Comparative Effectiveness of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus Inhaled Corticosteroid/Long-Acting β
adherence
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatment
comparative effectiveness
inhaled corticosteroid/long-actingβ2-agonist (ICS/LABA) dual therapy
long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/LABA dual therapy
Journal
International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
ISSN: 1178-2005
Titre abrégé: Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101273481
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
20
01
2023
accepted:
06
04
2023
medline:
10
5
2023
pubmed:
8
5
2023
entrez:
8
5
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To compare adherence to once-daily umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β 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. 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. 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37155496
doi: 10.2147/COPD.S405498
pii: 405498
pmc: PMC10122847
doi:
Substances chimiques
vilanterol
028LZY775B
GSK573719
0
Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists
0
Chlorobenzenes
0
Adrenal Cortex Hormones
0
Quinuclidines
0
Muscarinic Antagonists
0
Bronchodilator Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
643-659Informations de copyright
© 2023 Czira et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
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.
Références
Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2017 Mar 17;12:907-922
pubmed: 28360514
Respir Res. 2019 Dec 3;20(1):273
pubmed: 31796013
Respir Res. 2017 Apr 21;18(1):67
pubmed: 28431503
Clin Kidney J. 2021 Aug 26;15(1):14-20
pubmed: 35035932
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 09;11(3):e0151357
pubmed: 26959820
Am Health Drug Benefits. 2017 Apr;10(2):92-102
pubmed: 28626506
Int J Epidemiol. 2017 Aug 1;46(4):1093-1093i
pubmed: 28338941
Int J Epidemiol. 2019 Dec 1;48(6):1740-1740g
pubmed: 30859197
Respir Med. 2019 Apr;150:1-7
pubmed: 30961933
Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2019 Aug 01;14:1721-1737
pubmed: 31534326
Thorax. 2009 Nov;64(11):939-43
pubmed: 19703830
BMJ Open. 2014 Jul 23;4(7):e005540
pubmed: 25056980
Respir Med. 2011 Mar;105(3):435-41
pubmed: 20880687
N Engl J Med. 2016 Jun 9;374(23):2222-34
pubmed: 27181606
Respir Med. 2017 Aug;129:53-58
pubmed: 28732836
Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Nov 21;8:771-782
pubmed: 27920578
Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2020 Sep 16;15:2207-2215
pubmed: 32982213
Thorax. 2008 Sep;63(9):831-8
pubmed: 18728206
J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Apr;58(4):323-37
pubmed: 15862718
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2008 Dec;17(12):1202-17
pubmed: 18972454
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2022 Jun;22(4):683-690
pubmed: 34530664
Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2021 Apr 22;16:1149-1161
pubmed: 33911860
Respir Med. 2014 Jan;108(1):103-13
pubmed: 24070566
Respir Res. 2017 May 8;18(1):86
pubmed: 28482883
BMJ Open. 2017 Aug 11;7(8):e017474
pubmed: 28801439
Mayo Clin Proc. 2011 Apr;86(4):304-14
pubmed: 21389250
Respir Med. 2013 Oct;107(10):1481-90
pubmed: 23643487