Search

Abstract Background The pathological processes underlying dementia are poorly understood and so are the markers which identify them. Carnosinase is a dipeptidase found almost exclusively in brain and serum. Carnosinase and its substrate carnosine have been linked to neuropathophysiological processes. Methods Carnosinase activity was measured by a flourometric method in 37 patients attending a Geriatric Outpatient Clinic. There were 17 patients without dementia, 13 had Alzheimer's disease (AD) and 7 had mixed dementia (MD). Results The range of serum carnosinase activity for patients without dementia was 14.5 – 78.5 μmol/ml/h. There was no difference in carnosinase activity between patients without dementia (40.3 ± 15.2 μmol/ml/h) and patients with AD (44.4 ± 12.4 μmol/ml/h) or MD (26.6 ± 15 μmol/ml/h). However, levels in the MD group were significantly lower than the AD group (p = 0.01). This difference remained significant after adjusting for gender, MMSE score, exercise, but not age, one at a time and all combined. The effect of other medical conditions did not remove the significance between the AD and MD groups. The MD group, but not the AD group, demonstrated a significant trend with carnosinase activity decreasing with duration of disease (from first recorded date of diagnosis to date of blood collection) (r = -0.76, p = 0.049). There was no association with carnosinase activity and MMSE score in the AD or MD group. Both AD and MD patients on any dementia medication (donepezil, galantamine, memantine) had higher carnosinase activity compared to those not taking a dementia medication. Carnosinase activity was higher in patients who regularly exercised (n = 20) compared to those who did not exercise regularly (n = 17)(p = 0.006). Conclusion This exploratory study has shown altered activities of the enzyme carnosinase in patients with dementia.

Abstract Background This study compares the Bayesian and frequentist (non-Bayesian) approaches in the modelling of the association between the risk of preterm birth and maternal proximity to hazardous waste and pollution from the Sydney Tar Pond site in Nova Scotia, Canada. Methods The data includes 1604 observed cases of preterm birth out of a total population of 17559 at risk of preterm birth from 144 enumeration districts in the Cape Breton Regional Municipality. Other covariates include the distance from the Tar Pond; the rate of unemployment to population; the proportion of persons who are separated, divorced or widowed; the proportion of persons who have no high school diploma; the proportion of persons living alone; the proportion of single parent families and average income. Bayesian hierarchical Poisson regression, quasi-likelihood Poisson regression and weighted linear regression models were fitted to the data. Results The results of the analyses were compared together with their limitations. Conclusion The results of the weighted linear regression and the quasi-likelihood Poisson regression agrees with the result from the Bayesian hierarchical modelling which incorporates the spatial effects.

Background. The recent joint International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research / Society for Medical Decision Making Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force emphasized the importance of conceptualizing and validating models. We report a new model of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (part of the Galaxy project) founded on a conceptual model, implemented using a novel linked-equation approach, and internally validated. Methods. An expert panel developed a conceptual model including causal relationships between disease attributes, progression, and final outcomes. Risk equations describing these relationships were estimated using data from the Evaluation of COPD Longitudinally to Identify Predictive Surrogate Endpoints (ECLIPSE) study, with costs estimated from the TOwards a Revolution in COPD Health (TORCH) study. Implementation as a linked-equation model enabled direct estimation of health service costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for COPD patients over their lifetimes. Internal validation compared 3 years of predicted cohort experience with ECLIPSE results. Results. At 3 years, the Galaxy COPD model predictions of annual exacerbation rate and annual decline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second fell within the ECLIPSE data confidence limits, although 3-year overall survival was outside the observed confidence limits. Projections of the risk equations over time permitted extrapolation to patient lifetimes. Averaging the predicted cost/QALY outcomes for the different patients within the ECLIPSE cohort gives an estimated lifetime cost of £25,214 (undiscounted)/£20,318 (discounted) and lifetime QALYs of 6.45 (undiscounted/5.24 [discounted]) per ECLIPSE patient. Conclusions. A new form of model for COPD was conceptualized, implemented, and internally validated, based on a series of linked equations using epidemiological data (ECLIPSE) and cost data (TORCH). This Galaxy model predicts COPD outcomes from treatment effects on disease attributes such as lung function, exacerbations, symptoms, or exercise capacity; further external validation is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. To develop statistical models predicting disease progression and outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), using data from ECLIPSE, a large, observational study of current and former