Lohana, Abhi C

Background/Objectives: Fixed-dose triple therapy is recommended for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at high risk of exacerbations; however, direct comparative effectiveness data between available triple therapy regimens remain limited. We compared real-world clinical outcomes among adults with COPD receiving fluticasone furoate/vilanterol/umeclidinium (FF/VI/UMEC) or budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol (BUD/GLY/FOR). Methods: We conducted a retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study using the TriNetX Research Network. Adults with a spirometrically confirmed diagnosis of COPD who received fluticasone furoate/vilanterol/umeclidinium (FF/VI/UMEC) or budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol (BUD/GLY/FOR) between July 2020 and August 2024 were included in the analysis. A 365-day landmark period was applied to establish maintenance therapy, with outcome follow-up beginning 1 year after treatment initiation. Patients were followed for outcomes through August 2025, the date of database analysis. After 1:1 propensity score matching, treatment groups were compared for COPD exacerbations, acute respiratory failure (ARF), hospitalization, and all-cause mortality using RR and Cox proportional hazards analyses. Results: In matched cohorts, FF/VI/UMEC was associated with a significantly higher risk of COPD exacerbations (5.6% vs. 3.9%; RR 1.44; 95% CI 1.30–1.59; p < 0.001) and ARF (2.5% vs. 1.9%; RR 1.28; 95% CI 1.11–1.46; p < 0.001) compared with BUD/GLY/FOR. Time-to-event analyses demonstrated lower event-free probability for exacerbations (HR 1.35; (95% CI 1.21–1.50) and ARF (HR 1.15; (95% CI 1.00–1.32))). All-cause mortality was numerically higher in the FF/VI/UMEC cohort (5.2% vs. 4.7%; RR 1.09; 95% CI 1.00–1.19; p = 0.050); however, time-to-event analysis did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference. Hospitalization rates were similar between groups. Conclusions: In this large propensity score-matched real-world cohort study, patients receiving BUD/GLY/FOR experienced lower rates of COPD exacerbations and acute respiratory failure than those receiving FF/VI/UMEC. Because of the retrospective observational nature of the analysis, these findings should be considered hypothesis-generating and require confirmation in prospective comparative effectiveness studies.