Comparative Effectiveness of FF/UMEC/VI and BUD/GLY/FORM in Patients with COPD Stepping Up From Dual Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent data suggest differences in effectiveness of single-inhaler triple therapies (SITTs) for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); however, data specifically from patients previously treated with dual bronchodilator therapy are lacking. This real-world comparative effectiveness study assessed patients with COPD treated with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) and budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (BUD/GLY/FORM) who stepped up from dual therapy. This retrospective study used healthcare claims from the Komodo Research database to identify patients with COPD and Medicare Fee-for-Service insurance on dual therapy as their most recent treatment in the 90 days pre-index, stepping up to FF/UMEC/VI or BUD/GLY/FORM between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2023. Primary outcome was annualized rate of moderate–severe exacerbations per patient-year (PPY) compared using rate ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from Poisson regression models after adjustment with overlap weighting. Secondary outcomes were time to first moderate–severe exacerbation (analyzed as a composite and separately), reported using Kaplan–Meier (KM) analysis and compared using hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs from weighted Cox regression models. All-cause mortality (KM analysis) was included as an exploratory outcome. Overall, 10,093 FF/UMEC/VI and 3926 BUD/GLY/FORM patients stepping up from dual therapy were included. Patients stepping up to FF/UMEC/VI experienced an 18% significantly lower rate of moderate–severe COPD exacerbations compared with BUD/GLY/FORM [0.80 vs. 0.98 PPY; RR (95% CI) 0.82 (0.77, 0.88); P < 0.001]. Stepping up to FF/UMEC/VI was also associated with a 14% lower risk of moderate–severe COPD exacerbations [HR (95% CI) 0.86 (0.81, 0.92); P < 0.001] and 18% lower risk of all-cause mortality [HR (95% CI) 0.82 (0.68, 0.99); P = 0.040] at 12 months compared with BUD/GLY/FORM. In this real-world study, SITT with FF/UMEC/VI was associated with a significantly lower rate and risk of exacerbations compared with BUD/GLY/FORM in patients stepping up from dual therapy. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive respiratory disease and one of the leading causes of death worldwide. Triple therapy (a combination of three molecules) in a single inhaler is a recommended treatment option for patients with COPD to control COPD attacks; two such single-inhaler triple therapies are available in the United States (US), Europe, and elsewhere; however, information is limited on how they compare in controlling COPD attacks in patients who have previously been treated with dual therapy (a combination of two molecules). This study assessed the effect of treatment with the single-inhaler triple therapies fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) or budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (BUD/GLY/FORM) in patients with COPD in the US who had previously used dual therapy as their most recent treatment for 90 days; a healthcare claims database was used to identify the patients. The results of the study suggest that single-inhaler triple therapy with FF/UMEC/VI was associated with a significantly lower rate and risk of COPD attacks compared with BUD/GLY/FORM in patients who had previously used dual therapy. Patients stepping up to triple therapy with FF/UMEC/VI had an 18% lower rate of COPD attacks compared with BUD/GLY/FORM, a 14% lower risk of COPD attacks a year after step up, and an 18% lower risk of death in an exploratory endpoint. These results may help healthcare providers choose the most appropriate treatment for patients with COPD who are inadequately controlled with dual therapy and require treatment with single-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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".