smokers with COPD. Methods. Based on a conceptual model of COPD disease progression and data from 2164 patients, associations were made between baseline characteristics, COPD disease progression attributes (exacerbations, lung function, exercise capacity, and symptoms), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and survival. Linear and nonlinear functional forms of random intercept models were used to characterize these relationships. Endogeneity was addressed by time-lagging variables in the regression models. Results. At the 5% significance level, an exacerbation history in the year before baseline was associated with increased risk of future exacerbations (moderate: +125.8%; severe: +89.2%) and decline in lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1]) (–94.20 mL per year). Each 1% increase in FEV1 % predicted was associated with decreased risk of exacerbations (moderate: –1.1%; severe: –3.0%) and increased 6-minute walk test distance (6MWD) (+1.5 m). Increases in baseline exercise capacity (6MWD, per meter) were associated with slightly increased risk of moderate exacerbations (+0.04%) and increased FEV1 (+0.62 mL). Symptoms (dyspnea, cough, and/or sputum) were associated with an increased risk of moderate exacerbations (+13.4% to +31.1%), and baseline dyspnea (modified Medical Research Council score ≥2 v. <2) was associated with lower FEV1 (–112.3 mL). Conclusions. A series of linked statistical regression equations have been developed to express associations between indicators of COPD disease severity and HRQoL and survival. These can be used to represent disease progression, for example, in new economic models of COPD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To optimize patient outcomes, healthcare decisions should be based on the most up-to-date high-quality evidence. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are vital for demonstrating the efficacy of interventions; however, information on how an intervention compares to already available treatments and/or fits into treatment algorithms is sometimes limited. Although different therapeutic classes are available for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), assessing the relative efficacy of these treatments is challenging. Synthesizing evidence from multiple RCTs via meta-analysis can help provide a comprehensive assessment of all available evidence and a "global summary" of findings. Pairwise meta-analysis is a well-established method that can be used if two treatments have previously been examined in head-to-head clinical trials. However, for some comparisons, no head-to-head studies are available, for example the efficacy of single-inhaler triple therapies for the treatment of COPD. In such cases, network meta-analysis (NMA) can be used, to indirectly compare treatments by assessing their effects relative to a common comparator using data from multiple studies. However, incorrect choice or application of methods can hinder interpretation of findings or lead to invalid summary estimates. As such, the use of the GRADE reporting framework is an essential step to assess the certainty of the evidence. With an increasing reliance on NMAs to inform clinical decisions, it is now particularly important that healthcare professionals understand the appropriate usage of different methods of NMA and critically appraise published evidence when informing their clinical decisions. This review provides an overview of NMA as a method for evidence synthesis within the field of COPD pharmacotherapy. We discuss key considerations when conducting an NMA and interpreting NMA outputs, and provide guidance on the most appropriate methodology for the data available and potential implications of the incorrect application of methods. We conclude with a simple illustrative example of NMA methodologies using simulated data, demonstrating that when applied correctly, the outcome of the analysis should be similar regardless of the methodology chosen., Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: KH and MM are employees of ICON PLC. ASI, SGN, and CC are employees of and/or hold financial equities in GSK. ASI is also a part-time, unpaid professor at McMaster University. NG is part-funded by ICON PLC. LT has worked as a paid consultant or served as a board member for the following companies: Bausch Health, GSK, Baxter, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Theralase Inc. He also works as Vice-President Research for St Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton. CFV has given presentations at symposia and/or served on scientific advisory boards sponsored by Aerogen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Grifols, GSK, Insmed, MedUpdate, Menarini, Novartis, Nuvaira, Roche, and Sanofi. DMGH reports personal fees from Aerogen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Berlin-Chemie, Chiesi, CSL Behring, GSK, Inogen, Menarini, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: This cost-utility analysis assessed the long-term clinical and economic benefits of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy vs FF/VI or UMEC/VI from a Quebec societal perspective in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the previous year., Methods: The validated GALAXY disease progression model was utilized, with parameters set to baseline and efficacy data from IMPACT. Treatment costs (2017 Canadian dollars [C$]) were estimated using Quebec-specific unit costs. Costs and health outcomes were discounted