COPD & COVID-19 / EPOC y COVID-19

No disponible

Cost-Effectiveness Of Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy In COPD: The IMPACT Trial.

Background: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI from a Canadian public healthcare perspective, incorporating data from the IMPACT trial in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (NCT02164513). Methods: Baseline inputs and treatment effects from IMPACT were populated into the validated GALAXY-COPD disease progression model. Canadian unit costs and drug costs (Canadian dollars [C$], 2017) were applied to healthcare resource utilization and treatments. Future costs and health outcomes were discounted at 1.5% annually. Analyses were probabilistic, and outputs included exacerbation rates, costs, and life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Results: Compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI over a lifetime horizon, the analyses predicted that treatment with FF/UMEC/VI resulted in fewer moderate and severe exacerbations, more LYs and more QALYs gained, with a small incremental cost. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY gained was C$18,989 (95% confidence interval [CI]: C$14,665, C$25,753) versus FF/VI and C$13,776 (95% CI: C$9787, C$19,448) versus UMEC/VI. FF/UMEC/VI remained cost-effective versus both FF/VI and UMEC/VI in all sensitivity analyses, including in scenario analyses that considered different intervention and comparator discontinuation rates, and treatment effects for subsequent therapy. Conclusion: Treatment with FF/UMEC/VI was predicted to improve outcomes and be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI, in Canada.

Impact and prevention of severe exacerbations of COPD: a review of the evidence.

Severe exacerbations of COPD, ie, those leading to hospitalization, have profound clinical implications for patients and significant economic consequences for society. The prevalence and burden of severe COPD exacerbations remain high, despite recognition of the importance of exacerbation prevention and the availability of new treatment options. Severe COPD exacerbations are associated with high mortality, have negative impact on quality of life, are linked to cardiovascular complications, and are a significant burden on the health-care system. This review identified risk factors that contribute to the development of severe exacerbations, treatment options (bronchodilators, antibiotics, corticosteroids [CSs], oxygen therapy, and ventilator support) to manage severe exacerbations, and strategies to prevent readmission to hospital. Risk factors that are amenable to change have been highlighted. A number of bronchodilators have demonstrated successful reduction in risk of severe exacerbations, including long-acting muscarinic antagonist or long-acting ß2-agonist mono- or combination therapies, in addition to vaccination, mucolytic and antibiotic therapy, and nonpharmacological interventions, such as pulmonary rehabilitation. Recognition of the importance of severe exacerbations is an essential step in improving outcomes for patients with COPD. Evidence-based approaches to prevent and manage severe exacerbations should be implemented as part of targeted strategies for disease management.

When is dual bronchodilation indicated in COPD?

Inhaled bronchodilator medications are central to the management of COPD and are frequently given on a regular basis to prevent or reduce symptoms. While short-acting bronchodilators are a treatment option for people with relatively few COPD symptoms and at low risk of exacerbations, for the majority of patients with significant breathlessness at the time of diagnosis, long-acting bronchodilators may be required. Dual bronchodilation with a long-acting ß2-agonist and long-acting muscarinic antagonist may be more effective treatment for some of these patients, with the aim of improving symptoms. This combination may also reduce the rate of exacerbations compared with a bronchodilator-inhaled corticosteroid combination in those with a history of exacerbations. However, there is currently a lack of guidance on clinical indicators suggesting which patients should step up from mono- to dual bronchodilation. In this article, we discuss a number of clinical indicators that could prompt a patient and physician to consider treatment escalation, while being mindful of the need to avoid unnecessary polypharmacy. These indicators include insufficient symptomatic response, a sustained increased requirement for rescue medication, suboptimal 24-hour symptom control, deteriorating symptoms, the occurrence of exacerbations, COPD-related hospitalization, and reductions in lung function. Future research is required to provide a better understanding of the optimal timing and benefits of treatment escalation and to identify the appropriate tools to inform this decision.

Informe 2017 de la Iniciativa Global para el Diagnóstico, Tratamiento y Prevención de la Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica: resumen ejecutivo de GOLD / Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2017 Report: GOLD executive summary

Este resumen ejecutivo del Informe de 2017 de la Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of COPD (GOLD) se basa principalmente en las modificaciones y novedades del documento anterior. Los cambios más destacados incluyen: a) se ha diferenciado entre la exploración espirométrica y la de los síntomas para evaluar la enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica (EPOC). En la propuesta actual, los grupos ABCD se refieren exclusivamente a síntomas y antecedentes de exacerbaciones de los pacientes; b) para cada uno de los grupos, se proponen estrategias de intensificación de los tratamientos farmacológicos; c) se introduce el concepto de reducción escalonada de la terapia en el esquema de evaluación del tratamiento; d) se detalla más extensamente el tratamiento no farmacológico; y, f) se revisa la importancia de las diferentes co-morbilidades en lo que respecta al tratamiento de la EPOC

