Differences Between COPD Patients Prescribed Revefenacin and Tiotropium Bromide Post-Hospitalization

This real-world evidence study examined demographic and clinical characteristic differences between COPD patients prescribed revefenacin (a nebulized long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]) or tiotropium bromide (a handheld administered LAMA) following a COPD hospitalization using two observational claims databases. The study period extended from November 9, 2017 through October 31, 2021 and included patients with a COPD-related inpatient hospitalization who received their LAMA within 90 days post-discharge. Compared with patients who received tiotropium bromide (n =5,549), patients receiving revefenacin (n = 456) were older (mean ± standard deviation [SD]): 74.8 ± 7.82 vs. 70.4 ± 10.3; p < 0.001) and had a higher proportional representation in the Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) payer group (92.5% vs. 70.6%; p < 0.001). Additionally, the revefenacin cohort was more likely to present a mean Deyo-Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score ≥ 3 (58.1% vs. 54.3%) and were also more likely to be treated with nearly all available maintenance medications prior to the index COPD-hospitalization compared to the tiotropium bromide cohort, including inhaled corticosteroids (34.9% vs. 8.4%), long-acting β2-agonists (32.7% vs. 3.1%), and leukotriene modifiers (16.0% vs. 8.4%; two-sided p’s < 0.01). Given these results, it is concluded the Revefenacin patients were sicker, and therefore suggest that patients taking revefenacin and tiotropium bromide are separate segments of patients with COPD. 

____________________________________________________________________________________

Background

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive pulmonary disease characterized by persistent airflow limitation.^1,2 Patients with COPD often have periods of acute worsening of symptoms, known as disease exacerbations,³ which if severe, can result in hospitalization. As such, the reduction of exacerbation severity and frequency is a primary clinical aim. Mechanism of medication delivery is extremely critical, however nearly 20% of patients with advanced COPD do not achieve the necessary peak inspiratory flow to inhale medications delivered via dry powder inhaler.⁴ Additionally, issues of dexterity and cognitive impairment have also been  shown to affect medication delivery across devices.^5-7 As such, patients presenting with any of these issues are often recommended treatment with a nebulizer,^8,9 which is generally associated with fewer administration-related challenges.¹⁰ To address limitations of the extant literature, we examined the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with COPD in the Medicare FFS and MORE² Registry^® databases who were prescribed revefenacin delivered via nebulization or tiotropium bromide (“tiotropium” hereafter) delivered via hand-held inhaler post-COPD hospitalization discharge. 

Results

A total of 6,005 patients aged 40+ were included in the study, with 456 (7.6%) receiving revefenacin and 5,549 (92.5%) receiving tiotropium.  Compared with patients who received tiotropium, patients receiving revefenacin were older (mean ± standard deviation [SD]): 74.8 ± 7.82 vs. 70.4 ± 10.3; p < 0.001), had a higher proportion of White individuals (88.2% vs. 76.2%,  had a higher proportional representation in the Medicare FFS payer group (92.5% vs. 70.6%, p < 0.001), and were more likely to reside in the Southern region of the US (39.7% vs. 26.4%, p < 0.001). Additionally, among Medicare beneficiaries, revefenacin patients had a higher proportion qualifying for old age and survivors insurance as the original reason for entitlement (85.7% vs. 58.7%, p < 0.001), and had a higher proportion who did not qualify for Low Income Subsidy Status for Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage (77.0% vs. 69.8%, p < 0.01) compared with the tiotropium group (Table 1).

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of COPD patients treated with revefenacin or tiotropium post-hospitalization

Compared with the tiotropium cohort, patients in the revefenacin cohort had a slightly higher mean Deyo-Charlson Comorbidity Index (DCI) score (4.8 ± 3.2 vs. 4.6 ± 3.2; p < 0.001) and were more likely to present a mean DCI score ≥ 3 (58.1% vs. 54.3%). However, revefenacin patients presented lower proportions of a number of individual comorbid conditions, including anxiety (2.4% vs. 12.8%), cardiovascular disease (3.1% vs. 11.5%), COVID-19 (6.8% vs. 25.1%), and hypertension (6.6% vs. 23.2%; p’s < 0.001) 