at 1.5 %/year. A willingness-to-pay threshold of C$50,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was considered cost-effective. Outcomes modeled were exacerbation rates, QALYs, life years (LYs), costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Subgroup analyses were performed according to prior treatment, exacerbation history in the previous year, and baseline lung function., Results: Over a lifetime horizon, FF/UMEC/VI resulted in more QALYs and LYs gained, at a small incremental cost compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI. From a societal perspective, the estimated ICER for the base case was C$18,152/QALY vs FF/VI, and C$15,847/QALY vs UMEC/VI. For the subgroup analyses (FF/UMEC/VI compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI), ICERs ranged from: C$17,412-25,664/QALY and C$16,493-18,663/QALY (prior treatment); C$15,247-19,924/QALY and C$15,444-28,859/QALY (exacerbation history); C$14,025-34,154/QALY and C$16,083-17,509/QALY (baseline lung function)., Interpretation: FF/UMEC/VI was predicted to improve outcomes and be cost-effective vs both comparators in the base case and all subgroup analyses, and based on this analysis would be an appropriate investment of health service funds in Quebec., Clinical Trial Registration Number: IMPACT trial NCT02164513., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: A.S. Ismaila, M. Schroeder, A. Martin, S. Mursleen: are/were employees of, and hold shares in, GSK. A.S. Ismaila: unpaid, part-time professor at McMaster University, Canada. N.A. Risebrough, D. Shah, K. Ndirangu: employees of ICON plc, which received funding from GSK to conduct this study, but were not themselves paid for development of this manuscript., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Triple therapy (long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β 2 -agonist/inhaled corticosteroid) is recommended for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who experience recurrent exacerbations. Multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) is associated with poor adherence and persistence. This study assessed comparative adherence and persistence to single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) versus MITT among patients with COPD in a real-world setting in Germany., Patients and Methods: This retrospective analysis using the WIG2 benchmark database identified patients with COPD newly initiating triple therapy with MITT or SITT (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol [FF/UMEC/VI] or formoterol/beclomethasone/glycopyrronium bromide [FOR/BDP/GLY]) November 2017-June 2019. Eligible patients were ≥35 years with 1 year's continual insurance prior to triple therapy initiation and no previous record of triple therapy. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance baseline characteristics. Adherence was measured using proportion of days covered (PDC) at 6, 12, and 18 months post-treatment initiation; persistence (time until treatment discontinuation) was measured at 6, 12, and 18 months, with a gap of >30 days used to define non-persistence., Results: Of 5710 patients included in the analysis (mean age 66 years), 71.4% initiated MITT and 28.6% initiated SITT (FF/UMEC/VI: 41.4%; FOR/BDP/GLY: 58.6%). Mean PDC was higher among SITT versus MITT users at all time points; at each time point, mean PDC was highest among FF/UMEC/VI users. During the first 6 months following treatment initiation, higher adherence was exhibited by FF/UMEC/VI (29%) and FOR/BDP/GLY (19%) users versus MITT users. Over the entire observation period, FF/UMEC/VI users had the highest proportion of persistent patients; at 18 months, 16.5% of FF/UMEC/VI users were persistent versus 2.3% of MITT users., Conclusion: Patients initiating SITT in Germany had significantly higher adherence and persistence compared with patients initiating MITT over 6 to 18 months following treatment initiation. Among SITT, FF/UMEC/VI users had the highest proportion of adherence and persistence., Competing Interests: CFV has given presentations at symposia and/or served on scientific advisory boards sponsored by Aerogen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Grifols, GSK, Insmed, MedUpdate, Menarini, Novartis, Nuvaira, Roche, and Sanofi. KMB is a full-time employee of insaf Respiratory Research Institute. He has received personal or institutional compensation for services on advisory boards or consulting for AstraZeneca, Bosch Healthcare, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Clario, Elpen, GSK, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pohl Boskamp, Sanofi, sterna, and Zentiva; and compensation for speaker activities in scientific meetings supported by AstraZeneca, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, ERT, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Pohl Boskamp, Sanofi, and Teva, all outside the submitted work. The institution has received compensations for design and performance of clinical trials from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Novartis, Parexel, Pearl Therapeutics, sterna, and Zentiva. MS is an employee of ZEG Berlin, which received funding from GSK to conduct this study. NK and LMR are employees of WIG2 GmbH, that conducted the study on behalf of GSK. JC, CC, SGN, ASI, and GR are employees of, and/or hold financial equities in GSK. ASI is also a part-time, unpaid professor at McMaster University. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2024 Vogelmeier et al.)

