Dataset Information

Ease-of-use preference for the ELLIPTA® dry powder inhaler over a commonly used single-dose capsule dry powder inhaler by inhalation device-naive Japanese volunteers aged 40 years or older.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In patients receiving inhaled medication, dissatisfaction with and difficulty in using the inhaler can affect treatment adherence. The incidence of handling errors is typically higher in the elderly than in younger people. The aim of the study was to assess inhaler preference for and handling errors with the ELLIPTA® dry powder inhaler (DPI), (GSK), compared with the established BREEZHALER™, a single-dose capsule DPI (Novartis), in inhalation device-naïve Japanese volunteers aged ?40 years.

Methods

In this open-label, nondrug interventional, crossover DPI preference study comparing the ELLIPTA DPI and BREEZHALER, 150 subjects were randomized to handle the ELLIPTA or BREEZHALER DPIs until the point of inhalation, without receiving verbal or demonstrative instruction (first attempt). Subjects then crossed over to the other inhaler. Preference was assessed using a self-completed questionnaire. Inhaler handling was assessed by a trained assessor using a checklist. Subjects did not inhale any medication in the study, so efficacy and safety were not measured.

Results

The ELLIPTA DPI was preferred to the BREEZHALER by 89% of subjects (odds ratio [OR] 70.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 33.69-146.01; P-value not applicable for this inhaler) for ease of use, by 63% of subjects (OR 2.98, CI 1.87-4.77; P<0.0001) for ease of determining the number of doses remaining in the inhaler, by 91% for number of steps required, and by 93% for time needed for handling the inhaler. The BREEZHALER was preferred to the ELLIPTA DPI for comfort of the mouthpiece by 64% of subjects (OR 3.16, CI 1.97-5.06; P<0.0001). The incidence of handling errors (first attempt) was 11% with ELLIPTA and 68% with BREEZHALER; differences in incidence were generally similar when analyzed by age (< or ?65 years) or sex.

Conclusion

These data, obtained in an inhalation device-naïve population, suggest that the ELLIPTA DPI is preferred to an established alternative based on its ease-of-use features and is associated with fewer handling errors.

SUBMITTER: Komase Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4267517 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Ease-of-use preference for the ELLIPTA® dry powder inhaler over a commonly used single-dose capsule dry powder inhaler by inhalation device-naïve Japanese volunteers aged 40 years or older.

Komase Yuko Y Asako Akimoto A Kobayashi Akihiro A Sharma Raj R

International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 20141211

<h4>Background</h4>In patients receiving inhaled medication, dissatisfaction with and difficulty in using the inhaler can affect treatment adherence. The incidence of handling errors is typically higher in the elderly than in younger people. The aim of the study was to assess inhaler preference for and handling errors with the ELLIPTA® dry powder inhaler (DPI), (GSK), compared with the established BREEZHALER™, a single-dose capsule DPI (Novartis), in inhalation device-naïve Japanese volunteers a ...[more]

PMID: 25525354

Similar Datasets

Project description:Two studies were undertaken to characterize the maximal effort inhalation profiles of healthy subjects and patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) through a moderate-resistance dry powder inhaler (DPI). Correlations between inhaler-specific inhalation characteristics and inhaler-independent lung function parameters were investigated.Healthy subjects (n?=?15), patients with mild, moderate, or severe asthma (n?=?45), and patients with mild, moderate, severe, or very-severe COPD (n?=?60) were included in the studies. Inhalation pressure drop versus time profiles were recorded using an instrumented ELLIPTA® DPI or bespoke resistor component with equivalent resistivity. Inhaler-independent lung function assessments included pharyngometry, spirometry, plethysmography, and diffusion.For the inhaler-specific inhalation profiles, the mean maximal effort peak inspiratory flow rates (PIFRs) varied across the subgroups from 65.8-110.6 L/min (range: 41.6-142.9). Peak pressure drop, PIFR, inhaled volume, and average inhalation flow rate (primary endpoints) did not differ markedly between healthy subjects and patients with asthma or mild COPD. Moderate, severe, and very-severe COPD patients demonstrated lower mean peak pressure drops, PIFRs and inhaled volumes, which tended to decrease with increasing COPD severity. Severe and very-severe COPD patients demonstrated shorter mean inhalation times compared with all other participants. Inhaler-independent lung function parameters were consistent with disease severity, and statistically significant (p?<?0.05) strong correlations (R?>?0.7) with components of the inhaler-specific inhalation profiles were observed in the COPD cohort; correlations in the asthma cohort tended to be weaker.All participants achieved a maximal effort PIFR???41.6?L/min through the moderate resistance of the ELLIPTA inhaler. Patients with asthma achieved similar inhalation profiles to healthy subjects, but increasing COPD severity tended to reduce a patient's inhalation capability. Correlation analyses suggest that some lung function parameters may be a useful indicator of ability to inhale efficiently through a moderate-resistance DPI, such as the ELLIPTA inhaler.