Interestingly, the revefenacin cohort presented a lower proportion of patients with a cognitive or motor disorder (3.3% vs. 13.3%, p < 0.001). Additionally, revefenacin patients were more likely be to be treated with nearly all available maintenance medications, including inhaled corticosteroids (34.9% vs. 8.4%), long-acting β2-agonists (LABA; 32.7% vs. 3.1%), LAMA (12.9% vs. 4.9%), leukotriene modifiers (16.0% vs. 8.4%), macrolide antibiotics (45.4% vs. 36.1%), methylxanthines (4.4% vs. 0.8%), PDE-4 inhibitors (5.7% vs. 2.2%), short-acting β2-agonists (SABA; 75.0% vs. 65.8%), short-acting muscarinic antagonists (SAMA; 13.8% vs. 6.8%), and systemic corticosteroids (80.7% vs. 64.3%, p’s < 0.01).  Further, revefenacin patients were more likely to also utilize baseline oxygen therapy (57.5% vs. 29.0%, p < 0.001) compared with tiotropium patients. Conversely, the tiotropium group had a higher proportion of ICS/LABA use (35.3% vs. 27.6%, p < 0.001). Finally, patients in the revefenacin group incurred higher annual mean and median baseline healthcare costs compared with the tiotropium group (mean ± SD (median)): $45,577 ± $44,473 ($31,930) vs. $42,580 ± $45,180 ($26,558) (p < 0.001; Table 2). 

Table 2. 12-Month baseline clinical characteristics of COPD patients treated with revefenacin or tiotropium post-hospitalization

Conclusions

Revefenacin patients tended to be older and potentially suffering from more severe disease based on baseline treatment patterns data. Thus, analyses revealed that the tiotropium and revefenacin treatment groups likely draw from different segments of the COPD population and may have unique clinical needs.

Methodology

We used two de-identified claims databases for this retrospective analysis; the 100% Medicare FFS database through a research-focused data use agreement with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and the MORE² Registry^® database, which is a real-world, multi-payer dataset comprised of medical and pharmacy claims. Patients with an inpatient hospitalization with an admitting diagnosis of COPD between November 9, 2018 and September 30, 2020 (Medicare FFS database) or between November 9, 2018 and July 31, 2021 (MORE² database) and prescribed revefenacin or tiotropium within 90 days post-hospitalization (index treatment) were included. The index hospitalization was set to the date of discharge of the earliest hospitalization with an admitting diagnosis of COPD, which was also followed by a prescription for tiotropium or revefenacin. The earliest fill for revefenacin or tiotropium treatment post discharge was set as the treatment index date. In addition, patients were required to be >40 years of age on the treatment index date and have 12 months of continuous enrollment preceding the treatment index date and ≥ 90 days of continuous enrollment following the treatment index date. Demographics were assessed for all individuals on the treatment index date, while clinical characteristics were measured during the 12-month baseline period.

Notes

1. Mannino DM, Buist AS. Global burden of COPD: risk factors, prevalence, and future trends. The Lancet. 2007;370(9589):765-773.
2. Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease: Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 2021.  https://goldcopd.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/GOLD-REPORT-2021-v1.1-25Nov20_WMV.pdf
3. Vestbo J, Hurd SS, Agusti AG, et al. Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: GOLD executive summary. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine. 2013;187(4):347-365.
4. Mahler DA, Waterman LA, Gifford AH. Prevalence and COPD phenotype for a suboptimal peak inspiratory flow rate against the simulated resistance of the Diskus(R) dry powder inhaler. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv. 2013;26(3):174-179.
5. Armitage JM, Williams SJ. Inhaler technique in the elderly. Age Ageing. 1988;17(4):275-278.
6. Barrons R, Pegram A, Borries A. Inhaler device selection: special considerations in elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2011;68(13):1221-1232.
7. Bourbeau J, Bartlett SJ. Patient adherence in COPD. Thorax. 2008;63(9):831-838.
8. Dhand R, Dolovich M, Chipps B, Myers TR, Restrepo R, Farrar JR. The role of nebulized therapy in the management of COPD: evidence and recommendations. COPD. 2012;9(1):58-72.
9. Talwar D, Ramanathan R, Lopez M, Hegde R, Gogtay J, Goregaonkar G. The emerging role of nebulization for maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease at home. Lung India. 2021;38(2):168-173.
10. Geller DE. Comparing clinical features of the nebulizer, metered-dose inhaler, and dry powder inhaler. Respir Care. 2005;50(10):1313-1321; discussion 1321-1312.