Dataset Information

In Vitro Dosing Performance of the ELLIPTA® Dry Powder Inhaler Using Asthma and COPD Patient Inhalation Profiles Replicated with the Electronic Lung (eLung™).

ABSTRACT: To evaluate the in vitro dose delivery characteristics of approved asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) therapies delivered via the ELLIPTA(®) dry powder inhaler across inhalation endpoints representative of the target patient population, using the Electronic Lung (eLung™) to replicate inhaler-specific patient inhalation profiles that were previously recorded in vivo.Selected profiles, representative of the range of inhalation endpoints achieved by patients with all severities of asthma and COPD, were replicated using the eLung breathing simulator in conjunction with an oropharyngeal cast. A Next Generation Impactor was coupled to the eLung to determine the aerodynamic particle size distribution of the ex-throat dose (ETD) of asthma and COPD therapies delivered via the ELLIPTA inhaler. Delivered dose (DD), ETD, and fine particle dose (FPD; defined as a mass of active substance less than 5??m) were determined for fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol (VI) 100/25??g and 200/25??g (asthma and COPD), umeclidinium (UMEC)/VI 62.5/25??g (COPD only), FF 100??g and 200?g monotherapy (asthma only), and UMEC 62.5??g monotherapy (COPD only).Inhalation profiles replicated by eLung covered a wide range of peak inspiratory flow rates (41.6-136.9?L/min), pressure drops (1.2-13.8?kPa), and inhaled volumes through the inhaler (0.7-4.2L). DD was consistent across the range of patient representative inhalation parameters for all components (FF, VI, and UMEC) of each therapy assessed; although ETD and FPD were also generally consistent, some small variation was observed. Dose delivery was consistent for each of the components, whether delivered as mono- or combination therapy.The in vitro performance of the ELLIPTA inhaler has been demonstrated for the delivery of FF/VI, UMEC/VI, FF monotherapy, and UMEC monotherapy. Across a range of inspiratory profiles, DD was consistent, while ETD and FPD showed little flow dependency.

SUBMITTER: Hamilton M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4685503 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

In Vitro Dosing Performance of the ELLIPTA® Dry Powder Inhaler Using Asthma and COPD Patient Inhalation Profiles Replicated with the Electronic Lung (eLung™).

Hamilton Melanie M Leggett Richard R Pang Cheng C Charles Stephen S Gillett Ben B Prime David D

Journal of aerosol medicine and pulmonary drug delivery 20150915 6

<h4>Background</h4>To evaluate the in vitro dose delivery characteristics of approved asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) therapies delivered via the ELLIPTA(®) dry powder inhaler across inhalation endpoints representative of the target patient population, using the Electronic Lung (eLung™) to replicate inhaler-specific patient inhalation profiles that were previously recorded in vivo.<h4>Methods</h4>Selected profiles, representative of the range of inhalation endpoints achie ...[more]

PMID: 26372465

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:BackgroundIn 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.MethodsIn 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionThese 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.

Project description:Medications 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.Semi-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.Participants 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.The 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:The chronic and progressive nature of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) requires self-administration of inhaled medication. Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) are increasingly being used for inhalation therapy in COPD. Important considerations when selecting DPIs include inhalation effort required and flow rates achieved by patients. Here, we present the comparison of the peak inspiratory flow rate (PIF) values achieved by COPD patients, with moderate to very severe airflow limitation, through the Breezhaler®, the Ellipta® and the HandiHaler® inhalers. The effects of disease severity, age and gender on PIF rate were also evaluated. METHODS:This randomized, open-label, multicenter, cross-over, Phase IV study recruited patients with moderate to very severe airflow limitation (Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease 2014 strategy), aged ?40 years and having a smoking history of ?10 pack years. No active drug or placebo was administered during the study. The inhalation profiles were recorded using inhalers fitted with a pressure tap and transducer at the wall of the mouthpiece. For each patient, the inhalation with the highest PIF value, out of three replicate inhalations per device, was selected for analysis. A paired t-test was performed to compare mean PIFs between each combination of devices. RESULTS:In total, 97 COPD patients were enrolled and completed the study. The highest mean PIF value (L/min?±?SE) was observed with the Breezhaler® (108?±?23), followed by the Ellipta® (78?±?15) and the HandiHaler® (49?±?9) inhalers and the lowest mean pressure drop values were recorded with the Breezhaler® inhaler, followed by the Ellipta® inhaler and the HandiHaler® inhaler, in the overall patient population. A similar trend was consistently observed in patients across all subgroups of COPD severity, within all age groups and for both genders. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with COPD were able to inhale with the least inspiratory effort and generate the highest mean PIF value through the Breezhaler® inhaler when compared with the Ellipta® and the HandiHaler® inhalers. These results were similar irrespective of patients' COPD severity, age or gender. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02596009 on 4 November 2015.

