Sequential comparison of tiotropium to high-dose ipratropium in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in a practice setting

Methods to assess COPD medications adherence in healthcare databases: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2023 report recommends medication adherence assessment in COPD as an action item. Healthcare databases provide opportunities for objective assessments; however, multiple methods exist. We aimed to systematically review the literature to describe existing methods to assess adherence in COPD in healthcare databases and to evaluate the reporting of influencing variables.

METHOD

We searched MEDLINE, Web of Science and Embase for peer-reviewed articles evaluating adherence to COPD medication in electronic databases, written in English, published up to 11 October 2022 (PROSPERO identifier CRD42022363449). Two reviewers independently conducted screening for inclusion and performed data extraction. Methods to assess initiation (dispensing of medication after prescribing), implementation (extent of use over a specific time period) and/or persistence (time from initiation to discontinuation) were listed descriptively. Each included study was evaluated for reporting variables with an impact on adherence assessment: inpatient stays, drug substitution, dose switching and early refills.

RESULTS

160 studies were included, of which four assessed initiation, 135 implementation and 45 persistence. Overall, one method was used to measure initiation, 43 methods for implementation and seven methods for persistence. Most of the included implementation studies reported medication possession ratio, proportion of days covered and/or an alteration of these methods. Only 11% of the included studies mentioned the potential impact of the evaluated variables.

CONCLUSION

Variations in adherence assessment methods are common. Attention to transparency, reporting of variables with an impact on adherence assessment and rationale for choosing an adherence cut-off or treatment gap is recommended.

Efficacy and safety of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol or tiotropium in subjects with COPD at cardiovascular risk

BACKGROUND

Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) is a novel, once-daily, inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist combination approved for the treatment of COPD and asthma. We compared the safety and efficacy of FF/VI and tiotropium (TIO) in subjects with moderate-to-severe COPD with greater risk for comorbid cardiovascular disease (CVD).

METHODS

This randomized, blinded, double-dummy, parallel-group study compared a once-daily morning dose of FF/VI 100/25 mcg delivered via ELLIPTA™ with TIO 18 mcg via HandiHaler(®) for 12 weeks in subjects with diagnosed COPD, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) 30%-70% predicted, and CVD or CVD risk. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in 24-hour weighted mean FEV1 on Day 84. Other efficacy endpoints included time to onset of bronchodilation, trough FEV1, other spirometry measures, rescue medication use, symptoms, quality of life (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire-COPD [SGRQ-C]), and health status (COPD Assessment Tests [CAT]) measures. Safety endpoints included cardiovascular monitoring, cortisol excretion, COPD exacerbations, and adverse events, including prespecified drug effects.

RESULTS

Both FF/VI and TIO improved the 24-hour weighted mean FEV1 from baseline after 12 weeks with no significant difference between treatments. Other endpoints favored FF/VI for time to onset of bronchodilation, rescue medication use, dyspnea, SGRQ-C and CAT scores, or favored TIO for change from baseline in forced vital capacity and inspiratory capacity. Pneumonia occurred more frequently in the FF/VI group, and two TIO-treated subjects died following cardiovascular events. Other safety measures were similar between groups, and cardiovascular monitoring did not reveal increased CVD risk.

CONCLUSION

Both FF/VI and TIO were efficacious in improving lung function in subjects with COPD and comorbid CVD or CVD risk factors, with minor differences in efficacy and safety profiles.