Search

David MG Halpin,1 Robyn Kendall,2 Soham Shukla,3 Alan Martin,4 Dhvani Shah,5 Dawn Midwinter,6 Kai M Beeh,7 Janwillem WH Kocks,8– 11 Paul W Jones,12 Chris Compton,12 Nancy A Risebrough,13 Afisi S Ismaila3,14 1University of Exeter Medical School, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK; 2ICON Health Economics, ICON plc, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 3Value Evidence and Outcomes, GSK, Collegeville, PA, USA; 4Value Evidence and Outcomes, GSK, Uxbridge, UK; 5ICON Health Economics, ICON plc, New York, NY, USA; 6Biostatistics, GSK, Brentford, UK; 7Insaf Respiratory Research Institute, Wiesbaden, Germany; 8General Practitioners Research Institute, Groningen, the Netherlands; 9Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore; 10Groningen Research Institute Asthma and COPD (GRIAC), University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 11Department of Pulmonology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 12Global Respiratory Franchise, GSK, Brentford, UK; 13ICON Health Economics, ICON plc, Toronto, ON, Canada; 14Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, CanadaCorrespondence: David MG Halpin, University of Exeter Medical School, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK, Tel +44 01392 201178, Email d.halpin@nhs.netPurpose: The 24-week INTREPID trial demonstrated the clinical benefits of once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) with fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus non-ELLIPTA multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of FF/UMEC/VI versus non-ELLIPTA MITT for the treatment of symptomatic COPD from a United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS) perspective.Patients and Methods: The analysis was conducted using the validated GALAXY COPD disease progression model. Baseline characteristics, treatment effect parameters (forced expiratory volume in 1 second and St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire score [derived from exploratory COPD Assessment Test score mapping]), and discontinuation data from INTREPID were used to populate the model. UK healthcare resource and drug costs (2020 British pounds) were applied, and costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. Analyses were conducted over a lifetime horizon from a UK NHS perspective. Model outputs included exacerbation rates, total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results by varying parameter values and assumptions.Results: Over a lifetime horizon, FF/UMEC/VI provided an additional 0.174 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.024, 0.344) LYs (approximately 2 months), and 0.253 (95% CI: 0.167, 0.346) QALYs (approximately 3 months), at a cost saving of £ 1764 (95% CI: −£ 2600, −£ 678) per patient, compared with non-ELLIPTA MITT. FF/UMEC/VI remained the dominant treatment option, meaning greater benefits at lower costs, across all scenario and sensitivity analyses.Conclusion: Based on this analysis, in a UK setting, FF/UMEC/VI would improve health outcomes and reduce costs compared with non-ELLIPTA MITT for the treatment of patients with symptomatic COPD. SITT may help to reduce the clinical and economic burden of COPD and should be considered by physicians as a preferred treatment option.Keywords: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cost-effectiveness, health technology assessment, pragmatic, real-world, triple therapy

Marika T Leving,1 Job FM van Boven,2– 4 Sinthia Z Bosnic-Anticevich,5,6 Joyce van Cooten,1 Jaime Correia de Sousa,7 Biljana Cvetkovski,5 Richard Dekhuijzen,8 Lars Dijk,1 Marina García Pardo,9 Asparuh Gardev,10 Rados&lstrok;aw Gawlik,11 Iris van der Ham,1 Elisabeth Sophia Hartgers-Gubbels,10 Ymke Janse,1 Federico Lavorini,12 Tiago Maricoto,13 Jiska Meijer,1 Boyd Metz,1 David B Price,14,15 Miguel Roman-Rodríguez,9 Kirsten Schuttel,1 Nilouq Stoker,1 Ioanna Tsiligianni,16 Omar S Usmani,17 Janwillem H Kocks1,2,15,18 1General Practitioners Research Institute, Groningen, the Netherlands; 2University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen Research Institute for Asthma and COPD (GRIAC), University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 3University Medical Centre Groningen, Department of Clinical Pharmacy & Pharmacology, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 4Medication Adherence Expertise Centre of the Northern Netherlands (MAECON), Groningen, the Netherlands; 5Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; 6Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia; 7Life and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS), PT Government Associate Laboratory, School of Medicine, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal; 8Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands; 9Primary Care Respiratory Research Unit, Instituto De Investigación Sanitaria De Baleares (IdISBa), Palma de Mallorca, Spain; 10Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany; 11Department of Internal Medicine, Allergology, Clinical Immunology, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland; 12Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy; 13Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Beira Interior, Covilha, Portugal; 14Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK; 15Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore; 16Department of Social Medicine, Health Planning Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Crete, Rethymno, Greece; 17Airway Disease, National Heart and Lung Institute (NHLI), Imperial College London and Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK; 18Department of Pulmonology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, the NetherlandsCorrespondence: Janwillem H Kocks, General Practitioners Research Institute, Professor Enno Dirk Wiersmastraat 5, Groningen, 9713 GH, the Netherlands, Tel +31 50 211 3898, Email janwillem@gpri.nlPurpose: To assess the relationship between suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow (sPIF), inhalation technique errors, and non-adherence, with Healthcare Resource Utilisation (HCRU) in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients receiving maintenance therapy via a Dry Powder Inhaler (DPI).Patients and methods: The cross-sectional, multi-country PIFotal study included 1434 COPD patients (≥ 40 years) using a DPI for maintenance therapy. PIF was measured with the In-Check DIAL G16, and sPIF was defined as a typical PIF lower than required for the device. Inhalation technique was assessed by standardised evaluation of video recordings and grouped into 10 steps. Patients completed the “Test of Adherence to Inhalers” questionnaire. HCRU was operationalised as COPD-related costs for primary healthcare, secondary healthcare, medication, and total COPD-related costs in a 1-year period.Results: Participants with sPIF had higher medication costs compared with those with optimal PIF (cost ratio [CR]: 1.07, 95% CI [1.01, 1.14]). Multiple inhalation technique errors were associated with increased HCRU. Specifically, “insufficient inspiratory effort” with higher secondary healthcare costs (CR: 2.20, 95% CI [1.37, 3.54]) and higher total COPD-related costs (CR: 1.16, 95% CI 1.03– 1.31). “no breath-hold following the inhalation manoeuvre (< 6 s)” with higher medication costs (CR: 1.08, 95% CI [1.02, 1.15]) and total COPD-related costs (CR 1.17, 95% CI [1.07, 1.28]), and “not breathing out calmly after inhalation” with higher medication costs (CR: 1.19, 95% CI [1.04, 1.37]). Non-adherence was not significantly associated with HCRU.Conclusion: sPIF and inhalation technique errors were associated with higher COPD-related healthcare utilisation and costs in COPD patients on DPI maintenance therapy.Keywords: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Dry Powder Inhaler, health economics, cost analysis, healthcare resource utilisation

Ioanna Tsiligianni,1 Kristian Jong Hoeines,2 Christian Jensen,3 Janwillem WH Kocks,4– 6 Björn Ställberg,7 Claudia Vicente,8 Rudi Peché9 1Department of Social Medicine, University of Crete, Heraklion, Greece; 2Tananger Legesenter DA, Sola, Norway; 3Lægehuset Remisen, Præstø, Denmark; 4General Practitioners Research Institute, Groningen, the Netherlands; 5University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, GRIAC Research Institute, Groningen, the Netherlands; 6Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore; 7Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Family Medicine and Preventive Medicine, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; 8Unidade Saúde Familiar Araceti, Arazede, Portugal; 9Department of Pneumology, ISPPC, CHU Charleroi, Charleroi, BelgiumCorrespondence: Ioanna TsiligianniDepartment of Social Medicine, University of Crete, Voutes Campus, Heraklion, Crete, 71003, GreeceTel +30 2810394607Email i.tsiligianni@uoc.grAbstract: COPD is a chronic disease, typically accompanied by multiple