Inhaler usability of a pressurized metered dose inhaler and a soft mist inhaler in patients with COPD: A simulated-use study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ding B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6302969 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background: Primatene® MIST CFC, an epinephrine metered-dose inhaler (MDI), was discontinued from the market owing to environmental concerns from its use of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) propellant. As a result, a new epinephrine MDI was developed using hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) propellant. This article reports the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of the newly Food and Drug Administration-approved epinephrine HFA MDI. Methods: A randomized, evaluator-blinded, active-controlled, single-dose, two-arm crossover study was conducted to evaluate the PK profile of epinephrine HFA (Primatene® MIST) and epinephrine CFC (Primatene® MIST CFC) in 23 healthy volunteers to characterize the epinephrine absorption extent and rate. The study was performed at a high dose of five times the normal dose to obtain measurable plasma epinephrine levels. Plasma epinephrine levels were measured and safety was assessed by adverse events (AEs), vital signs, clinical laboratory tests, and physical examinations. Results: Epinephrine HFA demonstrated a greater systemic drug exposure (greater area under the curve) than that of epinephrine CFC (∼37% higher). The Cmax occurred at ∼2 minutes and was significantly higher in the epinephrine HFA group (0.18 ng/mL) compared with the CFC version (0.046 ng/mL) at normal dose. Within 20 minutes, both groups demonstrated comparable plasma epinephrine levels. No clinically significant adverse effects were found to be associated with epinephrine HFA, even after an ultrahigh dose (i.e., 10 inhalations). Conclusions: The systemic exposure of epinephrine HFA was found to be higher for the first 20 minutes, and then comparable with epinephrine CFC. Minimal AEs were found in this study despite the very high 1250-2200 μg inhaled doses (i.e., 10 inhalations) used for PK characterization.
| S-EPMC7526295 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The propellant-free Combivent Respimat Soft Mist Inhaler (CVT-R) was developed to replace the chlorofluorocarbon-propelled Combivent metered-dose inhaler (CVT-MDI). This steady-state pharmacokinetic (PK) substudy evaluated drug lung-delivery efficiency, using data from two phase III safety and efficacy trials. PK parameters were obtained from well-controlled population PK analyses. Area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC), maximum observed plasma concentration (C(max)), and minimum observed plasma concentration (C(min)) showed systemic exposure to ipratropium bromide and albuterol delivered via the CVT-R was proportional to ex-mouthpiece delivered dose. Although the labeled dose of ipratropium bromide in the CVT-R was half that in the CVT-MDI, the systemic exposure was comparable. No PK interaction for the ipratropium bromide and albuterol Respimat drug components was demonstrated. Ipratropium bromide alone resulted in similar exposure to the combination of ipratropium bromide and albuterol. These results show that CVT-R delivers drug more efficiently to the lung than CVT-MDI.
| S-EPMC5351312 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThree 52-week studies in COPD have assessed the efficacy and safety of single-inhaler extrafine formulation triple therapy combining beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP), formoterol fumarate (FF) and glycopyrronium (G) delivered via pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI). BDP/FF/G is now being developed for delivery via multi-dose dry-powder inhaler (DPI; NEXThaler). This study aimed to demonstrate non-inferiority of BDP/FF/G DPI vs pMDI for lung function.MethodsMulticenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, three-way cross-over study in patients with COPD and post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) 30-80% predicted. Patients received BDP/FF/G 100/6/10µg via DPI and pMDI, and BDP/FF 100/6µg via pMDI, all two inhalations twice daily for four weeks, with treatments separated by two-week washout. The two co-primary objectives were to demonstrate non-inferiority between the two BDP/FF/G formulations for FEV1 area under the curve between 0 and 12 hours post-dose (AUC0-12h) normalized by time and trough FEV1 at 24 hours, both on Day 28. EudraCT 2017-004405-41.ResultsOf 449 patients screened, 366 were randomized, with 342 (93.4%) completing all three treatment periods. The primary objectives were met, with changes from baseline in FEV1 AUC0-12h and trough FEV1 on Day 28 similar for the two BDP/FF/G formulations, and the confidence intervals for the difference lying entirely within the pre-specified non-inferiority criterion (-50mL): -20 (-35, -6) mL and 3 (-15, 20) mL for AUC0-12h and trough FEV1, respectively. BDP/FF/G pMDI and DPI were statistically superior to BDP/FF for these endpoints (p<0.001). A similar proportion of patients experienced adverse events with each treatment (15.5%, 18.7% and 15.4% with BDP/FF/G DPI and pMDI, and BDP/FF, respectively); the majority were mild or moderate, with few related to treatment.ConclusionExtrafine BDP/FF/G DPI and pMDI demonstrated similar efficacy and safety in patients with COPD, supporting the DPI formulation as a valid alternative.
