Comparison of COPD health care utilization and associated costs across patients treated with LAMA+LABA fixed-dose therapies

BACKGROUND: There is limited clinical trial and/or real-world evidence comparing differences among currently approved fixed-dose combination (FDC) long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) treatments. OBJECTIVE: To compare chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)-related and all-cause health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs between COPD patients initiating tiotropium (TIO) + olodaterol (OLO) versus (a) other LAMA + LABA FDCs and (b) umeclidinium (UMEC) + vilanterol (VI), specifically. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, patients initiating fixed-dose LAMA + LABA therapy (earliest fill date = index date) between January 1, 2014, and September 30, 2018, were identified using administrative claims data from the Optum Research Database. Patients were followed post-index for 1-12 months. Follow-up was censored at the earliest occurrence of index therapy discontinuation or switch, health plan disenrollment, study end date, or reaching the maximum 12-month allowed duration. Propensity score matching of 1:2 was used to balance differences in baseline characteristics between cohorts for each of the 2 comparisons. Annualized population averages of HCRU and costs were calculated for each cohort as [sum of visits (or costs) for all individuals during the follow-up period] ÷ [sum of follow-up on-treatment time for all individuals] × 365 days. RESULTS: After matching, compared with patients who initiated other LAMA + LABAs or UMEC + VI, patients who initiated TIO + OLO had 14.29% and 16.95% fewer mean annualized per-patient COPD-related emergency department (ED) visits (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: 0.49 vs. 0.59, P = 0.005; vs. UMEC + VI: 0.48 vs. 0.56, P = 0.026) and 3.07% and 3.14% fewer mean annualized per-patient pharmacy fills (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: 12.66 vs. 13.07, P = 0.016; vs. UMEC + VI: 12.62 vs. 13.02, P = 0.022), leading to 17.39% and 21.47% lower mean annualized per-patient COPD-related ED costs (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: $289 vs. $368, P = 0.003; vs. UMEC + VI: $285 vs. $345, P = 0.027) and 4.56% and 5.67% lower mean annualized per-patient pharmacy spending (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: $3,570 vs. $3,741, P < 0.001; vs. UMEC + VI: $3,556 vs. $3,770, P < 0.001) in the follow-up period. Similarly, patients in the TIO + OLO cohort had 15.63% and 21.17% fewer mean annualized per-patient all-cause ED visits (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: 1.08 vs. 1.37, P < 0.001; vs. UMEC + VI: 1.08 vs. 1.28, P = 0.001), 8.29% fewer mean annualized per-patient outpatient visits (vs. UMEC + VI: 13.28 vs. 14.48, P = 0.031), 3.41% fewer mean annualized per-patient pharmacy fills (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: 56.92 vs. 58.93, P = 0.028), 19.48% and 22.28% lower mean annualized per-patient all-cause ED costs (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: $755 vs. $971, P < 0.001; vs. UMEC + VI: $749 vs. $930, P < 0.001), and 10.86% lower mean annualized per-patient outpatient setting costs (vs. UMEC + VI: $3,348 vs. $3,756, P = 0.050). There were no statistically significant differences for the other outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world setting, differences in HCRU and costs were observed between FDC LAMA + LABAs, with patients initiating TIO + OLO having lower ED visits/costs, COPD-related pharmacy fills/costs, and all-cause pharmacy use and outpatient visits/costs than those initiating other FDC LAMA + LABAs or UMEC + VI specifically. The remaining HCRU and cost measures were not significantly different.