Background: Compared with multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT), single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) demonstrated improved lung function and meaningful improvements in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) Assessment Test score. This real-world study compared the effectiveness of switching patients with COPD in England from MITT to once-daily SITT with FF/UMEC/VI by evaluating rates of COPD exacerbation, healthcare resource use (HCRU) and associated direct medical costs., Methods: Retrospective cohort pre-post study using linked primary care electronic health record and secondary care administrative datasets. Patients diagnosed with COPD at age ≥35 years, with smoking history, linkage to secondary care data and continuous GP registration for 12 months pre-switch and 6 months post-switch to FF/UMEC/VI were included. Index date was the first initiation of an FF/UMEC/VI prescription immediately following MITT use from 15 November 2017 to 30 September 2019. Baseline was 12 months prior to index, with outcomes assessed 6/12 months pre-switch and post-switch, and stratified by prior COPD exacerbation status., Results: We included 2533 patients (mean [SD] age: 71.1 [9.9] years; 52.1% male). In the 6 months post-switch, there were significant decreases in the proportion of patients experiencing ≥1 moderate-to-severe (36.2%-28.9%), moderate only (24.4%-19.8%) and severe only (15.4%-11.8%) COPD exacerbation (each, p<0.0001) compared with the 6 months pre-switch. As demonstrated by rate ratios, there were significant reductions in exacerbation rates of each severity overall (p<0.01) and among patients with prior exacerbations (p<0.0001). In the same period, there were significant decreases in the rate of each COPD-related HCRU and total COPD-related costs (-24.9%; p<0.0001)., Conclusion: Patients with COPD switching from MITT to once-daily SITT with FF/UMEC/VI in a primary care setting had significantly fewer moderate and severe exacerbations, and lower COPD-related HCRU and costs, in the 6 months post-switch compared with the 6 months pre-switch., Competing Interests: Competing interests: KJR, CC, RS and ASI are employed by and/or hold stocks/shares in GSK; ASI is also a part-time member of the McMaster University faculty. AC was an employee of and/or held stocks/shares in GSK at the time of study. RPW, LJC, OKIM and MS are employees of Adelphi Real World; Adelphi Real World received funds from GSK to conduct the analysis. VLB was an employee of Adelphi Real World at the time of study, and is now employed by, and holds stocks/shares in Bayer Plc. DMGH reports personal fees from Aerogen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, CSL Behring, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer and Sanofi. CFV has given presentations at symposia and/or served on scientific advisory boards sponsored by Aerogen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Grifols, GSK, Insmed, MedUpdate, Menarini, Novartis, Nuvaira, Roche and Sanofi., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: To assess patient characteristics of users and new initiators of triple therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in Germany., Patients and Methods: Retrospective cohort study of patients with COPD and ≥1 prescription for single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT; fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol [FF/UMEC/VI] or beclomethasone dipropionate/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol [BDP/GLY/FOR]) or multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT), using data from the AOK PLUS German sickness fund (1 January 2015-31 December 2019). The index date was the first date of prescription for FF/UMEC/VI or BDP/GLY/FOR (SITT users), or the first date of overlap of inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting β 2 -agonist, and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (MITT users). Two cohorts were defined: the prevalent cohort included all identified triple therapy users; the incident cohort included patients newly initiating triple therapy for the first time (no prior use of MITT or SITT in the last 2 years). Patient characteristics and treatment patterns were assessed on the index date and during the 24-month pre-index period., Results: In total, 18,630 patients were identified as prevalent triple therapy users (MITT: 17,945; FF/UMEC/VI: 700; BDP/GLY/FOR: 908; non-mutually exclusive) and 2932 patients were identified as incident triple therapy initiators (MITT: 2246; FF/UMEC/VI: 311; BDP/GLY/FOR: 395; non-mutually exclusive). For both the prevalent and incident cohorts, more than two-thirds of patients experienced ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the preceding 24 months; in both cohorts more BDP/GLY/FOR users experienced ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation, compared with FF/UMEC/VI and MITT users. Overall, 97.9% of prevalent triple therapy users and 86.4% of incident triple therapy initiators received maintenance treatment in the 24-month pre-index period., Conclusion: In a real-world setting in Germany, triple therapy was most frequently used after maintenance therapy in patients with recent exacerbations, in line with current treatment recommendations., Competing Interests: Kai-Michael Beeh is a full-time employee of Insaf Respiratory Research Institute. He has received personal or institutional compensation for services on advisory boards or consulting for AstraZeneca, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Elpen, GSK, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pohl Boskamp, Sanofi, sterna, and Zentiva, and compensation for speaker activities in scientific meetings supported by AstraZeneca, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, ERT, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Pohl Boskamp, Sanofi, and Teva, all outside the submitted work. The institution has received compensation for design and performance of clinical trials from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Novartis, Parexel, Pearl Therapeutics, sterna, and Zentiva. Kieran J Rothnie, Jing Claussen, Chris Compton, and Afisi S Ismaila are employees of and/or hold stocks/shares in GSK. Afisi S Ismaila is also an unpaid part-time member of the McMaster University faculty. Alexandrosz Czira was an employee of GSK at the time of the study and now works for Gedeon Richter PLC. Fränce Hardtstock and Rachel K Knapp participated in this study as employees of Cytel/Ingress-Health. Cytel/Ingress-Health received funding from GSK to conduct the study. Thomas Wilke reports grants from GSK and Cytel/Ingress-Health during the conduct of the study and grants from Apontis, Janssen, and Pfizer outside the submitted work. Thomas Wilke received honoraria and other financial support from Cytel Inc., which does studies with all major pharmaceutical companies. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2024 Beeh et al.)

