Umeclidinium/vilanterol Research Articles

Comparison of Rescue Medication Prescriptions in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Receiving Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus Tiotropium Bromide/Olodaterol in Routine Clinical Practice in England.

Routinely collected healthcare data on the comparative effectiveness of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-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. 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. 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. 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.

EE187 Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Versus Tiotropium/Olodaterol in the Treatment of Severe to Very Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) from the Brazilian Public Healthcare System Perspective: A Budget Impact Analysis

Umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VIL) and tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO), both combinations of long-acting muscarinic antagonist and long-acting beta2-adrenergic (LAMA/LABA) with similar efficacy and safety, are reimbursed for COPD treatment in Brazilian Public Healthcare System (SUS) since 2020. In 2021/2022, according to the Brazilian Government Price Panel (PP), TIO/OLO public sales volume were four times higher compared to UMEC/VIL. Our aim was to estimate the budget impact analysis (BIA) of switching TIO/OLO to UMEC/VIL for severe to very severe COPD treatment in SUS.

Comparative Effectiveness of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus Inhaled Corticosteroid/Long-Acting β2-Agonist in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in a Primary Care Setting in England.

To compare adherence to once-daily umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-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. 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.

Comparative Effectiveness of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus Indacaterol/Glycopyrronium on Moderate-to-Severe Exacerbations in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Clinical Practice in England.

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 β2-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. 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. 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. 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.

Differences in Pulmonary Function Improvement after Once-Daily LABA/LAMA Fixed-Dose Combinations in Patients with COPD.

This real-world study evaluated the efficacy of once-daily long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) for improving lung function in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Patients with COPD who were treated with once-daily LABA/LAMA FDCs for 12 months were included. We evaluated their lung function improvement after 12 months of treatment with different LABA/LAMA FDCs. A total of 198 patients with COPD who were treated with once-daily LABA/LAMA FDCs were analyzed. A total of 114 patients were treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VIL); 34 patients were treated with indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY); and 50 patients were treated with tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO). The forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) was significantly increased in the patients treated with all three once-daily FDCs (55.2% to 60.9%, p = 0.012 for UMEC/VIL, 58.2% to 63.6%, p = 0.023 for IND/GLY, and 54.1% to 57.7%, p = 0.009 for TIO/OLO). The treatment of COPD patients with TIO/OLO resulted in a significant improvement in both forced vital capacity (FVC%) (71.7% to 77.9%, p = 0.009) and residual volume (RV%) (180.1% to 152.5%, p < 0.01) compared with those treated with UMEC/VIL (FVC%: 75.1% to 81.5%, p < 0.001; RV%:173.8% to 165.2%, p = 0.231) or IND/GLY (FVC%: 73.9% to 79.3%, p = 0.08; RV%:176.8% to 168.3%, p = 0.589). Patients treated with UMEC/VIL or TIO/OLO showed significant improvement in FVC. In addition, those receiving TIO/OLO also showed significant improvement in RV reduction.

An Open-Label, Multicentre, Observational, Post-Marketing Study to Monitor the Safety and Effectiveness of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Korean Patients.

Umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI; ANORO ELLIPTA, GSK) is a commonly used dual bronchodilator. This study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of UMEC/VI in Korean patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) over a 6-year period. This was an open-label, multicentre, observational, post-marketing surveillance study. A total of 3,375 patients were enrolled consecutively in 52 hospitals, by 53 physicians, between July 2014 and July 2020. Patients who were administered UMEC/VI (fixed-dose 62.5 μg/25 μg) at least once and were monitored for safety and effectiveness were included in the analysis. Incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs) reported after administrating at least one dose of UMEC/VI were monitored, including unexpected adverse events (UAEs) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Effectiveness of UMEC/VI after 24 weeks of administration was also assessed using physician's evaluation (effective, ineffective/no change, worsening, indeterminable) and lung function improvement. Of 3,375 patients, 3,086 were included in the safety assessment group (mean age±standard deviation: 69.76±8.80 years; 85.9% male [n=2,652]; 73.1% aged ≥65 years [n=2,255]). The overall incidence of AEs was 28.8% (n=890), of which 2.2% (n=67) were ADRs. Serious AEs and UAEs were reported in 181 (5.9%) and 665 (21.6%) patients, respectively, and two patients (&lt;0.1%) reported unexpected severe ADR. Of the 903/3,086 patients analysed for effectiveness, most (82.8%, n=748) showed overall disease improvement after UMEC/VI treatment. This study confirmed UMEC/VI administered to Korean patients according to the prescribing information was well-tolerated and can be considered an effective option for COPD treatment.

