Outcomes Following Initiation of Triple Therapy with Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Versus Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy Among Medicare Advantage with Part D Beneficiaries and Those Commercially Enrolled for Health Care Insurance In...

Purpose: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have been shown to benefit from triple therapy commonly delivered by multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT); however, the complexity of MITT regimens may decrease patient adherence. Fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI), a once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT), became available in the United States (US) in 2017, but real-world data comparing outcomes for SITT versus MITT are currently limited. This study compared outcomes among patients with COPD initiating MITT versus SITT with FF/UMEC/VI who were either Medicare Advantage with Part D (MAPD) beneficiaries or commercial enrollees in the US.

Methods: Retrospective study using administrative claims data from the Optum Research Database for patients with COPD who initiated FF/UMEC/VI or MITT between September 1, 2017, and March 31, 2019 (index date: first pharmacy claim for FF/UMEC/VI cohort; earliest day of ≥30 consecutive days-long period of overlap in the day's supply of all triple therapy components for MITT cohort). COPD exacerbations, adherence to triple therapy, and all-cause and COPD-related health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs were compared between FF/UMEC/VI and MITT initiators.

Results: In total, 4659 FF/UMEC/VI initiators and 9845 MITT initiators for the MAPD population, and 821 FF/UMEC/VI initiators and 1893 MITT initiators for the commercial population were included in the study. MAPD beneficiaries initiating FF/UMEC/VI had a significantly lower annual rate of severe exacerbations compared to MITT initiators (0.26 vs 0.29; p=0.014). They also had a significantly higher mean adherence (proportion of days covered) (0.51 vs 0.37; p<0.001) and significantly lower all-cause and COPD-related inpatient stays compared to MITT initiators ([32.02% vs 34.27%; p=0.017], [16.09% vs 17.72%; p=0.037]). Trends were similar among the commercial population, but the results were not statistically significant.

Conclusion: FF/UMEC/VI initiators had significantly fewer severe exacerbations, higher triple therapy adherence, and lower HCRU costs compared to MITT initiators for MAPD beneficiaries.