Adherence and Persistence with Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy Among Patients with COPD Using Commercial and Medicare Advantage US Health Plan Claims Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Previously, adherence and persistence to treatment have been shown to improve outcomes among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study aimed to evaluate adherence and persistence to single-inhaler triple therapy with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI; one inhalation, once-daily) compared with budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (BUD/GLY/FOR; two inhalations, twice-daily) among patients with COPD in the USA. METHODS: Plus Database from October 1, 2019 to March 31, 2023, to identify patients with COPD newly initiating FF/UMEC/VI or BUD/GLY/FOR. Index date was the first pharmacy claim for FF/UMEC/VI or BUD/GLY/FOR on or after October 1, 2020. The longest follow-up period was 12 months. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance baseline characteristics between cohorts. Adherence was measured as mean proportion of days covered (PDC); the proportion of patients with PDC ≥ 0.5 and PDC ≥ 0.8 was also assessed. Persistence was assessed as time to treatment discontinuation using Kaplan-Meier rates. RESULTS: Overall, 8912 and 2685 patients were included in the FF/UMEC/VI and BUD/GLY/FOR cohorts, respectively. After weighting, mean age and proportion of patients with Medicare Advantage insurance was 64.62 years and 40.0% in the FF/UMEC/VI cohort and 63.96 years and 36.1% in the BUD/GLY/FOR cohort. At 6 months post-index, mean PDC was greater in the FF/UMEC/VI versus the BUD/GLY/FOR cohort (0.65 versus 0.59; P < 0.001). A significantly greater proportion of patients in the FF/UMEC/VI versus the BUD/GLY/FOR cohort had PDC ≥ 0.8 (45.6% versus 34.5%; P < 0.001) and PDC ≥ 0.5 (71.8% versus 64.3%; P < 0.001). Results were consistent at 12 months post-index. When a 30-day gap was used to define treatment discontinuation, the FF/UMEC/VI cohort had statistically significantly greater treatment persistence versus the BUD/GLY/FOR cohort at all time points. CONCLUSION: In this study, patients initiating FF/UMEC/VI had significantly greater adherence and persistence to treatment than patients initiating BUD/GLY/FOR.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".