Comparative Efficacy of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Versus Other Bronchodilators for the Treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis.

IntroductionFew randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual maintenance therapies for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus other dual and mono-bronchodilator therapies in symptomatic patients with COPD.MethodsA systematic literature review (October 2015–November 2020) was performed to identify RCTs ≥ 8 weeks long in adult patients with COPD that compared LAMA/LABA combinations against any long-acting bronchodilator-containing dual therapy or monotherapy. Data extracted on changes from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score, rescue medication use and moderate/severe exacerbation rate were analysed using an NMA in a frequentist framework. The primary comparison was at 24 weeks. Fixed effects model results are presented.ResultsThe NMA included 69 full-length publications (including 10 GSK clinical study reports) reporting 49 studies. At 24 weeks, UMEC/VI provided statistically significant greater improvements in FEV1 versus all dual therapy and monotherapy comparators. UMEC/VI provided similar improvements in SGRQ total score compared with all other LAMA/LABAs, and significantly greater improvements versus UMEC 125 μg, glycopyrronium 50 μg, glycopyrronium 18 μg, tiotropium 18 μg and salmeterol 50 μg. UMEC/VI also provided significantly better outcomes versus some comparators for TDI focal score, rescue medication use, annualised moderate/severe exacerbation rate, and time to first moderate/severe exacerbation.ConclusionUMEC/VI provided generally better outcomes compared with LAMA or LABA monotherapies, and consistent improvements in lung function (measured by change from baseline in trough FEV1 at 24 weeks) versus dual therapies. Treatment with UMEC/VI may improve outcomes for symptomatic patients with COPD compared with alternative maintenance treatments.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-022-02234-x.

Cost-Effectiveness of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus Salmeterol/Fluticasone in Elderly Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases in China.

BackgroundFixed dose dual bronchodilators such as long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) plus long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) are a new and important inhaled preparation for COPD treatment in China. Among these, umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VIL) is increasingly being used in China, especially among the elderly.PurposeThis study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of maintenance treatment with UMEC/VIL compared with salmeterol/fluticasone (FSC) as one of the main therapeutic drugs for moderate to very severe COPD in China.MethodsA Markov model was developed to estimate the costs and outcomes from a societal perspective in a 10-year time horizon. Patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD were treated with UMEC/VIL (62.5/25µg) or FSC (50/500ug). Data concerning clinical efficacy, costs, utilities, transition probability, exacerbation rate, and mortality were obtained from the published literature and official government datasets. The costs were presented in US dollars based on 2021 prices. The indicators of total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and mortality were used as the model output. Costs and outcomes were discounted at a 5% annual rate. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated considering the threshold recommended by WHO. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the stability of results.ResultsCompared with FSC, treatment with UMEC/VIL could save $1947.18, with a gain of 0.12 life-years and 0.05 QALYs. Further, 28.0% patients treated with UMEC/VIL and 29.2% patients treated with FSC were predicted to die after 10 years. Incremental cost effectiveness analysis showed that UMEC/VIL was dominant to FSC. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that the results were robust.ConclusionUMEC/VIL is a cost-effective treatment option compared with FSC among patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD.

Which LABA/LAMA should be chosen in COPD patients in real life?

