Respiratory-related medical expenditure and inpatient utilisation among COPD patients receiving long-acting bronchodilator therapy

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)-related expenditure and hospitalisation in COPD patients treated with tiotropium versus alternative long-acting bronchodilators (LABDs).

Methods:

Data were from the Thomson Reuters MarketScan Research Databases. COPD patients ≥35 years with at least one LABD claim between July 1, 2004 and June 30, 2006 were classified into five cohorts based on index LABD: monotherapy with tiotropium, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate, formoterol fumarate, or salmeterol or combination therapy. Demographic and clinical characteristics were evaluated for a 6-month pre-period and COPD-related utilisation and total costs were evaluated for a 12-month follow-up period. LABD relationship to COPD-related costs and hospitalisations were estimated by multivariate generalised linear modelling (GLM) and multivariate logistic regression, respectively.

Results:

Of 52,274 patients, 53% (n?=?27,457) were male, 71% (n?=?37,271) were ≥65?years, and three LABD cohorts accounted for over 90% of the sample [53% (n?=?27,654) salmeterol/fluticasone propionate, 23% (n?=?11,762) tiotropium, and 15% (n?=?7755) combination therapy]. Patients treated with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (p?<?0.001), formoterol fumarate (p?=?0.032), salmeterol (p?=?0.004), or with combination therapy (p?<?0.001) had higher COPD-related costs and a greater risk of inpatient admission (p?<?0.01 for all) versus tiotropium.

Limitations:

These data are based on administrative claims and as such do not include clinical information or information on risk factors, like smoking status, that are relevant to this population.

Conclusions:

Patients treated with tiotropim had lower COPD-related expenditures and risk of hospitalisation than patients treated with other LABDs     

Capacity utilisation and corporate restructuring: a comparative study of the US, UK and other EU countries

This paper compares and contrasts capacity utilisation in themanufacturing sectors of the US, UK and other EU countries overthree decades. It argues that corporate governance and the pressuresof globalisation have led to a tighter capacity stance in theUK but not generally in the US or Europe. The paper furtherexplores the nature of the UK experience, in particular, therival theories that efficiency in capital use has increasedversus the view that firms have simply tightened their capacitystance in line with higher hurdle rates of return. The evidenceof the paper supports the view that UK firms adopted a ‘submissive’response to the pressures of globalisation by shutting capacityand retreating from new investment.