comorbid conditions. The need to apply several, and sometimes conflicting, disease-specific treatment guidelines, complicates the management of individual patients. Moreover, national and international recommendations evolve rapidly but provide limited guidance on the integrated approach in the multimorbid patient. Particularly bothersome is the fact that the presence of comorbidities may deteriorate the course of COPD, and inversely COPD may affect the outcome of the comorbid diseases. In addition, some effects of commonly prescribed COPD inhaler medications, including beta2-agonists, long-acting antimuscarinics and especially inhaled corticosteroids, mimic or worsen COPD-related comorbidities. Therefore, the authors combined their perspectives to formulate advice that may help physicians to improve COPD patient care in daily practice when comorbidities are present. Diabetes, atrial fibrillation, osteoporosis/fractures, infections (pneumonia and tuberculosis) and asthma were identified as areas where practicing clinicians should give special attention to the risk-benefit ratio of the inhaled medication. Overall, the presence of multimorbidity in a COPD patient should act as a signal to carefully reconsider the treatment choices.Keywords: comorbidity, multimorbidity, polypharmacy, inhaler medication

Simon Wan Yau Ming,1 John Haughney,2 Dermot Ryan,3 Iain Small,4 Federico Lavorini,5 Alberto Papi,6 Dave Singh,7 David MG Halpin,8 John R Hurst,9 Shishir Patel,10 Matthias Ochel,10 Janwillem Kocks,1,11,12 Victoria Carter,1 Antony Hardjojo,1 David B Price1,2 1Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore; 2Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK; 3Optimum Patient Care, Cambridge, UK; 4Peterhead Health Centre, Aberdeen, UK; 5Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy; 6University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy; 7University of Manchester, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; 8Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Exeter, UK; 9UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK; 10Chiesi Limited, Manchester, UK; 11General Practitioners Research Institute, Groningen, the Netherlands; 12University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, GRIAC Research Institute, Groningen, the NetherlandsCorrespondence: David B PriceCentre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Polwarth Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UKTel +65 6802 9724Email dprice@opri.sgIntroduction: The Fostair® 100/6 (BDP/FF) pressurized metered-dose inhaler, delivering an extrafine formulation, is licensed for asthma and COPD in the UK. However, its real-life effectiveness for COPD has not been evaluated. This study compared the clinical effectiveness of BDP/FF against other licensed ICS/LABA combination inhalers: the Seretide® Accuhaler® (FP/SAL) and the Symbicort® Turbohaler® (BUD/FF).Methods: A matched historical cohort study was conducted using records of patients with diagnostic codes for COPD from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database (OPCRD). Patients who had received BDP/FF as their first ICS/LABA were matched 1:1 with patients who had received FP/SAL or BUD/FF, resulting in two matched comparisons. Additional analysis was conducted on patients who had never had diagnostic codes for asthma. Noninferiority in terms of the proportion of patients with moderate/severe COPD exacerbations on the different inhalers in the following year was assessed. Noninferiority was achieved if the upper CI limit were ≤ 1.2.Results: This study included 537 and 540 patient pairs in the BDP/FF vs FP/SAL cohort and the BDP/FF vs BUD/FF cohort, respectively. The proportion of patients with COPD exacerbations in the BDP/FF group was not significantly different from either the FP/SAL (68.7% vs 70.2%, AOR 0.89, 95% CI 0.67– 1.19) or BUD/FF group (68.5% vs 69.4%, AOR 0.79, 95% CI 0.58– 1.08). Noninferiority of BDP/FF in preventing COPD exacerbations was fulfilled in both comparisons. In patients without asthma, BDP/FF was also noninferior to BUD/FF (proportion with COPD exacerbations, 67.8% vs 64.7%, AOR 0.79, 95% CI 0.51– 1.1997). Additionally, a significantly lower proportion of patients prescribed BDP/FF had COPD exacerbations than FP/SAL (64.8% vs 73.7%, AOR 0.64 95% CI 0.43– 0.96).Conclusion: Initiating ICS/LABA treatment of COPD with extrafine-formulation BDP/FF was noninferior in preventing moderate/severe exacerbations compared to FP/SAL and BUD/FF.Keywords: metered-dose inhaler, dry-powder inhaler, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, treatment efficacy, cost-effectiveness