BackgroundGiven COPD heterogeneity, we do not know if some LABA/LAMAs are more suitable for some COPD phenotypes. This real-life database study aimed to evaluate retrospectively the 4 LABA/LAMA effectiveness and highlight possible specificities that could better guide us in choosing the right LABA/LAMA to be used. MethodsWe searched for subjects (1,779) adherent to umeclidinium/vilanterol (UM/VI), indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY), aclidinium/formoterol (ACLI/FOR) and tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) treatments in our prescribing/dispensing database. Prescriptions for systemic corticosteroids (SC), antibiotics and salbutamol during one year of LABA/LAMA treatment were analyzed. ResultsA better adherence was found in individuals taking IND/GLY (10.42 ± 1.86 packages/year) compared with UM/VI (10.09 ± 1.9; p = 0.008), ACLI/FOR (9.8 ± 1.8; p = 0.001) and TIO/OLO (10.1 ± 2.1; p = 0.047). The number of patients that were prescribed at least one package of SC/year and their package numbers/year were similar in males/females, across age groups and in “non-frequent exacerbators” with the 4 LABA/LAMAs. More SC were taken by frequent exacerbators, whereas fewer SC/antibiotic packages were prescribed to subjects aged >80 years with all treatments. In patients treated with ACLI/FOR or TIO/OLO, lower risks to having antibiotic prescriptions were observed when UM/VI (0.698[0.516–0.945] and 0.696[0.491–0.985; p = 0.020 and p = 0.041) and IND/GLY (0.597[0.445–0.802] and 0.595[0.423–0.836]; p = 0.001 and p = 0.003) were considered as landmarks. Lower risks for salbutamol prescriptions were detected with UM/VI (0.678[0.480–0.958]; p = 0.027) and TIO/OLO (0.585[0.365–0.937]; p = 0.026) when ACLI/FOR was used as a reference. ConclusionAccording to our retrospective database study, each LABA/LAMA could have a specific efficacy profile in COPD that might be considered for personalized therapy. However, head-to-head targeted trials aimed to assess the impact of different LABA/LAMAs on COPD are needed to confirm/disprove such results.

Time-to-first exacerbation, adherence, and medical costs among US patients receiving umeclidinium/vilanterol or tiotropium as initial maintenance therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a retrospective cohort study

BackgroundAdherence to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) maintenance medication is important for managing symptoms and exacerbation risk, and is associated with reduced mortality, hospitalizations, and costs. This study compared on-treatment exacerbations, medical costs, and medication adherence in patients with COPD initiating treatment with umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) or tiotropium (TIO).MethodsThis retrospective matched cohort study selected patients from Optum’s de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart database who initiated maintenance treatment with UMEC/VI or TIO between 01/01/2014 and 12/31/2017 (index date defined as the first dispensing). Eligible patients were ≥ 40 years of age and had ≥ 12 months continuous health plan coverage pre- and post-index; ≥ 1 medical claim for COPD pre-index or on the index date; no moderate/severe COPD-related exacerbations on the index date; no asthma diagnosis pre- or post-index; no maintenance medication fills containing inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting β2-agonists, or long-acting muscarinic antagonists pre-index or on the index date; and no fills for both UMEC/VI and TIO on the index date. Outcomes included time-to-first (Kaplan–Meier analysis) and rates of on-treatment COPD-related moderate/severe exacerbations, medication adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC] and proportion of adherent patients [PDC ≥ 0.8]), and COPD-related medical costs per patient per month (PPPM). Propensity score matching was used to adjust for potential confounders.ResultsEach cohort included 3929 matched patients. Kaplan–Meier rates of on-treatment COPD-related exacerbations were similar between cohorts (hazard ratio at 12 months; overall: 0.93, moderate: 0.92, severe: 1.07; all p > 0.05). UMEC/VI versus TIO initiators had significantly higher adherence (mean PDC: 0.44 vs 0.37; p < 0.001; proportion with PDC ≥ 0.8: 22.0% vs 16.4%; p< 0.001) and significantly lower mean on-treatment COPD-related total medical costs ($867 vs $1095 PPPM; p = 0.028), driven by lower outpatient visit costs.ConclusionsThese findings provide valuable information for physicians considering UMEC/VI or TIO as initial maintenance therapy options for patients with COPD.

