Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Initiation Following a COPD Exacerbation: Benefits of Prompt Initiation on COPD Outcomes
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Previous real-world evidence suggests that prompt versus delayed initiation of single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) following an exacerbation results in improved clinical outcomes for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This prior study was conducted in the first 2 years following FF/UMEC/VI approval, representing early trends. The current updated analysis aims to further elucidate the real-world evidence for FF/UMEC/VI. This was a retrospective cohort study using the IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus database. Patients with COPD initiating SITT with FF/UMEC/VI within 6 months of an exacerbation (index date) were classified as prompt (≤ 30 days following exacerbation) or delayed (31–180 days) initiators. The baseline period comprised the 12 months prior to index. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance differences in baseline characteristics between cohorts. COPD exacerbations, hospital readmission rates, and healthcare costs were compared between cohorts post-index. Overall, 5421 patients (prompt, 2057; delayed, 3364) were included. After weighting, baseline characteristics were well balanced between cohorts. For up to 12 months post-index, prompt initiators of FF/UMEC/VI had significantly lower rates of exacerbations per person-year versus delayed initiators (0.74 vs. 1.06; rate ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64–0.77; P < 0.001). A 1-day delay in FF/UMEC/VI initiation was associated with a 0.31% increase in the rate of exacerbations. At 90 days post-index, Kaplan–Meier rates of all-cause (hazard ratio [HR] 0.62, 95% CI 0.45–0.86; P = 0.004) and COPD-related (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35–0.98; P = 0.042) hospital readmissions were significantly lower in the prompt versus delayed cohort. Total COPD-related healthcare costs per person per year were significantly lower for patients in the prompt versus delayed cohort. Healthcare providers should consider the positive impact of prompt FF/UMEC/VI initiation on exacerbation rate, hospital readmission rate, and costs when treating patients with COPD at risk of exacerbations. Triple therapy (a combination of three medicines) is recommended for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who experience short-term worsening of symptoms (or COPD attacks). The optimum time for patients who may benefit from triple therapy to initiate their new medication following a COPD attack is still being investigated. This study assesses the effect of initiating treatment with triple therapy with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) sooner rather than later following a COPD attack. Patients with COPD who experienced a COPD attack and went on to initiate therapy with FF/UMEC/VI were split into two groups—those who initiated FF/UMEC/VI within 30 days of their COPD attack, and those who initiated FF/UMEC/VI between 31 and 180 days following their COPD attack. Patients who initiated FF/UMEC/VI sooner (within 30 days of their original COPD attack) had fewer COPD attacks in the following year compared with patients who initiated FF/UMEC/VI later. Among those who initiated FF/UMEC/VI sooner, there were also fewer patients with hospital readmission, and lower healthcare costs resulting from COPD, compared with patients who initiated FF/UMEC/VI later. The results of this study suggest that healthcare providers should consider prescribing FF/UMEC/VI for patients with COPD as soon as possible following a COPD attack, rather than delaying the start of therapy, and may encourage patients to start taking FF/UMEC/VI sooner rather than later following a COPD attack.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».