Marjan Kerkhof,1 Jaco Voorham,1 Paul Dorinsky,2 Claudia Cabrera,3,4 Patrick Darken,5 Janwillem WH Kocks,1,6 Mohsen Sadatsafavi,7,8 Don D Sin,7,8 Victoria Carter,1 David B Price1,9 1Observational & Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd, Singapore, Singapore; 2AstraZeneca, Durham, NC, USA; 3AstraZeneca, Mölndal, Sweden; 4Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden; 5AstraZeneca, Morristown, NJ, USA; 6General Practitioners Research Institute, Groningen, The Netherlands; 7Respiratory Evaluation Sciences Program, Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 8Centre for Heart Lung Innovation, St. Paul’s Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 9Academic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UKCorrespondence: David B Price Polwarth Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UKTel +65 6962 3627Email dprice@opri.sgIntroduction: Early identification of preventable risk factors of COPD progression is important. Whether exacerbations have a negative impact on disease progression is largely unknown. We investigated whether the long-term occurrence of exacerbations is associated with lung function decline at early stages of COPD.Methods: Patients diagnosed with mild/moderate COPD (obstruction and FEV1% predicted 50– 90%), aged ≥ 35 years, and a smoking history, who had ≥ 6 years of UK electronic medical records after initiation of maintenance therapy were studied. Multilevel mixed-effect linear regression was performed to determine the association between the count of any year in which the patient had ≥ 1 exacerbation over a 6-year period and FEV1 decline, adjusted for sex, age, anthropometrics and smoking habits. Exacerbations were defined as any prescription for an acute oral corticosteroid course and/or lower respiratory-related antibiotics and/or any COPD-related emergency or inpatient hospitalization.Results: Of 11,337 patients included (mean age 65 years; 49% female) 31.6%, 23.3%, 16.6%, 11.6%, 8.1%, 5.3% and 3.4% had 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 years with ≥ 1 exacerbation. The mean annual FEV1 decline accelerated by 1.50 mL/year (95% Confidence Interval 1.02; 1.98) with every additional year with ≥ 1 exacerbation from 31.0 mL/year in subjects without any exacerbation to 40.0 mL/year in patients experiencing ≥ 1 exacerbation every year. Patients with more years with ≥ 1 exacerbation had a lower mean FEV1 at first diagnosis: 14.7 mL (11.7; 17.8) lower with every additional year with exacerbations. When counting years with ≥ 2 exacerbations, greater effects were observed (2.19 [1.50; 2.88] mL/year excess decline per year with ≥ 2 exacerbations; 16.5 mL [12.1; 20.8] lower FEV1 at diagnosis).Conclusion: Patients who experienced a greater exacerbation burden after initiation of maintenance therapy had worse lung function at diagnosis and a more rapid lung function decline thereafter, which emphasizes the need for better treatment strategies.Keywords: COPD, exacerbations, spirometry, inhalation therapy, observational study

Anna Jetske Baron,1– 3 Bertine MJ Flokstra-de Blok,1,2,4 Ellen van Heijst,2,5 Roland A Riemersma,6 Agnes MM Sonnenschein-van der Voort,7 Esther I Metting,2,6 Janwillem WH Kocks1,2,8 1General Practitioners Research Institute, Groningen, the Netherlands; 2University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, GRIAC Research Institute, Groningen, the Netherlands; 3Department of Pulmonary Diseases and Tuberculosis, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 4Department of Pediatric Pulmonology and Pediatric Allergology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Beatrix Children’s Hospital, Groningen, the Netherlands; 5Astma/COPD Dienst, CERTE Laboratories, Groningen, the Netherlands; 6Department of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 7GlaxoSmithKline, Zeist, the Netherlands; 8Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, SingaporeCorrespondence: Anna Jetske Baron Email annajetske@gpri.nlPurpose: Primary care COPD guidelines indicate that COPD patients with asthma characteristics should be treated as having asthma. This study aims to describe the prevalence of asthma characteristics in patients with a pulmonologist-confirmed working diagnosis of COPD or ACO.Patients and Methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study used real-life data (collected between 2007 and 2017) from a Dutch asthma/COPD-service, a structured web-based system in which pulmonologists support general practitioners in their diagnosis of patients with suspicion of obstructive lung disease. The prevalence of asthma characteristics (history of asthma, atopy, symptoms, and reversibility) and blood eosinophil (Eos) counts were assessed in patients with a working diagnosis of COPD or ACO.Results: Of the 14,141 patients, ≥ 40 years in the dataset, 4475 (31.6%) were diagnosed with asthma, 3532 (25.0%) with COPD, and 1276 (9.0%) with ACO. Asthma characteristics were present in 65.6% (n=1956) of the COPD and 90.9% (n=1059) of the ACO patients. Eos counts of ≥ 300 cells per μL were found in 35.7% (n=924) of the COPD patients and 35.3% (n=341) of the ACO patients.Conclusion: In this group of COPD and ACO patients remotely diagnosed by pulmonologists, a substantial proportion would be considered to have asthma characteristics according to the guidelines. This may explain the high number of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) prescriptions found in primary care COPD patients. Prospective studies are necessary to identify patients who may or may not benefit from ICS containing treatment. Hence, personalized care in primary care can be optimized.Keywords: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma COPD overlap, asthma characteristics, guidelines

Erik Bathoorn,1 Feikje Groenhof,2 Ron Hendrix,1,3 Thys van der Molen,2,4 Bhanu Sinha,1 Huib AM Kerstjens,5 Alex W Friedrich,1 Janwillem WH Kocks2,4 1Department of Medical Microbiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 2Department of Primary Care, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 3Department of Pulmonary Diseases and Tuberculosis, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 4Department of Medical Microbiology, Certe – Laboratory for Infectious Diseases, Groningen, the Netherlands; 5GRIAC Research Institute, Groningen, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands Background: Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are generally treated with optimization of bronchodilation therapy and a course of oral corticosteroids, mostly without antibiotics. The Dutch guidelines recommend prudent use of antibiotics, with amoxicillin or doxycycline as first choice. Here we evaluate adherence to these guidelines with regard to antibiotic prescription in AECOPD in primary care and the use of sputum cultures. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed a longitudinal cohort of patients in three primary care practices in the north-eastern region of the Netherlands from 2009 to 2013 (n=36,172 subjects) participating in the Registration Network Groningen. Antibiotics prescribed for AECOPD -10/+28 days from the start date of corticosteroid courses were evaluated. In addition, we assessed regional data on the susceptibility of respiratory pathogens from COPD patients. Results: We identified 1,297 patients with COPD. Of these, 616 experienced one or more exacerbations, resulting in a total of 1,558 exacerbations, for which 1,594 antibiotic courses were prescribed. The recommended antibiotics doxycycline and amoxicillin accounted for 56% of the prescribed antibiotics overall and for 35% in subsequent antibiotic courses. The alternative choices were not based on culture results because only in 67 AECOPD events (2.9%) sputum samples were taken. Regional data including 3,638 sputum samples showed that pathogens relevant in AECOPD were detected in 19% of cultures. Conclusion: Our study shows that guidelines regarding the prescription of antibiotics are poorly followed, particularly in recurrent exacerbations. Sputum cultures were performed in a small minority of cases. Performing sputum diagnostics in patients with early treatment failure or a repeated exacerbation when antibiotic treatment is started may further rationalize antibiotic treatment. Keywords: COPD, exacerbation, antimicrobial stewardship, bacteria, sputum cultures