PRS10 Economic Evaluation of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Versus Umeclidinium or Salmeterol in a UK COPD Population at Low Risk of Exacerbations Using the GALAXY Model

The 24-week EMAX trial in symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids demonstrated clinical benefits of once-daily umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25 mcg versus once-daily UMEC 62.5 mcg and twice-daily salmeterol (SAL) 50 mcg. This post hoc analysis assessed cost-effectiveness of UMEC/VI versus UMEC or SAL from a UK payer perspective in patients with COPD and no exacerbation history in the EMAX trial. The validated GALAXY risk equation model was populated with EMAX patient characteristics, treatment effects, rescue medication use data, and 2020 UK costs. Treatment effects included forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ); no treatment effect was included for exacerbations. Model outputs included estimated exacerbation rates, survival, costs, life years (LYs), and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs); incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated for cost per QALY gained. The base case used a 10-year time horizon, excluded treatment discontinuation, and discounted future costs and QALYs by 3.5% annually. Sensitivity and scenario analyses assessed robustness of model results. Despite greater incremental drug costs, UMEC/VI was the dominant treatment versus UMEC and SAL, providing an additional 0.090 LYs (95% CI: 0.035, 0.158) and 0.055 QALYs (-0.059, 0.168) with cost savings of £690 (-£1306, -£231) versus UMEC, and 0.174 LYs (0.076, 0.286) and 0.204 QALYs (0.079, 0.326) with cost savings of £1336 (-£2032, -£1006) versus SAL. In scenario and sensitivity analyses, ICERs for UMEC/VI versus UMEC were sensitive to time horizon (5 years: ICER=£4) and SGRQ treatment effect (upper CI: ICER=£12,337), while UMEC/VI was consistently dominant versus SAL. Based on model predictions from a UK NHS perspective, symptomatic patients with COPD and no exacerbation history receiving UMEC/VI are expected to have better outcomes (QALYs and survival) at lower costs versus UMEC and SAL. FUNDING: GSK (study 209845; EMAX study 201749/NCT03034915).

Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Compared with Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol, Budesonide/Formoterol, and Tiotropium as Initial Maintenance Therapy in Patients with COPD Who Have High Costs and Comorbidities.

BackgroundComorbidities in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are associated with increased medical costs and risk of exacerbations. This study compared COPD-related medical costs and exacerbations in high-cost, high-comorbidity patients with COPD receiving initial maintenance treatment (IMT) with umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL), budesonide/formoterol (B/F), or tiotropium (TIO).MethodsThis retrospective, matched cohort study identified patients from Optum’s de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart database who initiated UMEC/VI, FP/SAL, B/F, or TIO between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2018 (index date defined as date of the first fill). Eligibility criteria included age ≥40 years at index, ≥1 pre-index COPD diagnosis, no pre-index asthma diagnosis, 12 months of continuous insurance coverage pre-index, and high pre-index costs (≥80th percentile of IMT population) and comorbidities (Quan-Charlson comorbidity index ≥3). Propensity score matching was used to control for potential confounders. On-treatment COPD-related medical costs (primary endpoint) and exacerbations were evaluated.ResultsMatched cohorts were well balanced on baseline characteristics (UMEC/VI vs FP/SAL: n=1194 each; UMEC/VI vs B/F: n=1441 each; UMEC/VI vs TIO: n=1277 each). Patients receiving UMEC/VI had significantly lower COPD-related medical costs versus FP/SAL (difference: $6587 per patient per year; P=0.048), and numerically lower costs versus B/F and TIO. Patients initiating UMEC/VI had significantly lower risk of COPD-related severe exacerbation versus FP/SAL (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.78 [0.62, 0.98]; P=0.032), B/F (0.77 [0.63, 0.95]; P=0.016), and TIO (0.79 [0.64, 0.98]; P=0.028). The rate of COPD-related severe exacerbations was significantly lower with UMEC/VI versus FP/SAL (rate ratio [95% CI]: 0.73 [0.59, 0.91]; P=0.008) and B/F (0.73 [0.59, 0.93]; P=0.012), and numerically lower versus TIO (0.83 [0.68, 1.04]; P=0.080).ConclusionThese findings suggest that high-cost, high-comorbidity patients with COPD receiving UMEC/VI compared with FP/SAL, B/F, and TIO as IMT may have lower medical costs and exacerbation risk.

Hospital Admission and Readmission Among US Patients Receiving Umeclidinium/Vilanterol or Tiotropium as Initial Maintenance Therapy for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

IntroductionPatients hospitalized for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations are at risk of further readmissions, increased treatment costs, and excess mortality. This study evaluated inpatient admissions and readmissions in patients receiving initial maintenance therapy with umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus tiotropium (TIO).MethodsThis retrospective, matched cohort study identified patients with COPD who initiated maintenance therapy with UMEC/VI or TIO from Optum’s de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart database between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2018 (index date defined as earliest dispensing). Eligibility criteria included: ≥ 1 medical claim for COPD pre-index or on the index date; ≥ 12 months of continuous eligibility pre-index; age ≥ 40 years at index; no pre- or post-index asthma diagnosis; and no pre-index claims for medications containing inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting β2-agonists, or long-acting muscarinic antagonists. Outcomes included time to first on-treatment COPD-related inpatient admission, rate of on-treatment COPD-related admissions, and rate of all-cause and COPD-related readmissions within 30 and 90 days. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for potential confounders.ResultsMatched UMEC/VI and TIO cohorts each included 7997 patients and were balanced on baseline characteristics (mean age 70.9 years; female 47.1–47.6%). Over 12 months, patients initiating UMEC/VI had significantly reduced risk (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.87 [0.79, 0.96]; p = 0.006) and rates (rate ratio [95% CI]: 0.80 [0.72, 0.92]; p = 0.008) of COPD-related inpatient admissions compared with TIO. While all-cause readmission rates were similar between treatment cohorts, readmission rates among patients with an initial admission length of stay of 1–3 days were numerically lower for UMEC/VI versus TIO (30-day readmissions: 10.5% vs. 12.4%; 90-day readmissions: 15.5% vs. 19.8%). Similar patterns were observed for COPD-related readmissions.ConclusionsThese findings highlight the real-world benefits of dual therapy with UMEC/VI versus TIO in reducing inpatient admissions and readmissions in patients with COPD, which may translate to lower healthcare costs.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41030-021-00151-y.

The Utilization and Safety of Umeclidinium and Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in UK Primary Care: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BackgroundUmeclidinium bromide (UMEC) and umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) received European approval for maintenance treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in 2014. This study examined prescribing patterns, possible off-label prescribing, potential safety-related outcomes and adherence of these medications in routine clinical practice post-approval.MethodsThis retrospective, multi-database, longitudinal observational study of new users of UMEC, UMEC/VI, or other long-acting bronchodilators (LABD) analyzed data from UK electronic health record databases (primary care cohort), linked to hospital data (linked cohort). Off-label prescribing, safety outcomes (cardiovascular, respiratory, and mortality), treatment patterns, and medication adherence were assessed.ResultsIn the primary care cohort (new users of UMEC n=3875; UMEC/VI n=2224; other LABD n=32,809), two-thirds of UMEC users were prescribed concomitant inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting β2-agonists. Possible off-label prescribing, defined as use in patients without COPD, was similar for UMEC (7.0%) and UMEC/VI (8.8%), but higher for new users of other LABD (18.0%). There were 547 UMEC users and 512 UMEC/VI users in the linked cohort. In both cohorts, incidence rates (IRs) of cardiovascular outcomes were similar for UMEC and UMEC/VI users (myocardial infarction IR per 1000 person-years [95% CIs]: UMEC 6.9 [4.4, 10.2]; UMEC/VI 6.8 [3.5, 11.9]). IRs of pneumonia and acute COPD exacerbations (AECOPD) were slightly higher among UMEC users compared with UMEC/VI users (AECOPD IR per 1000 person-years [95% CIs]: UMEC 979 [931, 1030]; UMEC/VI 746 [687, 811]). Adherence (medication possession ratio ≥80%) was 64% for UMEC and UMEC/VI.ConclusionMost new users of UMEC were receiving multiple-inhaler triple therapy. Off-label prescribing was uncommon for new users of UMEC and UMEC/VI. Incidence of cardiovascular and respiratory outcomes was as expected for these drug classes. This study provides evidence that UMEC and UMEC/VI are being prescribed appropriately and their safety profile remains unchanged.

Evaluation of Medication Adherence and Rescue Medication Use in Non-Exacerbating Patients with COPD Receiving Umeclidinium/Vilanterol or Budesonide/Formoterol as Initial Maintenance Therapy.

BackgroundAdherence to inhaled maintenance therapy is critical to managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), while increasing rescue medication usage may indicate worsening symptoms. This study evaluated adherence and rescue medication use in patients with COPD without a history of exacerbation who initiated combination therapy with budesonide/formoterol (B/F) or umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI).MethodsRetrospective observational study of commercially insured and Medicare Advantage with Part D enrollees who initiated UMEC/VI or B/F between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2017 (earliest fill defined as index date). Eligibility criteria included age ≥40 years, 12 months continuous enrollment pre- and post-index, ≥1 pre-index COPD diagnosis, no pre-index asthma diagnosis, COPD-related exacerbations, or medication fills containing inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting β2-agonists, or long-acting muscarinic antagonists. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance treatment groups on potential confounders. Medication adherence (primary endpoint) was evaluated by the proportion of days covered (PDC). Rescue medication use (secondary endpoint) was standardized to canister equivalents (1 metered dose inhaler [200 puffs] or ~100 nebulized doses of short-acting β2-agonist- and/or short-acting muscarinic agonist-containing medication).ResultsAfter IPTW, covariates were balanced between cohorts (UMEC/VI: N=4082; B/F: N=9529). UMEC/VI initiators had a significantly greater mean PDC (UMEC/VI: 0.47 [0.33]; B/F: 0.38 [0.30]; P<0.001) and significantly higher rates of adherence (PDC≥0.80) than B/F initiators (UMEC/VI: n=1004 [25%], B/F: n=1391 [15%]; relative risk: 1.68, 95% CI: 1.57, 1.81; P<0.001). In the year following initiation, UMEC/VI initiators filled significantly fewer rescue medication canister equivalents than B/F initiators (predicted mean [95% CI]: 1.78 [1.69, 1.88] vs 2.15 [2.08, 2.23]; mean difference [95% CI]: −0.37 [−0.50, −0.24]; P<0.001), corresponding to 17% less (estimated) rescue medication use (incidence rate ratio [95% CI]: 0.83 [0.78, 0.88]).ConclusionAmong non-exacerbating patients with COPD initiating dual therapy, UMEC/VI demonstrated improved adherence and reduced rescue medication use compared with B/F.

Clinical experience of using double bronchodilation therapy in patients with COPD

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is today one of the socially significant diseases, and its treatment remains a major medical problem.Currently, the main goals of treating patients with COPD are: eliminating symptoms and improving the quality of life, preventing exacerbations and reducing future risks, slowing the progression of the disease and reducing mortality.The article presents a clinical case from the practice of a patient with COPD who received tiotropium bromidi as monotherapy. The patient had significant impaired airway patency during spirometry, a decrease in exercise tolerance. The patient was assigned a new representative of combination preparations with a 24-hour action – Anoro Ellipta® (Vilanterol + Umeklidiniy) 22/55 mcg, with a new drug delivery vehicle. After 6 months of therapy with Anoro Ellipt®, the patient has increased exercise tolerance, improved pulmonary function, as well as quality of life.

PRS31 THE IMPACT TRIAL: COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF SINGLE-INHALER TRIPLE THERAPY (FF/UMEC/VI) VERSUS DUAL BRONCHODILATOR THERAPY (UMEC/VI) IN PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE PULMONARY DISEASE (COPD) IN SPAIN

