Abstract

<b>Background:</b> Real-world evidence on frequency of rescue medication use (an indicator of symptoms severity) with different chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) maintenance treatments is limited. <b>Aim and Objectives:</b> To compare rescue medication use in patients with COPD newly initiating treatment with single-inhaler umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO). <b>Methods:</b> A retrospective cohort study using linked primary and secondary healthcare data in England. Patients (COPD diagnosis at age ≥35) were indexed on initiation of single-inhaler UMEC/VI or TIO/OLO (Jul 2015–Sept 2019). Superiority of UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO on mean number of rescue medication prescriptions in the 12 months post-index was assessed (intent-to-treat analysis). Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance treatment groups on potential confounders. <b>Results:</b> Of 8603 eligible patients, 6536 (76.0%) were indexed on UMEC/VI and had significantly fewer mean (SD) rescue medication prescriptions versus TIO/OLO in the weighted comparison (4.91 [4.81] vs 5.48 [5.02]; p=0.0032); unweighted results were similar. Covariates were well balanced across groups following propensity score weighting. <b>Conclusions:</b> Newly prescribed UMEC/VI was superior to TIO/OLO on rescue medication use in patients with COPD in England. <b>Funding:</b> GSK (study 217815)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.