Introduction: Clinical studies demonstrate an accelerated decline in lung function in patients with moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease [GOLD] grade 2) versus severe and very severe COPD (GOLD grades 3 and 4). This predictive modelling study assessed the impact of initiating pharmacotherapy earlier versus later on long-term disease progression in COPD., Methods: The modelling approach used data on decline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ) extracted from published studies to develop a longitudinal non-parametric superposition model of lung function decline with progressive impact of exacerbations from 0 per year to 3 per year and no ongoing pharmacotherapy. The model simulated decline in FEV 1 and annual exacerbation rates from age 40 to 75 years in COPD with initiation of long-acting anti-muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting beta 2 -agonist (LABA) (umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI)) or triple (inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LAMA/LABA; fluticasone furoate (FF)/UMEC/VI) therapy at 40, 55 or 65 years of age., Results: Model-predicted decline in FEV 1 showed that, compared with 'no ongoing' therapy, initiation of triple or LAMA/LABA therapy at age 40, 55 or 65 years preserved an additional 469.7 mL or 236.0 mL, 327.5 mL or 203.3 mL, or 213.5 mL or 137.5 mL of lung function, respectively, by the age of 75. The corresponding average annual exacerbation rates were reduced from 1.57 to 0.91, 1.06 or 1.23 with triple therapy or to 1.2, 1.26 and 1.4 with LAMA/LABA therapy when initiated at 40, 55 or 65 years of age, respectively., Conclusions: This modelling study suggests that earlier initiation of LAMA/LABA or triple therapy may have positive benefits in slowing disease progression in patients with COPD. Greater benefits were demonstrated with early initiation therapy with triple versus LAMA/LABA., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Triple therapy is recommended for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who remain symptomatic despite dual therapy. The optimal timing of triple therapy following an exacerbation of COPD is unknown. The outcomes of prompt (≤ 30 days) vs. delayed (31-180 days) initiation of single-inhaler triple therapy with fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) following an exacerbation of COPD were examined., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of linked English primary (Clinical Practice Research Datalink) and secondary (Hospital Episode Statistics) care data. Patients aged ≥ 35 years with COPD were indexed on the first and/or earliest date of exacerbation between November 15, 2017 and March 31, 2019 with subsequent FF/UMEC/VI initiation within 180 days. Patients were required to be continuously registered with a general practitioner for ≥ 12 months prior to and following index. Subsequent exacerbations, direct medical costs, and hospital readmissions were compared between prompt and delayed initiators. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for measured confounders between cohorts., Results: Overall, 1599 patients were included (prompt: 393, delayed: 1206). After weighting, prompt initiators had numerically lower moderate/severe exacerbations compared with delayed initiators (rate ratio: 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-1.01, p = 0.0587). Both all-cause and COPD-related 30-day hospital readmissions were significantly lower among patients with prompt initiation compared with delayed initiators (all-cause: 23.6% vs. 34.6%, odds ratio [95% CI]: 0.58 [0.36-0.95], p = 0.0293; COPD-related: 20.3% vs. 30.6%, odds ratio [95% CI]: 0.58 [0.35-0.96], p = 0.0347). Prompt initiators also had numerically lower all-cause total costs and significantly lower COPD-related costs per-person-per year compared with delayed initiators (COPD-related: £742 vs. £801, p = 0.0016)., Conclusion: Prompt initiation of FF/UMEC/VI following a moderate/severe exacerbation was associated with fewer subsequent exacerbations, fewer hospital readmissions, and lower COPD-related medical costs compared with delayed initiation., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations are associated with significant morbidity and mortality and increased economic healthcare burden for patients with COPD. Long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β 2 -agonist (LABA) dual therapy is recommended for patients receiving mono-bronchodilator therapy who experience exacerbations or ongoing breathlessness. This study compared two single-inhaler LAMA/LABA dual therapies, umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) and indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY), on moderate-to-severe exacerbation rates in patients with COPD in England., Patients and Methods: This retrospective cohort study used linked primary care electronic health record data (Clinical Practice Research Datalink-Aurum) and secondary care data (Hospital Episode Statistics) to assess outcomes for patients with COPD who had a first prescription for single-inhaler UMEC/VI or IND/GLY (index date) between 1 January 2015 and 30 September 2019 (indexing period). Analyses compared UMEC/VI and