Project description:BackgroundInhaler selection is important when managing respiratory conditions; a patient's inhalation technique should be appropriate for the selected device, and patients should ideally be able to use a device successfully regardless of disease severity. The NEXThaler is a multidose dry-powder inhaler with a breath-actuated mechanism (BAM) and dose counter that activates only following inhalation, so effectively an 'inhalation counter'. We assessed inspiratory flow through the NEXThaler in two studies and examined whether inhalation triggered the BAM.MethodsThe two studies were open-label, single-arm, and single visit. One study recruited patients with asthma aged???18 years; the other recruited patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) aged???40 years. All patients inhaled twice through a placebo NEXThaler. The inspiratory profile through the device was assessed for each inhalation using acoustic monitoring, with flow at and time to BAM firing, peak inspiratory flow (PIF), and total inhalation time assessed.ResultsA total of 40 patients were enrolled in the asthma study: 20 with controlled asthma and 20 with partly controlled/uncontrolled asthma. All patients were able to trigger the BAM, as evidenced by the inhalation counter activating on closing the device. Mean flow at BAM firing following first inhalation was 35.0 (range 16.3-52.3) L/min; mean PIF was 64.6 (35.0-123.9) L/min. A total of 72 patients were enrolled in the COPD study, with data analysed for 69 (mean forced expiratory volume in 1 s 48.7% predicted [17-92%]). As with the asthma study, all patients, regardless of airflow limitation, were able to trigger the BAM. Mean flow at BAM firing following first inhalation was 41.9 (26.6-57.1) L/min; mean PIF was 68.0 (31.5-125.4) L/min. Device usability was rated highly in both studies, with 5 min sufficient to train the patients, and a click heard shortly after inhalation in all cases (providing feedback on BAM firing).ConclusionsInhalation flows triggering the BAM in the NEXThaler were similar between patients with controlled and partly controlled/uncontrolled asthma, and were similar across COPD airflow limitation. All enrolled patients were able to activate the device.

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:Relative to healthy subjects, patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension often present with decreased respiratory muscle strength, resulting in decreased maximum inspiratory pressure. Little is known about the impact of reduced respiratory muscle strength on the ability to achieve the peak inspiratory pressures needed for effective drug delivery when using portable dry powder inhalers (≥1.0 kPa). The objective of this study was to assess the impact of inhaler resistance and patient instruction on the inspiratory flow profiles of pulmonary arterial hypertension patients when using breath-actuated dry powder inhalers. The inspiratory flow profiles of 35 patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension were measured with variants of the RS01 dry powder inhaler. Profiles were determined with a custom inspiratory flow profile recorder. Results showed that going from the low resistance RS01 dry powder inhaler to the high resistance AOS® dry powder inhaler led to increases in mean peak inspiratory pressures for pulmonary arterial hypertension subjects from 3.7 kPa to 6.5 kPa. Instructions that ask pulmonary arterial hypertension subjects to inhale with maximal effort until their lungs are full led to a mean peak inspiratory pressures of 6.0 kPa versus 2.1 kPa when the same subjects are asked to inhale comfortably. Significant decreases in mean peak inspiratory pressures are also observed with decreases in lung function, with a mean peak inspiratory pressures of 7.2 kPa for subjects with FEV1 > 60% predicted, versus 3.3 kPa for those subjects with FEV1 < 50% predicted. In conclusion, despite having reduced respiratory muscle strength, subjects with pulmonary arterial hypertension can effectively use a breath-actuated dry powder inhaler. The probability of achieving effective dose delivery may be increased by using dry powder inhalers with increased device resistance, particularly when subjects do not follow the prescribed instructions and inhale comfortably.

Dataset Information

In Vitro Dosing Performance of the ELLIPTA® Dry Powder Inhaler Using Asthma and COPD Patient Inhalation Profiles Replicated with the Electronic Lung (eLung™).

Publications

In Vitro Dosing Performance of the ELLIPTA® Dry Powder Inhaler Using Asthma and COPD Patient Inhalation Profiles Replicated with the Electronic Lung (eLung™).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure