The Efficacy and Safety of Once-daily Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Versus Twice-daily Budesonide/Formoterol in a Subgroup of Patients from China with Symptomatic COPD at Risk of Exacerbations (FULFIL Trial)

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the TCM "Yupingfeng Granules" in the Treatment of Acute Exacerbations of COPD Based on a Randomized Clinical Trial

Introduction

Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is becoming increasingly important as it provides further options for treating many diseases worldwide. The TCM "Yupingfeng" has been used in China for over 800 years, and its clinical efficacy and safety for COPD treatment have been proven in previous studies. The objective of this study was to compare the long-term cost-effectiveness of Yupingfeng granules and the current conventional treatment for COPD patients in China.

Methods

A Markov model was constructed from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system using TreeAge Pro 2011. The model cycle length was 12 months, and the cycle time was set to 10 years. Data from a randomized controlled trial were used to generate the number of acute exacerbations, COPD assessment test (CAT) score and actual medication used. The state transition probabilities, costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were derived from available sources. A threshold of 72,447 yuan per QALY gained was used as a cost-effectiveness criterion. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to verify the model. In addition, the cost-effectiveness of a 35-year cycle was evaluated as a scenario analysis.

Results

In the basic-case analysis, the ICER of adding Yupingfeng granules to the current conventional treatment drugs was ¥2123.04 per QALY, which was less than the threshold (one-time per capita GDP).Sensitivity analyses showed the results to be robust. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of the ICER being less than the one-time per capita GDP threshold was 100%. In the scenario analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness was ¥12,051.27 per QALY which was also under the one-time per capita GDP.

Conclusion

By reducing the number of acute exacerbations of COPD, thereby correspondingly reducing the follow-up treatment cost, Yupingfeng granules combined with conventional treatment were found to provide a cost-effective therapeutic strategy for COPD.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Triple Combination Preparations in the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Objectives: This study analyzed the long-term cost-effectiveness of fluticasone/umeclidinium/vilanterol triple combination (FF/UMEC/VI) vs. budesonide/formoterol double combination (BUD/FOR) in the treatment of moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and provides evidence for COPD treatment decisions. Methods: From the perspective of the healthcare system, a Markov model was established that consists of four states-stable period, non-severely deteriorating period, severely deteriorating period, and death-according to real-world COPD progression. The model period comprises 6 months, with a cycle length of 14 years. The initial state, transition probabilities, costs, and utility data were collected from the FULFIL trial, published literature, hospital record surveys, and China Health Statistics Yearbook. The discount rate was 5%, and the threshold was set as the Chinese per capita GDP in 2020 (¥72,447). The cost, utility, transition probabilities, and discount rate were calculated through TreeagePro11 software. The results were analyzed via one-way factor analysis and probability sensitivity analysis. Results: The baseline study shows that the 14-year treatment for FF/UMEC/VI and BUD/FOR groups are ¥199,765.55 and ¥173,030.05 with effectiveness at 8.54 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and 7.73 QALYs, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is ¥33,006.80/QALY, which is below the threshold. A tornado diagram of a one-way sensitivity analysis shows that the top three factors that affected the results are the non-severe deterioration rates of FF/UMEC/VI, the cost of FF/UMEC/VI and the non-severe deterioration rates of BUD/FOR. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis shows that FF/UMEC/VI (compared to BUD/FOR) can be made cost-effective under the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold (¥38,000). Furthermore, the likelihood of cost-effectiveness increases with a higher WTP. Conclusions: Compared with the double combination (BUD/FOR), the triple combination (FF/UMEC/VI) is more cost-effective under the Chinese per capita GDP threshold.

Triple versus LAMA/LABA combination therapy for Japanese patients with COPD: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In symptomatic COPD patients with a history of exacerbations, additional treatment with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) to long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) combination therapy is recommended based on the evidence of low incidence of exacerbations but with a caution for pneumonia. However, ethnic differences may affect the response to drugs. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this treatment in the Japanese population (PROSPERO: CRD42020191978).

METHODS

We searched relevant randomized control trials and analyzed the exacerbations, quality of life, lung function, and adverse events including pneumonia and mortality as the outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

We identified a total of three RCTs (N = 632). Treatment with ICS/LAMA/LABA triple therapy significantly decreased the exacerbations (rate ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.85) and improved the trough FEV₁ (mean difference, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.07) compared to LAMA/LABA therapy. However, triple therapy showed a significantly higher incidence of pneumonia compared to LAMA/LABA (odds ratio, 3.38; 95% CI, 1.58 to 7.22). Concerning other adverse events including mortality, there were no significant difference between these therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

In the current meta-analysis of the Japanese population, we confirmed that triple therapy causes a higher incidence of pneumonia than LAMA/LABA treatment but is a more preferable treatment since it showed a lower incidence of exacerbations and higher trough FEV₁ in patients with symptomatic moderate to severe COPD. However, since the sample sizes were not statistically large enough, further trials involving Japanese patients are needed.

Triple Versus Dual Combination Therapy in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Asian Countries: Analysis of the IMPACT Trial

INTRODUCTION

In the IMPACT trial, single-inhaler triple therapy fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI dual therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); however, pneumonia incidence was higher in FF-containing arms. As COPD is a growing problem in Asia, we compared the efficacy and safety of FF/UMEC/VI in Asia versus non-Asia regions.

METHODS

IMPACT was a double-blind, 52-week trial in symptomatic COPD patients with ≥ 1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the prior year. This pre-specified analysis evaluated the annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations, change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s, and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score, mortality, and safety (including pneumonia) in Asia versus non-Asia regions.

