# Comparison of the Risk of Pneumonia Between Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol and Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy in Patients with COPD Using Health Insurance Claims Data: Final Analysis of Post-Marketing Database Surveillance in Japan

## TL;DR

This study compared pneumonia hospitalization risks between two COPD treatments in Japan using health insurance data and found no significant difference.

## Contribution

The study provides real-world evidence on the safety of single-inhaler versus multiple-inhaler triple therapy for COPD.

## Key findings

- No significant difference in pneumonia hospitalization risk between the two therapies.
- Similar incidence rates of CAP hospitalization were observed in both treatment groups.
- Cumulative adjusted incidence rates at 360 days were 0.060 for FF/UMEC/VI and 0.054 for MITT.

## Abstract

Background/Objectives: Due to limited current evidence, this post-marketing database surveillance study aimed to investigate the occurrence of hospitalization due to community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Japan who received single-inhaler triple therapy (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol; FF/UMEC/VI) or multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT). Methods: This retrospective cohort study used health insurance claims data from the Medical Data Vision Co., Ltd. database (November 2017–April 2023) to identify overall and incident users of FF/UMEC/VI or MITT. Index date was the start of FF/UMEC/VI or MITT. Hazard ratios (HRs) for CAP hospitalization were assessed using inverse probability of treatment weighting based on propensity scores (PS). Incidence rates and time to occurrence of CAP hospitalization were also assessed. Adjustments were made to the PS model to address missing body mass index data. Results: In total, 8790 and 10,881 patients were included in the overall FF/UMEC/VI and MITT cohorts, and 3939 and 4017 patients were included in the incident FF/UMEC/VI and MITT cohorts, respectively. HR for CAP hospitalization among incident users ranged from 1.05 to 1.15 across all PS adjustments. Similar incidence rates of CAP hospitalization were reported among both cohorts and across all PS adjustments. The cumulative adjusted incidence rates of first CAP hospitalization at 360 days post-index among incident users was 0.060 and 0.054 in the FF/UMEC/VI and MITT cohorts, respectively. Conclusions: There was no difference in the risk of CAP between patients treated with FF/UMEC/VI and MITT. This safety information may help healthcare providers select appropriate treatments.