IND/GLY on moderate-to-severe, moderate, and severe exacerbations, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and direct costs at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, and time-to-first on-treatment exacerbation up to 24 months post-index date. Following inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), non-inferiority and superiority of UMEC/VI versus IND/GLY were assessed., Results: In total, 12,031 patients were included, of whom 8753 (72.8%) were prescribed UMEC/VI and 3278 (27.2%) IND/GLY. After IPTW, for moderate-to-severe exacerbations, weighted rate ratios were <1 at 6, 12, and 18 months and equal to 1 at 24 months for UMEC/VI; around the null value for moderate exacerbations and <1 at all timepoints for severe exacerbations. UMEC/VI showed lower HCRU incidence rates than IND/GLY for all-cause Accident and Emergency visits and COPD-related inpatient stays and associated all-cause costs at 6 months post-indexing. Time-to-triple therapy was similar for both treatments., Conclusion: UMEC/VI demonstrated non-inferiority to IND/GLY in moderate-to-severe exacerbation reduction at 6, 12 and 18 months. These results support previous findings demonstrating similarity between UMEC/VI and IND/GLY on reduction of moderate-to-severe exacerbations., Competing Interests: GR, CCo, KJR, and ASI are employees of GSK and hold stocks and shares at GSK. ASI also holds an unpaid faculty position at McMaster University. AC was an employee of GSK and held stocks and shares at GSK at the time of the study. FJFH is an employee of the Translational Lung Research Center Heidelberg, part of the Germany lung research Foundation (DZL). JKQ holds a position at Imperial College London and has received grants or contracts paid to this institution outside the scope of the submitted work from the Medical Research Council, Health Data Research UK, GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, Asthma + Lung UK, and AstraZeneca. JKQ has also received payment for advisory board participation, teaching or lectures from GSK, AstraZeneca, and Insmed. CCa, TT, RWo, and RWi are employees of Adelphi Real World. VB and JY were employees of Adelphi Real World at the time of the study. Adelphi Real World is a business that provides consulting and other research services to pharmaceutical, device, government, and non-government organizations which received funding from GSK to conduct the study. Adelphi Real World employees work with a variety of companies and organizations and are expressly prohibited from receiving any payment or honoraria directly from these organizations for services rendered. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2023 Requena et al.)

Purpose: For patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who remain symptomatic despite maintenance treatment, clinical management guidelines recommend a stepwise escalation from monotherapy to dual therapy, and from dual therapy to triple therapy. However, in clinical practice, patients are often escalated directly from monotherapy to triple therapy based on disease severity. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of once-daily, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy compared with long-acting muscarinic antagonist monotherapy with once-daily tiotropium (TIO) in patients with symptomatic moderate-to-very severe COPD, from a UK National Health Service perspective., Patients and Methods: The validated GALAXY-COPD disease progression model was populated with patient baseline characteristics and treatment effect data from the 12-week GSK Study 207626 comparing FF/UMEC/VI with TIO in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. UK unit costs and drug costs (British Pound, 2021) were applied to healthcare resource utilization and treatments. The base case analysis was conducted over a lifetime horizon, and costs and health outcomes (except for life years [LYs]) were discounted at 3.5% per year. Model outputs included exacerbation rates, healthcare costs, LYs, quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios., Results: Overall, treatment with FF/UMEC/VI resulted in increased clinical benefit (reduction in total exacerbations and increased overall survival and QALYs), coupled with cost savings (derived from lower maintenance and exacerbation healthcare costs) compared with TIO monotherapy. In the base case analysis, FF/UMEC/VI provided an additional 0.393 LYs (95% range: 0.176, 0.655) and 0.443 QALYs (0.246, 0.648), at a cost saving of £880 (£54, £1608) versus TIO. FF/UMEC/VI remained the cost-effective (dominant) treatment option across sensitivity and scenario analyses., Conclusion: FF/UMEC/VI offers greater clinical benefits and is a cost-effective treatment option compared with TIO for the treatment of adult patients with COPD with persistent symptoms and/or who are at risk of exacerbation in the UK., Competing Interests: AAM, SS, CC, and ASI are GSK employees. AAM, CC, and ASI hold shares in GSK. ASI is also an unpaid part-time professor at McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. RK and DS are ICON employees. ICON received funding from GSK to conduct this analysis, but not for manuscript development., (© 2023 Kendall et al.)

