Benefit of Prompt Vs Delayed Initiation of Triple Therapy Following an Exacerbation in Patients with COPD in Japan: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: There is currently limited evidence for the optimal timing of triple therapy initiation in Japan, which is crucial for optimizing strategies for the effective treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study assessed the impact of prompt vs delayed initiation of triple therapy following a COPD exacerbation on clinical and economic outcomes in patients in Japan. Patients and Methods: Retrospective cohort study of patients in the Medical Data Vision Co., Ltd. database initiating triple therapy as single-inhaler triple therapy (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol or budesonide/glycopyrronium/formoterol) or multiple-inhaler triple therapy within 180 days of a moderate-to-severe exacerbation (index). For the main analysis, patients were categorized as prompt or delayed initiators, initiating triple therapy within 0– 30 days or 31– 180 days of index, respectively. Inverse probability of treatment weighting based on propensity scores was used to adjust for measured confounders between prompt and delayed cohorts. Results: For the main analysis, 610 (60.3%) and 402 (39.7%) patients were prompt and delayed initiators, respectively. The rate of subsequent moderate-to-severe exacerbations following index exacerbation was numerically lower in prompt vs delayed initiators (weighted rate ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74– 1.21; P = 0.6603). Time-to-first subsequent moderate-to-severe exacerbation increased significantly in prompt vs delayed initiators (weighted hazard ratio 0.77, 95% CI: 0.64– 0.93; P = 0.0053). In patients indexed on a severe exacerbation, delayed initiation resulted in significantly higher 90-day all-cause readmissions vs prompt initiation (42.1% vs 30.6%; P = 0.0329 [weighted estimates]). Weighted healthcare resource utilization rates were numerically lower in prompt vs delayed initiators, and weighted direct costs (all cause and COPD-related) were significantly lower in prompt initiators. Conclusion: This real-world study demonstrated that earlier initiation of triple therapy resulted in several benefits in clinical outcomes for COPD and may also reduce the economic burden of COPD management in Japan. Plain Language Summary: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can experience flare-ups in their symptoms, known as exacerbations. If exacerbations continue despite patients taking either one or a combination of two respiratory medications, guidelines suggest that they should take a combination of three treatments, known as triple therapy. In Japan, the best timing for patients to start triple therapy following an exacerbation is currently unknown, therefore this study compared the impact on clinical and economic outcomes of patients starting triple therapy 0– 30 days (prompt initiators) or 31– 180 days (delayed initiators) after their first exacerbation. When looking at clinical outcomes for COPD, we found that prompt initiators had a significantly longer time period from starting triple therapy to experiencing their next moderate-to-severe exacerbation, and those who had an initial severe exacerbation had significantly fewer hospital readmissions during the 90 days that followed their initial exacerbation than delayed initiators. When looking at economic outcomes for COPD, we found that medical costs were significantly lower in prompt versus delayed initiators. Findings of this study suggest that starting triple therapy earlier following an exacerbation may lead to improved clinical outcomes for patients with COPD in Japan and can reduce the cost of managing this disease. Keywords: healthcare resource utilization, hospital readmissions, direct medical costs, inverse probability of treatment weighting, single inhaler triple therapy, multiple inhaler triple therapy
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".