These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Prescription Patterns of New Use of Fixed-Dose Combination Inhalers in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Long-Acting β2 Agonists Plus Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonists versus Long-Acting β2 Agonists Plus Inhaled Corticosteroids.
    Author: Liao PA, Pan SW, Chen CY, Deng CY, Dong YH.
    Journal: Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis; 2023; 18():553-563. PubMed ID: 37069844.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The clinical guideline recommends use of long-acting β2 agonists/long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LABA/LAMA) or long-acting β2 agonists/inhaled corticosteroids (LABA/ICS) combination therapies for patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The fixed-dose combination (FDC) inhalers of LABA/LAMA and LABA/ICS were reimbursed in Taiwan in 2015 and in 2002, respectively. This study aimed to examine prescription patterns of new use of either FDC therapy in real-world practice. METHODS: We identified COPD patients who initiated LABA/LAMA FDC or LABA/ICS FDC between 2015 and 2018 from a population-based Taiwanese database with 2 million, randomly sampled beneficiaries enrolled in a single-payer health insurance system. We compared number of LABA/LAMA FDC and LABA/ICS FDC initiators in each calendar year, from different hospital accreditation levels, and cared for by different physician specialties. We also compared baseline patient characteristics between LABA/LAMA FDC and LABA/ICS FDC initiators. RESULTS: A total of 12,455 COPD patients who initiated LABA/LAMA FDC (n=4019) or LABA/ICS FDC (n=8436) were included. Number of LABA/LAMA FDC initiators increased apparently (n=336 in 2015 versus n=1436 in 2018), but number of LABA/ICS FDC initiators decreased obviously (n=2416 in 2015 versus n=1793 in 2018) over time. The preference of use of LABA/LAMA FDC varied across clinical environments. The proportions of LABA/LAMA FDC initiators were more than 30% in the setting of non-primary care clinics (eg, medical centers) and in the services of chest physicians; but were only less than 10% in primary care clinics and non-chest physicians' services (eg, family medicine physicians). LABA/LAMA FDC initiators appeared to be older, male, to have more comorbidities, and to utilize resources more frequently compared to LABA/ICS FDC initiators. CONCLUSION: This real-world study found evident temporal trends, variations in healthcare provider, and differences in patient characteristics among COPD patients who initiated LABA/LAMA FDC or LABA/ICS FDC.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]