Annual direct medical cost of active systemic lupus erythematosus in five European countries.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the annual direct medical cost of managing adult systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients with active autoantibody positive disease in Europe. METHODS: A 2-year, retrospective, multicentre, observational study was conducted in five countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK). Data included patients' characteristics, disease activity and severity, flare assessments and health resource use (eg, laboratory tests, medications, specialist visits and hospitalisations). Costs were assessed from the public payers' perspective. Cost predictors were estimated by multivariate regression models. RESULTS: Thirty-one centres enrolled 427 consecutive eligible patients stratified equally by disease severity. At baseline, mean (SD) age was 44.5 (13.8) years, 90.5% were women and mean (SD) SLE duration was 10.7 (8.0) years. The SELENA-SLEDAI (11.2 vs 5.3) and SLICC/ACR index (1.0 vs 0.7) scores were higher in severe patients. Over the study period, patients experienced on average 1.02 (0.71) flares/year. The mean annual direct medical cost was higher in severe compared to non-severe patients ( 4748 vs 2650, p<0.001). Medication costs were 2518 in severe versus 1251 in non-severe patients (p<0.001). Medications represented 53% and 47% of the total cost for severe and non-severe patients, respectively, primarily due to immunosuppressants and biologics. Flares, especially severe flares, were identified as the major cost predictor, with each flare increasing the annual total cost by about 1002 (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The annual direct medical cost of SLE patients in Europe is related to disease severity and flares. Medical treatments were the main cost drivers. Severe flares and major organ involvement were identified as important cost predictors

Impact of prior and concurrent medication on exacerbation risk with long-acting bronchodilators in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a post hoc analysis

Abstract Background Symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and low exacerbation risk still have disease instability, which can be improved with better bronchodilation. We evaluated two long-acting bronchodilators individually and in combination on reducing exacerbation risk and the potential impact of concurrent medication in these patients. Methods Integrated post hoc intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of data from two large 24-week, randomized placebo (PBO)-controlled trials (NCT01313637, NCT01313650). Symptomatic patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD with/without an exacerbation history were randomized (2:3:3:3) to once-daily: PBO, umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg [NCT01313650] or 125/25 μg [NCT01313637]), UMEC (62.5 [NCT01313650] or 125 μg [NCT01313637]) or VI (25 μg) via the ELLIPTA inhaler. Medication subgroups were segmented by treatment status at screening: a) maintenance-naïve or on maintenance medications, b) inhaled corticosteroid [ICS]-free or ICS-treated, c) low or high albuterol use based on median run-in use (< 3.6 or ≥ 3.6 puffs/day). Time to first moderate/severe exacerbation (Cox proportional hazard model) and change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1; mixed model repeated measures) were analyzed. Safety was also assessed. Results Of 3021 patients (ITT population; UMEC/VI: n = 816; UMEC: n = 825; VI: n = 825; PBO: n = 555), 36% had a recent exacerbation history, 33% were maintenance-naïve, 51% were ICS-free. Mean baseline albuterol use was 5.1 puffs/day. In the ITT population, UMEC/VI, UMEC, and VI reduced the risk of a first exacerbation versus PBO by 58, 44, and 39%, respectively (all p < 0.05). UMEC/VI provided significant risk reductions versus PBO in all subgroups. VI had no benefit versus PBO in maintenance-naïve, ICS-free, and low rescue use patients and was significantly less effective than UMEC/VI in these subgroups. UMEC had no significant benefit versus PBO in maintenance-naïve and ICS-free patients. All bronchodilators improved FEV1 versus PBO, and UMEC/VI significantly improved FEV1 versus both monotherapies across all populations studied (p < 0.05). All bronchodilators were similarly well tolerated. Conclusions Results suggest that UMEC/VI reduces exacerbation risk versus PBO more consistently across medication subgroups than UMEC or VI, particularly in patients with no/low concurrent medication use. Confirmed prospectively, these findings may support first-line use of dual bronchodilation therapy in symptomatic low-risk patients

Effectiveness versus Efficacy Trials in COPD: How study design influences outcomes and applicability.

Guidelines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management are based largely on results from double-blind randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of efficacy. These trials have high internal validity and test whether a drug is efficacious, but they are conducted in highly selected populations that may differ significantly from patients with COPD seen in routine practice.We compared the baseline characteristics, healthcare use and outcomes between the Salford Lung Study (SLS), an open-label effectiveness RCT, with six recent large-scale efficacy RCTs. We also calculated the proportion of SLS patients who would have been eligible for inclusion in an efficacy RCT by applying the inclusion criteria used in efficacy trials of combination treatments.SLS patients were older, included more females and more current smokers, had more comorbidities (including asthma), and had more often experienced exacerbations prior to inclusion. In the SLS, rates of moderate or severe exacerbations, incidence of overall serious adverse events (SAEs), and SAEs of pneumonia were more frequent. A maximum of 30% of patients enrolled in the SLS would have been eligible for a phase IIIa regulatory exacerbation study.Patients in large COPD efficacy RCTs have limited representativeness compared with an effectiveness trial. This should be considered when interpreting efficacy RCT outcomes and their inclusion into guidelines.</jats:p

Efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol according to the degree of reversibility of airflow limitation at screening : a post hoc analysis of the EMAX trial

