ArticleInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2025
Comparable Clinical Outcomes with Tiotropium/Olodaterol or Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Patients with COPD and Blood Eosinophil Count ≤300 Cells/μL.
Article in International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Assessment of blood eosinophil count (BEC) is recommended to guide the use of inhaled corticosteroids in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), with BEC ≥300 cells/μL predictive of patients most likely to benefit. Objective: To compare outcomes between patients initiating dual bronchodilator therapy with tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) versus triple therapy with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) in patients with COPD and BEC ≤300 cells/μL. Methods: A retrospective cohort study using claims data from the Optum Research Database. Patients with COPD initiated on TIO/OLO or FF/UMEC/VI between 01 June 2015 and 30 November 2019, with a baseline BEC were included. TIO/OLO initiators were 1:1 propensity score matched with FF/UMEC/VI initiators. Time to first exacerbation and pneumonia diagnosis were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis. COPD exacerbations and COPD and/or pneumonia-related healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and cost outcomes were presented as population annualized averages. Results: The study population included 3867 individuals with a baseline BEC result. Among these, 3168 (81.9%) had BEC ≤300 cells/μL. After matching, 1098 matched pairs with BEC ≤300 cells/μL were retained. The follow-up annualized count of moderate/severe exacerbations was not significantly different between TIO/OLO and FF/UMEC/VI initiators (1.05 vs 0.99, p=0.535). Annualized counts of COPD and/or pneumonia-related HRU were not significantly different, except for emergency department visits, which were lower for TIO/OLO than FF/UMEC/VI (0.59 vs 0.83, p=0.018). Annualized COPD and/or pneumonia-related emergency department ($370 vs $538, p=0.034) and pharmacy costs ($4692 vs $6573, p<0.001) were lower for TIO/OLO versus FF/UMEC/VI initiators. Conclusion: Eight in ten patients with COPD who initiated FF/UMEC/VI had BEC ≤300 cells/μL. TIO/OLO and FF/UMEC/VI users with BEC ≤300 cells/μL experienced similar rates of COPD exacerbations. TIO/OLO initiators incurred lower pharmacy costs related to COPD and/or pneumonia than FF/UMEC/VI initiators. These results support treatment recommendations of reserving inhaled corticosteroids for frequent exacerbators and patients with elevated eosinophil counts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.