Purpose: Routinely collected healthcare data on the comparative effectiveness of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β 2 -agonist combination umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus tiotropium bromide/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is limited. This study compared rescue medication prescriptions in patients with COPD in England receiving UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO., Patients and Methods: This retrospective cohort study used primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum database linked with secondary care administrative data from Hospital Episode Statistics. Patients with a COPD diagnosis at age ≥35 years were included (indexed) following initiation of single-inhaler UMEC/VI or TIO/OLO between July 1, 2015, and September 30, 2019. Outcomes included the number of rescue medication prescriptions at 12-months (primary), and at 6-, 18- and 24-months (secondary), adherence at 6-, 12-, 18- and 24-months post-index, defined as proportion of days covered ≥80% (secondary), and time-to-initiation of triple therapy (exploratory). Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance potential confounding baseline characteristics. Superiority of UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO for the primary outcome of rescue medication prescriptions was assessed using an intention-to-treat analysis with a p-value < 0.05., Results: In total, 8603 patients were eligible (UMEC/VI: n = 6536; TIO/OLO: n = 2067). Following IPTW, covariates were well balanced across groups. Patients initiating UMEC/VI had statistically significantly fewer (mean [standard deviation]; p-value) rescue medication prescriptions versus TIO/OLO in both the unweighted (4.84 [4.78] vs 5.68 [5.00]; p < 0.001) and weighted comparison (4.91 [4.81] vs 5.48 [5.02]; p = 0.0032) at 12 months; consistent results were seen at all timepoints. Adherence was numerically higher for TIO/OLO versus UMEC/VI at all timepoints. Time-to-triple therapy was similar between treatment groups., Conclusion: UMEC/VI was superior to TIO/OLO in reducing rescue medication prescriptions at 12 months after treatment initiation in a primary care cohort in England, potentially suggesting improvements in symptom control with UMEC/VI compared with TIO/OLO., Competing Interests: GR, AC, CC, KJR, and ASI are employees of GSK and hold stock and shares at GSK. ASI also holds an unpaid faculty position at McMaster University. FH is an employee of the Translational Lung Research Center Heidelberg, part of the Germany lung research Foundation (DZL). JKQ holds a position at Imperial College London. CMC, TT, RWo, and RWi are employees of Adelphi Real World. VB is currently an employee of Bayer AG UK, and holds stock and shares in Bayer AG UK. VB and JY were employees of Adelphi Real World at the time of the study. Adelphi Real World is a business that provides consulting and other research services to pharmaceutical, device, government, and non-government organizations which received funding from GSK to conduct the study. Adelphi Real World employees work with a variety of companies and organizations and are expressly prohibited from receiving any payment or honoraria directly from these organizations for services rendered. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2023 Requena et al.)

