Outcomes Following Initiation of Triple Therapy with Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy Among Medicare Advantage with Part D Beneficiaries and Those Commercially Enrolled for Health Care Insurance in the United States.

Abstract

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have been shown to benefit from triple therapy commonly delivered by multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT); however, the complexity of MITT regimens may decrease patient adherence. Fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI), a once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT), became available in the United States (US) in 2017, but real-world data comparing outcomes for SITT versus MITT are currently limited. This study compared outcomes among patients with COPD initiating MITT versus SITT with FF/UMEC/VI who were either Medicare Advantage with Part D (MAPD) beneficiaries or commercial enrollees in the US. Retrospective study using administrative claims data from the Optum Research Database for patients with COPD who initiated FF/UMEC/VI or MITT between September 1, 2017, and March 31, 2019 (index date: first pharmacy claim for FF/UMEC/VI cohort; earliest day of ≥30 consecutive days-long period of overlap in the day's supply of all triple therapy components for MITT cohort). COPD exacerbations, adherence to triple therapy, and all-cause and COPD-related health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs were compared between FF/UMEC/VI and MITT initiators. In total, 4659 FF/UMEC/VI initiators and 9845 MITT initiators for the MAPD population, and 821 FF/UMEC/VI initiators and 1893 MITT initiators for the commercial population were included in the study. MAPD beneficiaries initiating FF/UMEC/VI had a significantly lower annual rate of severe exacerbations compared to MITT initiators (0.26 vs 0.29; p=0.014). They also had a significantly higher mean adherence (proportion of days covered) (0.51 vs 0.37; p<0.001) and significantly lower all-cause and COPD-related inpatient stays compared to MITT initiators ([32.02% vs 34.27%; p=0.017], [16.09% vs 17.72%; p=0.037]). Trends were similar among the commercial population, but the results were not statistically significant. FF/UMEC/VI initiators had significantly fewer severe exacerbations, higher triple therapy adherence, and lower HCRU costs compared to MITT initiators for MAPD beneficiaries.