Background: In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the relationship between short-term bronchodilator reversibility and longer-term response to bronchodilators is unclear. Here, we investigated whether the efficacy of long-acting bronchodilators is associated with reversibility of airflow limitation in patients with COPD with a low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. Methods: The double-blind, double-dummy EMAX trial randomised patients to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 µg once daily, umeclidinium 62.5 µg once daily, or salmeterol 50 µg twice daily. Bronchodilator reversibility to salbutamol was measured once at screening and defined as an increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) of ≥ 12% and ≥ 200 mL 10−30 min post salbutamol. Post hoc, fractional polynomial (FP) modelling was conducted using the degree of reversibility (mL) at screening as a continuous variable to investigate its relationship to mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 and self-administered computerised-Transition Dyspnoea Index (SAC-TDI) at Week 24, Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms-COPD (E-RS) at Weeks 21–24, and rescue medication use (puffs/day) over Weeks 1–24. Analyses were conducted across the full range of reversibility (−850–896 mL); however, results are presented for the range −100–400 mL because there were few participants with values outside this range. Results: The mean (standard deviation) reversibility was 130 mL (156) and the median was 113 mL; 625/2425 (26%) patients were reversible. There was a trend towards greater improvements in trough FEV1, SAC-TDI, E-RS and rescue medication use with umeclidinium/vilanterol with higher reversibility. Improvements in trough FEV1 and reductions in rescue medication use were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol compared with either monotherapy across the range of reversibility. Greater improvements in SAC-TDI and E-RS total scores were observed with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy in the middle of the reversibility range. Conclusions: FP analyses suggest that patients with higher levels of reversibility have greater improvements in lung function and symptoms in response to bronchodilators. Improvements in lung function and rescue medication use were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy across the full range of reversibility, suggesting that the dual bronchodilator umeclidinium/vilanterol may be an appropriate treatment for patients with symptomatic COPD, regardless of their level of reversibility

Dual bronchodilator therapy as first-line treatment in maintenance-naïve patients with symptomatic copd : A pre-specified analysis of the emax trial

Introduction: Limited prospective evidence is available to guide selection of first-line maintenance therapy in patients with COPD. This pre-specified analysis of the EMAX trial explored the efficacy and safety of dual-versus mono-bronchodilator therapy in maintenance-naïve and maintenance-treated patients. Methods: The 24-week EMAX trial evaluated lung function, symptoms (including rescue medication use), exacerbations, and safety with umeclidinium/vilanterol, umeclidinium, and salmeterol in symptomatic patients at low exacerbation risk who were not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. Maintenance-naïve and maintenance-treated subgroups were defined by maintenance bronchodilator use 30 days before screening. Results: The analysis included 749 (31%) maintenance-naïve and 1676 (69%) maintenance-treated patients. For both subgroups, improvements from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 24 (primary endpoint) were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium (mean difference [95% CI]; maintenance-naïve: 44 mL [1, 87]; maintenance-treated: 77 mL [50, 104]), and salmeterol (maintenance-naïve: 128 mL [85, 171]; maintenance-treated: 145 mL [118, 172]), and in rescue medication inhalations/day over 24 weeks versus umeclidinium (maintenance-naïve: −0.44 [−0.73, −0.16]; maintenance-treated: −0.28 [−0.45, −0.12]) and salmeterol (maintenance-naïve: −0.37 [−0.66, −0.09]; maintenance-treated: −0.25 [−0.41, −0.08]). In maintenance-naïve patients, umeclidinium/vilanterol numerically improved scores at Week 24 for Transition Dyspnea Index versus umeclidinium (0.37 [−0.21, 0.96]) and versus salmeterol (0.47 [−0.10, 1.05]) and Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms–COPD versus umeclidinium (−0.26 [−1.04, 0.53]) and versus salmeterol (−0.58 [−1.36, 0.20]), with similar improvements seen in maintenance-treated patients. All treatments were well tolerated across both subgroups. Conclusion: Similar to maintenance-treated patients, maintenance-naïve patients receiving umeclidinium/vilanterol showed greater improvements in lung function and symptoms com-pared with patients receiving umeclidinium or salmeterol. These findings provide support for the consideration of dual bronchodilator treatment in symptomatic maintenance-naïve patients with COPD

Early and sustained symptom improvement with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy in COPD : a post hoc analysis of the EMAX randomised controlled trial

Background: In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), both the time needed for patients to gain symptom improvement with long-acting bronchodilator therapy and whether an early response is predictive of a sustained response is unknown. This study aimed to investigate how quickly meaningful symptom responses are seen in patients with COPD with bronchodilator therapy and whether these responses are sustained. Methods: Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) was a 24-week, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group trial that randomised patients to umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI), umeclidinium or salmeterol. Daily Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS:COPD) score and rescue salbutamol use were captured via an electronic diary and analysed initially in 4-weekly periods. Post hoc analyses assessed change from baseline in daily E-RS:COPD score and rescue medication use weekly (Weeks 1–8), and association between E-RS:COPD responder status at Weeks 1–4 and later time points. Results: In the intent-to-treat population (n = 2425), reductions from baseline in E-RS:COPD scores and rescue medication use were apparent from Day 2 with all treatments. Treatment differences for UMEC/VI versus either monotherapy plateaued by Week 4–8 and were sustained at Weeks 21–24; improvements were consistently greater with UMEC/VI. For all treatments, most patients (60–85%) retained their Weeks 1–4 E-RS:COPD responder/non-responder status at Weeks 21−24. Among patients receiving UMEC/VI who were E-RS:COPD responders at Weeks 1–4, 70% were responders at Weeks 21–24. Conclusion: Patients with symptomatic COPD had greater potential for early symptom improvements with UMEC/VI versus either monotherapy. This benefit was generally maintained for 24 weeks. Early monitoring of treatment response can provide clinicians with an early indication of a patient’s likely longer-term response to prescribed bronchodilator treatment and will facilitate appropriate early adjustments in care. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03034915, 2016-002513-22 (EudraCT Number). The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section