Job FM van Boven,1,2 Janwillem WH Kocks,2 Maarten J Postma1,3,4 1Department of Pharmacy, Unit of PharmacoEpidemiology & PharmacoEconomics, 2Department of General Practice, Groningen Research Institute for Asthma and COPD (GRIAC), 3Institute of Science in Healthy Aging & healthcaRE (SHARE), 4Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG), University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands Purpose: The fixed-dose dual bronchodilator combination (FDC) of tiotropium and olodaterol showed increased effectiveness regarding lung function and health-related quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) compared with the use of its mono-components. Yet, while effectiveness and safety have been shown, the health economic implication of this treatment is still unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the cost–utility and budget impact of tiotropium–olodaterol FDC in patients with moderate to very severe COPD in the Netherlands.Patients and methods: A cost–utility study was performed, using an individual-level Markov model. To populate the model, individual patient-level data (age, height, sex, COPD duration, baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 second) were obtained from the tiotropium–olodaterol TOnado trial. In the model, forced expiratory volume in 1 second and patient-level data were extrapolated to utility and survival, and treatment with tiotropium–olodaterol FDC was compared with tiotropium. Cost–utility analysis was performed from the Dutch health care payer’s perspective using a 15-year time horizon in the base-case analysis. The standard Dutch discount rates were applied (costs: 4.0%; effects: 1.5%). Both univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Budget impact was annually assessed over a 5-year time horizon, taking into account different levels of medication adherence.Results: As a result of cost increases, combined with quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains, results showed that tiotropium–olodaterol FDC had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €7,004/QALY. Without discounting, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €5,981/QALY. Results were robust in univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Budget impact was estimated at €4.3 million over 5 years assuming 100% medication adherence. Scenarios with 40%, 60%, and 80% adherence resulted in lower 5-year incremental cost increases of €1.7, €2.6, and €3.4 million, respectively.Conclusion: Tiotropium–olodaterol FDC can be considered a cost-effective treatment under current Dutch cost-effectiveness thresholds. Keywords: COPD, cost-effectiveness, health economics, cost–utility, budget impact

Ioanna G Tsiligianni,1,2 Harma J Alma,1,2 Corina de Jong,1,2 Danijel Jelusic,3 Michael Wittmann,3 Michael Schuler,4 Konrad Schultz,3 Boudewijn J Kollen,1 Thys van der Molen,1,2 Janwillem WH Kocks1,2 1Department of General Practice, 2GRIAC Research Institute, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 3Klinik Bad Reichenhall, Center for Rehabilitation, Pulmonology and Orthopedics, Bad Reichenhall, 4Department of Medical Psychology, Psychotherapy and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany Background: In the GOLD (Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) strategy document, the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ), COPD Assessment Test (CAT), or modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) scale are recommended for the assessment of symptoms using the cutoff points of CCQ ≥1, CAT ≥10, and mMRC scale ≥2 to indicate symptomatic patients. The current study investigates the criterion validity of the CCQ, CAT and mMRC scale based on a reference cutoff point of St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) ≥25, as suggested by GOLD, following sensitivity and specificity analysis. In addition, areas under the curve (AUCs) of the CCQ, CAT, and mMRC scale were compared using two SGRQ cutoff points (≥25 and ≥20).Materials and methods: Two data sets were used: study A, 238 patients from a pulmonary rehabilitation program; and study B, 101 patients from primary care. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to assess the correspondence between the recommended cutoff points of the questionnaires.Results: Sensitivity, specificity, and AUC scores for cutoff point SGRQ ≥25 were: study A, 0.99, 0.43, and 0.96 for CCQ ≥1, 0.92, 0.48, and 0.89 for CAT ≥10, and 0.68, 0.91, and 0.91 for mMRC ≥2; study B, 0.87, 0.77, and 0.9 for CCQ ≥1, 0.76, 0.73, and 0.82 for CAT ≥10, and 0.21, 1, and 0.81 for mMRC ≥2. Sensitivity, specificity, and AUC scores for cutoff point SGRQ ≥20 were: study A, 0.99, 0.73, and 0.99 for CCQ ≥1, 0.91, 0.73, and 0.94 for CAT ≥10, and 0.66, 0.95, and 0.94 for mMRC ≥2; study B, 0.8, 0.89, and 0.89 for CCQ ≥1, 0.69, 0.78, and 0.8 for CAT ≥10, and 0.18, 1, and 0.81 for mMRC ≥2.Conclusion: Based on data from these two different samples, this study showed that the suggested cutoff point for the SGRQ (≥25) did not seem to correspond well with the established cutoff points of the CCQ or CAT scales, resulting in low specificity levels. The correspondence with the mMRC scale seemed satisfactory, though not optimal. The SGRQ threshold of ≥20 corresponded slightly better than SGRQ ≥25, recently suggested by GOLD 2015, with the established cutoff points for the CCQ, CAT, and mMRC scale. Keywords: pulmonary disease, chronic obstructive, health status