| S-EPMC7814657 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist combination therapy is a recommended treatment option for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and increased exacerbation risk, particularly those with elevated blood eosinophil levels. SOPHOS (NCT02727660) evaluated the efficacy and safety of two doses of budesonide/formoterol fumarate dihydrate metered dose inhaler (BFF MDI) versus formoterol fumarate dihydrate (FF) MDI, each delivered using co-suspension delivery technology, in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD and a history of exacerbations. In this phase 3, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, 12-52-week, variable length study, patients received twice-daily BFF MDI 320/10 µg or 160/10 µg, or FF MDI 10 µg. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at week 12. Secondary and other endpoints included assessments of moderate/severe COPD exacerbations and safety. The primary analysis (modified intent-to-treat) population included 1843 patients (BFF MDI 320/10 µg, n=619; BFF MDI 160/10 µg, n=617; and FF MDI, n=607). BFF MDI 320/10 µg and 160/10 µg improved morning pre-dose trough FEV1 at week 12 versus FF MDI (least squares mean differences 34 mL [p=0.0081] and 32 mL [p=0.0134], respectively), increased time to first exacerbation (hazard ratios 0.827 [p=0.0441] and 0.803 [p=0.0198], respectively) and reduced exacerbation rate (rate ratios 0.67 [p=0.0001] and 0.71 [p=0.0010], respectively). Lung function and exacerbation benefits were driven by patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥150 cells·mm-3. The incidence of adverse events was similar, and pneumonia rates were low (≤2.4%) across treatments. SOPHOS demonstrated the efficacy and tolerability of BFF MDI 320/10 µg and 160/10 µg in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD at increased risk of exacerbations.
| S-EPMC7184113 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Bronchoconstriction has been reported in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients after administration of some aqueous inhalation solutions. We investigated the incidence of this event during long-term clinical trials of tiotropium delivered via Respimat(®) Soft Mist™ Inhaler (SMI). We retrospectively analyzed pooled data from two identical Phase III clinical trials, in which 1990 patients with COPD received 48 weeks' treatment with once-daily tiotropium (5 or 10 μg) or placebo inhaled via Respimat(®) SMI. We recorded the incidence of bronchospasm and of a range of respiratory events that could suggest bronchoconstriction during the first 30 minutes after inhalation of study treatment on each of the eight test days. No patients reported bronchospasm. Six patients (0.3%) reported a combination of at least two events suggestive of bronchoconstriction, and 21 (1.1%) reported either rescue medication use or a respiratory adverse event. Asymptomatic falls in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)) of ≥15% were recorded on all test days, with no change in incidence over time, and affected 8.2% of those in the tiotropium groups and 14.5% of those on placebo. In COPD patients receiving long-term treatment with tiotropium 5 or 10 μg via Respimat(®) SMI, no bronchospasm was recorded, and the number of events possibly indicative of paradoxical bronchoconstriction was very low.
