Comparative Adherence and Persistence of Single- and Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapies Among Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in an English Real-World Primary Care Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
David MG Halpin,1 Kieran J Rothnie,2 Victoria Banks,3 Alexandrosz Czira,2 Chris Compton,4 Robert Wood,3 Theo Tritton,3 Olivia Massey,3 Rosie Wild,3 Neil Snowise,5 Kirill Nikitin,2 Raj Sharma,4 Afisi S Ismaila,6,7 Claus F Vogelmeier8 1University of Exeter Medical School, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK; 2Value Evidence and Outcomes, R&D Global Medical, GSK, Brentford, UK; 3Real-World Evidence, Adelphi Real World, Bollington, UK; 4Global Medical, GSK, London, UK; 5Institute of Pharmaceutical Science, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King’s College, London, UK; 6Value Evidence and Outcomes, GSK, Collegeville, PA, USA; 7Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; 8Department of Medicine, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Marburg, Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Marburg, GermanyCorrespondence: David MG Halpin, University of Exeter Medical School, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK, Tel +44 (0)1392 201178, Email d.halpin@nhs.netPurpose: Triple therapy comprising a long-acting muscarinic antagonist, long-acting β2-agonist and inhaled corticosteroid is recommended for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who continue to experience frequent exacerbations or symptoms whilst receiving dual therapy. Adherence and persistence to multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) is known to be poor. This study assessed comparative adherence to single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) versus MITT in a real-world setting in England.Patients and Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study using linked primary care (Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum) and secondary care (Hospital Episode Statistics [HES] Admitted Patient Care) data to identify patients with COPD who were newly initiated on SITT or MITT between November 2017 and June 2019. Eligible patients were aged ≥ 35 years and had a forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity < 0.7, linkage to HES and continuous registration with a general practitioner for 12 months pre- and 6 months post-initiation. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance baseline characteristics between cohorts. Adherence was measured using the proportion of days covered by days’ supply of SITT or MITT prescriptions. Persistence was measured with a gap of > 30 days between the end of a prescription and the following refill used to determine non-persistence.Results: Overall, 4080 SITT and 6579 MITT users comprised the study cohort. After weighting, the baseline characteristics between the cohorts were comparable (absolute standardized mean difference < 10%). SITT users had significantly higher adherence than MITT users at 6, 12, and 18 months post-initiation (p< 0.001 for all comparisons). Median persistence was higher among SITT users than MITT users (5.09 months vs 0.99 months).Conclusion: Patients with COPD in England initiating SITT had significantly better adherence and persistence compared with MITT initiators. These improvements continued at least 18 months following treatment initiation.Keywords: COPD, Clinical Practice Research Datalink, Hospital Episode Statistics, MITT, proportion of days covered, SITT
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 | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".