This Executive Summary of the Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of COPD (GOLD) 2017 Report focuses primarily on the revised and novel parts of the document. The most significant changes include: 1) the assessment of COPD has been refined to separate the spirometric assessment from symptom evaluation. ABCD groups are now proposed to be derived exclusively from patient symptoms and their history of exacerbations; 2) for each of the groups A to D, escalation strategies for pharmacological treatments are proposed; 3) the concept of de-escalation of therapy is introduced in the treatment assessment scheme; 4) nonpharmacologic therapies are comprehensively presented and; 5) the importance of comorbid conditions in managing COPD is reviewed

Preference for different relaxation techniques by COPD patients: comparison between six techniques.

BACKGROUND: A review of the effectiveness of relaxation techniques for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients has shown inconsistent results, but studies have varied in terms of technique and outcome measures. AIM: To determine patient preference for different relaxation techniques. METHODS: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients were presented with six techniques via a DVD and asked to rate the techniques in terms of effectiveness, rank in order of likely use, and comment. RESULTS: Patients differed in the technique preferred and reason for that preference, but the most commonly preferred technique both for effectiveness and ease of use was "thinking of a nice place" followed by progressive relaxation and counting. Familiarity and ease of activity were commonly given reasons for preference. CONCLUSION: Rather than providing patients with a single technique that they might find difficult to implement, these results suggest that it would be better to give a choice. "Thinking of a nice place" is a popular but under-investigated technique.

Tiotropium HandiHaler(®) and Respimat(®) in COPD: a pooled safety analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Tiotropium is prescribed for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and delivered via HandiHaler(®) (18 µg once daily) or Respimat(®) Soft Mist™ inhaler (5 µg once daily). The recent TIOtropium Safety and Performance In Respimat(®) (TIOSPIR™) study demonstrated that both exhibit similar safety profiles. This analysis provides an updated comprehensive safety evaluation of tiotropium(®) using data from placebo-controlled HandiHaler(®) and Respimat(®) trials. METHODS: Pooled analysis of adverse event (AE) data from tiotropium HandiHaler(®) 18 µg and Respimat(®) 5 µg randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, clinical trials in patients with COPD (treatment duration ≥4 weeks). Incidence rates, rate ratios (RRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined for HandiHaler(®) and Respimat(®) trials, both together and separately. RESULTS: In the 28 HandiHaler(®) and 7 Respimat(®) trials included in this analysis, 11,626 patients were treated with placebo and 12,929 with tiotropium, totaling 14,909 (12,469 with HandiHaler(®); 2,440 with Respimat(®)) patient-years of tiotropium exposure. Mean age was 65 years, and mean prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was 1.16 L (41% predicted). The risk (RR [95% CI]) of AEs (0.90 [0.87, 0.93]) and of serious AEs (SAEs) (0.94 [0.89, 0.99]) was significantly lower in the tiotropium than in the placebo group (HandiHaler(®) and Respimat(®) pooled results), and there was a numerically lower risk of fatal AEs (FAEs) (0.90 [0.79, 1.01]). The risk of cardiac AEs (0.93 [0.85, 1.02]) was numerically lower in the tiotropium group. Incidences of typical anticholinergic AEs, but not SAEs, were higher with tiotropium. Analyzed separately by inhaler, the risks of AE and SAE in the tiotropium groups remained lower than in placebo and similarly for FAEs. CONCLUSION: This analysis indicates that tiotropium is associated with lower rates of AEs, SAEs, and similar rates of FAEs than placebo when delivered via HandiHaler(®) or Respimat(®) (overall and separately) in patients with COPD.

Symbicort: a pharmacoeconomic review.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review examines the published evidence on the pharmacoecomonics of Symbicort. Symbicort is a combination inhaler used in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that contains budesonide and formoterol. In asthma, Symbicort can be used as fixed or adjustable dose maintenance therapy as well as for both maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART). METHOD: A literature search of PubMed was carried out to find all publications on the pharmacoeconomics of Symbicort. Additional studies were searched for in the reference lists of the papers retrieved and by searching tables of contents of relevant journals. A total of 13 studies on Symbicort in asthma and 2 studies on Symbicort in COPD were found. RESULTS: Total costs were lower with Symbicort than with separate inhalers containing budesonide and formoterol. Adjustable dosing maintained control of asthma using less medication and was associated with lower treatment costs than fixed dosing with Symbicort or the combination of fluticasone/salmeterol. SMART improves asthma control, reduces exacerbations and reduces direct and indirect costs compared to fixed maintenance therapy with either Symbicort or fluticasone/salmeterol. In COPD, Symbicort offers clinical advantages over therapy with the monocomponents and these are achieved at little or no extra cost.