus delayed initiation of single-inhaler TT (fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol [FF/UMEC/VI]) following a COPD exacerbation.

Patients and Methods

This retrospective cohort study used data from the IQVIA PharMetrics^® Plus database. Patients initiating FF/UMEC/VI following a COPD exacerbation between September 18, 2017 and September 30, 2019 (exacerbation = index date) were categorized as prompt (within 30 days of index) or delayed (31–180 days after index) FF/UMEC/VI initiators. Patients were aged ≥40 years at index, had ≥12 months’ continuous health insurance coverage before index (baseline), and ≥6 months’ coverage after index (follow-up). Patients with a COPD exacerbation or claim for FF/UMEC/VI during baseline were excluded. Inverse probability weighting was used to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics between cohorts. Exacerbations (overall, moderate, and severe), healthcare costs, and readmissions were evaluated during follow-up.

Results

A total of 1904 patients (prompt: 529; delayed: 1375) were included. After weighting, baseline characteristics were well balanced between cohorts. Patients in the prompt cohort had significantly lower rates per person-year (PPY) of overall (0.98 vs 1.23; rate ratio [RR] [95% CI] = 0.79 [0.65–0.94], p = 0.004), moderate (0.86 vs 1.03; RR [95% CI] = 0.84 [0.69–0.99], p = 0.038), and severe (0.11 vs 0.20; RR [95% CI] = 0.57 [0.37–0.79], p = 0.002) exacerbations, compared with delayed initiators. Mean all-cause and COPD-related healthcare costs were significantly lower among prompt initiators (all-cause: $26,107 vs $32,400 PPY, p = 0.014; COPD-related: $12,694 vs $17,640 PPY, p = 0.002).

Conclusion

Prompt initiation of FF/UMEC/VI following a moderate or severe COPD exacerbation was associated with significant reductions in exacerbations and healthcare costs relative to delayed initiation.

Prompt initiation of maintenance treatment following a COPD exacerbation: outcomes in a large insured population

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to extend previous findings and determine the value of prompt initiation of maintenance treatment (MT) following COPD exacerbations requiring hospitalization or an emergency department (ED) visit.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Administrative claims data (collected between January 1, 2009 and June 30, 2012) from an employer-sponsored commercially insured population were retrospectively used to identify patients with a COPD exacerbation resulting in hospitalization or an ED visit. Patients initiating approved MT for COPD within 30 days of discharge/diagnosis (prompt) were compared with those initiating MT within 31-180 days (delayed). COPD-related total, medical, and prescription drug costs during a 1-year follow-up period were evaluated using semilog ordinary least square regressions, controlling for baseline characteristics plus COPD-related costs from the previous year. The odds and number of subsequent COPD-related exacerbations during the follow-up were compared between the prompt and delayed cohorts using logistic regression and zero-inflated negative binomial models, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 6,521 patients with a COPD-related hospitalization or an ED visit were included, of whom 4,555 received prompt MT and 1,966 received delayed MT. Adjusted COPD-related total and medical costs were significantly lower for the prompt MT than the delayed MT cohorts (US$3,931 vs US$4,857 and US$2,327 vs US$3,087, respectively; both P<0.010), as were COPD-related prescription costs (US$1,526 vs US$1,683, P<0.010) during the 1-year follow-up period. Patients receiving delayed MT were 68% more likely to have a subsequent exacerbation requiring hospitalization and 80% more likely to have an exacerbation requiring an ED visit.

CONCLUSION

Prompt initiation of MT following a COPD-related hospitalization or an ED visit was associated with a significant reduction in COPD-related costs and odds of exacerbation in the following year compared with delayed initiation.

Nebulized formoterol effect on bronchodilation and satisfaction in COPD patients compared to QID ipratropium/albuterol MDI

OBJECTIVE

Bronchodilator maintenance treatment improves pulmonary function and health-related quality of life in COPD patients. Pulmonary function and patient preference/satisfaction were compared before and after treatment with a short-acting ipratropium/albuterol combination and long-acting nebulized formoterol.

METHODS

A randomized, open-label, crossover trial was conducted at 16 centers in the US. COPD subjects (n=109, 52.8% predicted FEV1) received nebulized formoterol fumarate inhalation solution (Perforomist**, FFIS 20g BID) or ipratropium and albuterol combined in a metered-dose inhaler (MDI) (Combiventy, IPR-ALB, QID) for 2 weeks. After a 1-week washout, subjects were crossed over to the other treatment. Efficacy was assessed with 6-h pulmonary function tests and the transition dyspnea index (TDI). Treatment satisfaction and preference were assessed after treatment. Post-hoc subgroup analyses were conducted by age, gender and COPD severity.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Morning pre-dose FEV1 (trough) after 2 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

FFIS significantly increased morning pre-dose FEV1 relative to IPR-ALB (p = 0.0015). FFIS also improved pre-dose FEV1 beyond that of IPR-ALB in subjects who were older (65 years), male, and with both moderate and severe/very severe COPD. Post-dose efficacy at 6 h was maintained in the FFIS group compared with IPR-ALB (p<or= 0.0001). Patient satisfaction and the perception of disease control were significantly greater with FFIS in the older, male, and severe subgroups. Severe subjects preferred FFIS to IPR-ALB. Both FFIS and IPR-ALB treatments resulted in clinically meaningful changes in dyspnea, but no significant differences were observed between treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Following a 2-week treatment period, twice-daily nebulized FFIS was significantly more effective in improving lung function than the IPR-ALB combination MDI delivered four times daily. Although the open-label design may limit interpretation of pulmonary function, the crossover design enabled demonstration of greater treatment satisfaction and perception of disease control following nebulized FFIS treatment.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00462540.