Project description:BackgroundMedications for respiratory disorders including asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are typically delivered to the lung by means of a handheld inhaler. Patient preference for and ability to use the inhaler may influence their adherence to maintenance therapy, and adherence may affect treatment outcomes. In this study, patient experience of using a dry powder inhaler (DPI), the ELLIPTA™ DPI, in clinical trials of a new maintenance therapy for asthma and COPD was investigated. The ELLIPTA DPI has been designed to contain two separate blister strips from which inhalation powder can be delivered, and to be simple to use with a large, easy-to-read dose counter.MethodsSemi-structured, in-depth, qualitative interviews were carried out 2-4 weeks after patients had completed one of six phase IIIa clinical trials using the ELLIPTA DPI. Interview participants were asked about their satisfaction with various attributes of the inhaler and their preference for the ELLIPTA DPI relative to currently-prescribed inhalers, and responses were explored using an inductive content analysis approach. Participants also rated the performance of the inhaler on several criteria, using a subjective 1-10 scale.ResultsParticipants with asthma (n = 33) and COPD (n = 42) reported high levels of satisfaction with the ELLIPTA DPI. It was frequently described as straightforward to operate and easy to use by interview participants. Ergonomic design, mouthpiece fit, and dose counter visibility and ease of interpretation emerged as frequently cited drivers of preference for the ELLIPTA DPI compared with their current prescribed inhaler. Of participants with asthma, 71% preferred the ELLIPTA DPI to DISKUS™ and 60% to metered dose inhalers. Of participants with COPD, 86% preferred the ELLIPTA DPI to DISKUS, 95% to HandiHaler™, and 85% to metered dose inhalers. Overall average performance scores were >9 (out of 10) in participants with asthma and COPD.ConclusionThe ELLIPTA DPI was associated with high patient satisfaction and was preferred to other inhalers by interview participants with asthma and COPD. The development of an inhaler that is regarded as easy and intuitive to use may have positive implications for adherence to therapy in asthma and COPD.

Project description:Background: Wixela Inhub is a generic version of Advair Diskus recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The Inhub inhaler delivers fluticasone propionate (FP)/salmeterol in a dry powder formulation. The goals of our studies were to demonstrate that the Inhub inhaler can be used by representative end users and confirm the robustness of the Inhub inhaler. Methods: Study 1: A nondosing usability assessment, the device orientation study, confirmed that intended users (represented by patients diagnosed with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD] who were naive to dry powder inhalers and current Advair Diskus users) could use the Inhub inhaler safely and effectively. Subjects were provided with an Inhub inhaler in commercial packaging, including instructions for use, and were asked to undertake three dose simulations using the inhaler. Subjects were encouraged to interact with this new drug delivery device as they would at home. Subjects were not provided with training on the use of the device. Subjects were observed interacting with the Inhub inhaler, and those who currently use Diskus were also observed interacting with the Diskus to determine whether their mental model of the use of Diskus impacted their interaction with the Inhub device, this assessment was not a primary outcome of the study. Study 2: This is an open-label clinical study to confirm the robustness of the Inhub inhaler after at home patient use. Subjects diagnosed with asthma or COPD were provided Inhub inhaler training and subsequently self-administered 3 weeks of twice daily doses of Wixela Inhub 250 μg FP/50 μg salmeterol in the home environment. The Inhub inhalers were returned to the investigator after ∼3 weeks of outpatient use for in vitro tests on the drug remaining in each inhaler. Results: Study 1 enrolled 110 subjects, and all completed the study. Most subjects (100/110) held the Inhub inhaler in the correct orientation and of those who did not, 9 still achieved a peak inhalation flow rate of ≥30 L/min and a total inhaled volume of ≥1 L, thus meeting the requirements of the study success criteria. In Study 2, 111 pediatric, adult, and elderly subjects with asthma or COPD received the study drug. After ∼3 weeks of outpatient use of the Inhub inhaler by subjects, comprehensive in vitro testing demonstrated that the FP and salmeterol pharmaceutical performance in the Inhub inhaler was preserved. Conclusions: The majority of subjects demonstrated safe and effective use of the Inhub inhaler. In vitro testing and inspections confirmed the robustness of the Inhub inhaler after outpatient use. Clinical trial registration number: NCT02474017.

Project description:Correct inhalation technique is essential for effective use of dry powder inhalers (DPIs), as their effectiveness largely depends on the patient's inhalation manoeuvre. Children are an especially challenging target population for DPI development due to the large variability in understanding and inspiratory capacities. We previously performed a study in which we determined the prerequisites for a paediatric DPI in a mostly healthy paediatric population, for which we used an empty test inhaler with variable internal airflow resistance and mouthpiece. In the current study we investigated what specifications are required for a DPI for children with cystic fibrosis (CF), for which we expanded on our previous findings. We recorded flow profiles of 35 children with CF (aged 4.7-14.7 years) at three airflow resistances (0.031-0.045 kPa0.5.min.L-1) from which various inspiratory parameters were computed. Obstructions in the mouth during inhalation were recorded with a sinuscope. All children were able to perform a correct inhalation manoeuvre, although video analysis showed that children did not place the inhaler correctly in the mouth in 17% of the cases. No effect was found of medium to high airflow resistance on total inhaled volume, which implies that the whole resistance range tested is suitable for children with CF aged 4-14 years. No effect could be established of either mouthpiece design or airflow resistance on the occurrence of obstructions in the mouth cavity. This study confirms our previous conclusion that the development of DPIs specifically for children is highly desired. Such a paediatric DPI should function well at 0.5 L inhaled volume and a peak inspiratory flow rate of 20 to 30 L/min, depending on the internal airflow resistance. This resistance can be increased up to 0.045 kPa0.5.min.L-1 (medium-high) to reduce oropharyngeal deposition. A higher resistance may be less favourable due to its compromising effect on PIF and thereby on the energy available for powder dispersion.