Purpose: To compare adherence to once-daily umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β 2 -agonist (LAMA/LABA), and twice-daily inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/LABA single-inhaler dual therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in a primary care cohort in England., Patients and Methods: Active comparator, new-user, retrospective cohort study using CPRD-Aurum primary care data and linked Hospital Episode Statistics secondary care administrative data. Patients without exacerbations in the previous year were indexed on first/earliest prescription date of once-daily UMEC/VI or twice-daily ICS/LABA as initial maintenance therapy between July 2014-September 2019. Primary outcome: medication adherence at 12 months post-index, defined as proportion of days covered (PDC) ≥80%. PDC represented proportion of time over the treatment duration that the patient was theoretically in possession of the medication. Secondary outcomes: adherence at 6, 18, and 24 months post-index, time-to-triple therapy, time-to-first on-treatment COPD exacerbation, COPD-related and all-cause healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and direct health-care costs. A propensity score was generated and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance potential confounders. Superiority was defined as >0% difference between treatment groups., Results: In total, 6815 eligible patients were included (UMEC/VI:1623; ICS/LABA:5192). At 12 months post-index, weighted odds of a patient being adherent were significantly greater with UMEC/VI versus ICS/LABA (odds ratio [95% CI]: 1.71 [1.09, 2.66]; p=0.0185), demonstrating superiority of UMEC/VI. Patients taking UMEC/VI were statistically significantly more adherent than those taking ICS/LABA at 6, 18, and 24 months post-index (p<0.05). Differences in time-to-triple therapy, time-to-moderate COPD exacerbations, HCRU, and direct medical costs were not statistically significant between treatments after IPTW was applied., Conclusion: At 12 months post-treatment initiation, once-daily UMEC/VI was superior to twice-daily ICS/LABA in medication adherence among patients with COPD without exacerbations in the previous year, newly initiating dual maintenance therapy in England. The finding was consistent at 6, 18, and 24 months., Competing Interests: AC, GR, CC, KJR, and ASI are employees of GSK and hold stock and shares at GSK. ASI also holds an unpaid faculty position at McMaster University in Canada. FH is an employee of the Translational Lung Research Center Heidelberg, part of the Germany lung research Foundation (DZL) and he also reports lecturing and adboard activities for GSK. JKQ holds a position at Imperial College London. CMC, TT, RWo, and RWi are employees of Adelphi Real World. VB is currently an employee of Bayer AG UK and holds stock and shares there. VB and JY were employees of Adelphi Real World at the time of the study. Adelphi Real World is a business that provides consulting and other research services to pharmaceutical, device, government, and non-government organizations, which received funding from GSK to conduct the study. Adelphi Real World employees work with a variety of companies and organizations and are expressly prohibited from receiving any payment or honoraria directly from these organizations for services rendered. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2023 Czira et al.)

Purpose: Selection of treatments for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may impact clinical outcomes, healthcare resource use (HCRU) and direct healthcare costs. We aimed to characterize these outcomes along with treatment patterns, for patients with COPD following initiation of single-inhaler long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β 2 -agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual therapy in the primary care setting in England., Patients and Methods: This retrospective cohort study used linked primary care electronic medical record data (Clinical Practice Research Datalink-Aurum) and secondary care administrative data (Hospital Episode Statistics) in England to assess outcomes for patients with COPD who had a prescription for one of four single-inhaler LAMA/LABA dual therapies between 1st June 2015-31st December 2018 (indexing period). Outcomes were assessed during a 12-month follow-up period from the index date (date of earliest prescription of a single-inhaler LAMA/LABA within the indexing period). Incident users were those without previous LAMA/LABA dual therapy prescriptions prior to index; this manuscript focuses on a subset of incident users: non-triple therapy users (patients without concomitant inhaled corticosteroid use at index)., Results: Of 10,991 incident users included, 9888 (90.0%) were non-triple therapy users, indexed on umeclidinium/vilanterol (n=4805), aclidinium/formoterol (n=2109), indacaterol/glycopyrronium (n=1785) and tiotropium/olodaterol (n=1189). At 3 months post-index, 63.3% of non-triple therapy users remained on a single-inhaler LAMA/LABA, and 22.1% had discontinued inhaled therapy. Most patients (86.9%) required general practitioner consultations in the first 3 months post-index. Inpatient stays were the biggest contributor to healthcare costs. Acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPDs), adherence, time-to-triple therapy, time-to-first on-treatment moderate-to-severe AECOPD, time-to-index treatment discontinuation, HCRU and healthcare costs were similar across indexed therapies., Conclusion: Patients initiating treatment with single-inhaler LAMA/LABA in primary care in England were unlikely to switch treatments in the first three months following initiation, but some may discontinue respiratory medication. Outcomes were similar across indexed treatments., Competing Interests: AC, GR, CC, and ASI are employees of GSK and hold stock and shares at GSK. ASI is also a part-time member of the McMaster university faculty. TT, RWo and RWi are employees of Adelphi Real World, which received funding from GSK to conduct the study, but not for manuscript development. VB was an employee of Adelphi Real World at the time of the study, and is currently an employee of Bayer AG UK, and holds stock and shares in Bayer AG UK. Adelphi Real World is a business that provides consulting and other research services to pharmaceutical, device, government, and non-government organizations. Adelphi Real World employees work with a variety of companies and organizations and are expressly prohibited from receiving any payment or honoraria directly from these organizations for services rendered. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2023 Requena et al.)