RESULTS

The intent-to-treat population comprised 10,355 patients (Asia n = 1644 [16%]). Rate ratios (95% confidence intervals) for moderate/severe exacerbations with FF/UMEC/VI were 0.89 (0.76-1.05) versus FF/VI and 0.86 (0.71-1.04) versus UMEC/VI in Asia, and 0.84 (0.79-0.90) and 0.74 (0.68-0.80) in non-Asia. Efficacy of FF/UMEC/VI on other endpoints was similar in both regions. There was an increased incidence of investigator-reported pneumonia in patients in Asia (FF/UMEC/VI: 13%; FF/VI: 14%; UMEC/VI: 6%) compared with non-Asia (FF/UMEC/VI: 6%; FF/VI: 5%; UMEC/VI: 4%). The increased risk of pneumonia in patients in Asia was most marked in patients with lower body mass index, lower lung function, and taking inhaled corticosteroids. In post hoc analysis of adjudicated on-treatment all-cause mortality, probabilities of death were numerically lower in both regions with FF/UMEC/VI (Asia: 1.16%; non-Asia: 1.35%) and FF/VI (Asia: 1.77%; non-Asia: 1.21%) versus UMEC/VI (Asia: 1.91%; non-Asia: 2.23%).

CONCLUSIONS

FF/UMEC/VI provides similar benefits in COPD patients in Asia and non-Asia regions. Clinical benefits of treatment, including reduction in mortality risk, should be weighed against risk of pneumonia, taking account of all known risk factors.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identification, NCT02164513.

Efficacy and safety of single-inhaler extrafine triple therapy versus inhaled corticosteroid plus long-acting beta2 agonist in eastern Asian patients with COPD: the TRIVERSYTI randomised controlled trial

Background

A single-inhaler extrafine triple combination of beclometasone dipropionate (BDP), formoterol fumarate (FF) and glycopyrronium (G) has been developed for maintenance therapy of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of BDP/FF/G in patients in three eastern Asian areas: China, Republic of Korea and Taiwan.

Methods

TRIVERSYTI was a double-blind, randomised, active-controlled, parallel-group study in patients with COPD, post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) < 50% predicted, ≥ 1 exacerbation in the previous 12 months, and receiving inhaled maintenance medication. Patients received either extrafine BDP/FF/G 100/6/10 µg via pressurised metered-dose inhaler, or non-extrafine budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FF) 160/4.5 µg via dry-powder inhaler, both administered as two puffs twice-daily for 24 weeks. The co-primary objectives (analysed in the overall population) were to demonstrate superiority of BDP/FF/G over BUD/FF for change from baseline in pre-dose morning and 2-h post-dose FEV₁ at Week 24 (these were analysed as key secondary objectives in the China subgroup). The rate of moderate/severe COPD exacerbations was a secondary endpoint.

Results

Of 708 patients randomised, 88.8% completed. BDP/FF/G was superior to BUD/FF for pre-dose and 2-h post-dose FEV₁ at Week 24 [adjusted mean differences 62 (95% CI 38, 85) mL and 113 (87, 140) mL; both p < 0.001]. The annualised moderate/severe exacerbation rate was 43% lower with BDP/FF/G [rate ratio 0.57 (95% CI 0.42, 0.77); p < 0.001]. Adverse events were reported by 61.1% and 67.0% patients with BDP/FF/G and BUD/FF. Results were similar in the China subgroup.

Conclusions

In patients with COPD, FEV₁ < 50% and an exacerbation history despite maintenance therapy, treatment with extrafine BDP/FF/G improved bronchodilation, and was more effective at preventing moderate/severe COPD exacerbations than BUD/FF.

Trial registration CFDA CTR20160507 (registered 7 Nov 2016, http://www.chinadrugtrials.org.cn/index.html).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12931-021-01683-2.

The IMPACT Study - Single Inhaler Triple Therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) Versus FF/VI And UMEC/VI In Patients With COPD: Efficacy And Safety In A Japanese Population

Purpose

The Informing the Pathway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) study demonstrated that single-inhaler triple therapy fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) reduces moderate/severe exacerbation rates and improves lung function and health status versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI dual therapy in patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations. This analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of FF/UMEC/VI in patients enrolled in Japan.

Patients and methods

IMPACT was a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study comparing FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg with FF/VI 100/25 µg or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg in patients ≥40 years with symptomatic COPD and ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the previous year. Endpoints included annual rate of on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbations (primary endpoint), time-to-first on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation and change from baseline at Week 52 in trough FEV1, post-bronchodilator FEV1, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire, and COPD Assessment Test score. Safety was also assessed.

Results

The Japan subgroup accounted for only 4% (378/10,355) of the overall IMPACT intent-to-treat (ITT) population. In the Japan subgroup, FF/UMEC/VI reduced the annual rate of on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbations by 15% (95% CI: -20, 40) versus FF/VI (compared with 15% [10, 20] in the ITT) and 36% (95% CI: 6, 57) versus UMEC/VI (compared with 25% [19, 30] in the ITT). FF/UMEC/VI reduced moderate/severe exacerbation risk (time-to-first), improved lung function and health status at Week 52 versus both dual therapies. These results were in the same direction and of a generally similar magnitude to those seen in the overall ITT population. No new safety signals were identified in the Japan subgroup compared with the ITT population. Pneumonia incidence was higher with FF/UMEC/VI and FF/VI versus UMEC/VI.

Conclusion

These results highlight the favorable benefit-risk profile of FF/UMEC/VI single-inhaler triple therapy compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI dual therapy in patients in Japan with symptomatic COPD and ≥1 exacerbation in the prior year.