To assess the cost-effectiveness of once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25μg compared with once-daily dual bronchodilator therapy of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25μg for symptomatic COPD patients with a history of exacerbations, from a Spanish National Healthcare System (NHS) perspective. A published and externally validated linked risk-equation cohort model (GALAXY; Briggs, et al. Med Decis Making;37(4):469-80) was implemented to predict COPD progression, associated healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the ICER of FF/UMEC/VI vs UMEC/VI over a three-year time-horizon. The base-case analysis was performed with 52-week intent-to-treat efficacy results from the IMPACT trial (NCT02164513) applied for the entire time-horizon. Spanish COPD population baseline characteristics were taken from available literature and the IMPACT study data and validated by Spanish clinical experts. Utility values for calculating QALYs were estimated from patient baseline characteristics using a regression-equation obtained based on Spanish observational data. Direct healthcare costs (€, 2019) including treatment acquisition costs, exacerbation and COPD management costs, were informed by Spanish public sources. A 3% discount rate for costs and effects was applied. Scenario, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed. Over a three-year time-horizon, patients receiving FF/UMEC/VI were predicted to gain +0.054 additional QALYs against cost-savings of €450 per patient compared with UMEC/VI, resulting in a dominant treatment strategy (less costly and more effective). Across scenario and sensitivity analyses, FF/UMEC/VI was also dominant in most cases, with all remaining being cost-effective with an ICER below the Spanish accepted threshold of €30,000 per QALY gained. Results were most sensitive to changes in the exacerbation treatment effect, duration of treatment effect and time-horizon. PSA showed FF/UMEC/VI being dominant vs UMEC/VI in 100% of simulations. FF/UMEC/VI was a less costly and more effective (dominant) treatment strategy compared with UMEC/VI for symptomatic COPD patients with a history of exacerbations within the Spanish NHS.

Human medicines European public assessment report (EPAR): Anoro Ellipta (previously Anoro), umeclidinium bromide / vilanterol, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive, Date of authorisation: 08/05/2014, Revision: 13, Status: Authorised

Human medicines European public assessment report (EPAR): Anoro Ellipta (previously Anoro), umeclidinium bromide / vilanterol, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive, Date of authorisation: 08/05/2014, Revision: 13, Status: Authorised

Human medicines European public assessment report (EPAR): Anoro Ellipta (previously Anoro), umeclidinium bromide / vilanterol, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive, Date of authorisation: 08/05/2014, Revision: 12, Status: Authorised

Human medicines European public assessment report (EPAR): Anoro Ellipta (previously Anoro), umeclidinium bromide / vilanterol, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive, Date of authorisation: 08/05/2014, Revision: 12, Status: Authorised

Efficacy and safety of the dual bronchodilator combination umeclidinium/vilanterol in COPD by age and airflow limitation severity: A pooled post hoc analysis of seven clinical trials

BackgroundElderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and those with more severe airway limitation are perceived to experience reduced efficacy from inhaled bronchodilators, especially those administered in a dry powder inhaler. This study compared the efficacy and safety of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist dry powder combination in elderly patients with COPD and patients with moderate-to-very severe airflow limitation. MethodsThis post hoc pooled analysis of seven randomized studies of ≥12 weeks’ duration investigated the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25 μg versus tiotropium (TIO) 18 μg or fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) 250/50 μg. Change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), a common efficacy measure in all trials, proportion of FEV1 responders (≥100 mL increase from baseline) and safety outcomes were analyzed at Day 28, 56, and 84 in patients classified by age (<65, ≥65, and ≥75 years of age) and severity of baseline airflow limitation (Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease [GOLD] stage 2 [moderate] and stage 3/4 [severe/very severe]). A 24-week analysis was also conducted for the UMEC/VI versus TIO comparison. ResultsThe pooled intent-to-treat population comprised 3821 patients (≥65 years: 44–45%; ≥75 years: 9–10%; GOLD stage 3/4: 50–55%); 2246, 874, and 701 patients received UMEC/VI, TIO, or FP/SAL, respectively. Significant improvements in trough FEV1 at Day 84 were observed with UMEC/VI versus TIO or FP/SAL irrespective of age (all p ≤ 0.029) or GOLD stage (all p < 0.001). The proportion of FEV1 responders at Day 84 was significantly greater with UMEC/VI versus TIO or FP/SAL across all age groups (all p ≤ 0.016) and GOLD stages (all p < 0.001). Safety profiles were similar between treatment groups. ConclusionUMEC/VI consistently demonstrated improved lung function versus TIO and FP/SAL across age and airflow limitation severity subgroups, with no safety concerns, indicating that UMEC/VI provides no loss in efficacy or additional safety concerns for both elderly patients with COPD and patients with severe/very severe airway limitation.