Thys van der Molen,1,2 Marc Miravitlles,3 Janwillem WH Kocks1,21Department of General Practice, 2GRIAC (Groningen Research Institute for Asthma and COPD), University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; 3Pneumology Department, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Biomedical Research Networking Centre in Respiratory Diseases (CIBERES), Barcelona, SpainAbstract: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) present with a variety of symptoms that significantly impair health-related quality of life. Despite this, COPD treatment and its management are mainly based on lung function assessments. There is increasing evidence that conventional lung function measures alone do not correlate well with COPD symptoms and their associated impact on patients' everyday lives. Instead, symptoms should be assessed routinely, preferably by using patient-centered questionnaires that provide a more accurate guide to the actual burden of COPD. Numerous questionnaires have been developed in an attempt to find a simple and reliable tool to use in everyday clinical practice. In this paper, we review three such patient-reported questionnaires recommended by the latest Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease guidelines, ie, the modified Medical Research Council questionnaire, the clinical COPD questionnaire, and the COPD Assessment Test, as well as other symptom-specific questionnaires that are currently being developed.Keywords: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, symptoms, questionnaires

Jan Willem H Kocks,1,2 Jan Willem K van den Berg,3 Huib AM Kerstjens,2,4 Steven M Uil,3 Judith M Vonk,2,5 Ynze P de Jong,3 Ioanna G Tsiligianni,1,2 Thys van der Molen1,2 1Department of General Practice, 2Groningen Research Institute for Asthma and COPD, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, 3Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Isala Klinieken, Zwolle, 4Department of Pulmonary Diseases and Tuberculosis, 5Department of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands Background: Exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are a major burden to patients and to society. Little is known about the possible role of day-to-day patient-reported outcomes during an exacerbation. This study aims to describe the day-to-day course of patient-reported health status during exacerbations of COPD and to assess its value in predicting clinical outcomes. Methods: Data from two randomized controlled COPD exacerbation trials (n = 210 and n = 45 patients) were used to describe both the feasibility of daily collection of and the day-to-day course of patient-reported outcomes during outpatient treatment or admission to hospital. In addition to clinical parameters, the BORG dyspnea score, the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ), and the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire were used in Cox regression models to predict treatment failure, time to next exacerbation, and mortality in the hospital study. Results: All patient-reported outcomes showed a distinct pattern of improvement. In the multivariate models, absence of improvement in CCQ symptom score and impaired lung function were independent predictors of treatment failure. Health status and gender predicted time to next exacerbation. Five-year mortality was predicted by age, forced expiratory flow in one second % predicted, smoking status, and CCQ score. In outpatient management of exacerbations, health status was found to be less impaired than in hospitalized patients, while the rate and pattern of recovery was remarkably similar. Conclusion: Daily health status measurements were found to predict treatment failure, which could help decision-making for patients hospitalized due to an exacerbation of COPD. Keywords: health status, Clinical COPD Questionnaire, hospital, admission, prediction