| S-EPMC3144844 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Two sequential single-dose crossover dose-ranging studies were performed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety profile of epinephrine hydrofluroalkane (HFA) metered-dose inhaler (MDI) formulation at various doses in subjects with asthma. Methods: In these multicenter, multiarm, double-blinded, or evaluator-blinded studies, subjects were randomized to receive the epinephrine HFA (Primatene® MIST HFA) MDI medication at doses ranging from 90 to 440??g/dose, as well as to a placebo (PLA) control and an active control of epinephrine CFC (chlorofluorocarbon) MDI (Primatene® MIST CFC) at 220??g/inhalation. Results: Spirometry testing for FEV1 (Forced Expiratory Volume in one second) demonstrated statistically significant improvements over PLA for epinephrine HFA MDI at all doses above 125??g, as the amount out of the actuator (i.e., mouthpiece). The efficacy results for epinephrine HFA MDI in the dose range of 125-250??g were also comparable to epinephrine CFC MDI (220??g/inh). Safety assessments demonstrated minimal safety concerns for all treatment groups. No notable safety differences were observed between the studied doses of epinephrine HFA MDI and the active control formulation of epinephrine CFC MDI. Conclusion: The findings indicate that epinephrine HFA MDI provided clinically significant bronchodilator efficacy with minimal safety concerns in a dose range of 125-250??g. These findings confirmed the optimal treatment doses of 125-250??g that were appropriate for use in longer term 12 and 26 week chronic dosing studies of epinephrine HFA MDI for patients with intermittent or mild to moderate persistent asthma. Clinical trials registration number: NCT01025648.
| S-EPMC7407001 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:Asthma control in older asthmatics is often less effective, which may be attributed to small airway dysfunction and poor inhalation technique. We compared the efficacy of 2 inhalers (fluticasone propionate/formoterol treatment using a pressurized metered-dose inhaler [p-MDI group] vs. fluticasone propionate/salmeterol treatment using a dry powder inhaler [DPI group]) in older asthmatics. METHODS:We conducted a 12-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-designed trial in older patients (over 55 years old) with moderate-to-severe asthma, and compared the efficacy and safety for asthma control between the 2 groups. Subgroup analyses on disease duration and air trapping were performed. Clinical parameters, including changes in lung function parameters, inhaler technique and adherence, were compared with monitoring adverse reactions between the 2 groups. RESULTS:A total of 68 patients underwent randomization, and 63 (30 in the p-MDI group and 33 in the DPI group) completed this study. The p-MDI group was non-inferior to the DPI group with regard to the rate of well-controlled asthma (53.3% vs. 45.5%, p < 0.001; a predefined non-inferiority limit of 17%). In subgroup analyses, the proportion of patients who did not reach well-controlled asthma in the p-MDI group was non-inferior to that in the DPI group; the difference was 12.7% among those with a longer disease duration (≥ 15 years) and 17.5% among those with higher air-trapping (RV/TLC ≥ 45%), respectively (a predefined non-inferiority limit of 17%, p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in lung function parameters, inhalation techniques, adherence and adverse reactions between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION:These results suggest that the p-MDI group may be comparable to the DPI group in the management of older asthmatics in aspects of efficacy and safety.
| S-EPMC7061154 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction and Objectives: Wheezing episodes are the first causes of doctor's consultation in preschool age. Treatment is usually administered with a metered dose inhaler (MDI) spacer. At variance, many parents and doctors prefer to use a compressor nebulizer, which cannot be easily carried. The study is aimed at testing whether a pocket mesh nebulizer has similar efficacy and acceptability than a standard MDI device. Materials and Methods: The IPAC study was a randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial (number: 1616/2018, Ospedale Pediatrico Bambino Gesu'-IRCCS). The study had two arms: cases, using MicroAIR U100, and controls, using MDI+spacer device. Both devices were adopted for long-term treatment and for exacerbations. Follow-up was organized with clinical visits and a daily e-diary connected to an application for mobile phone. Results: One hundred patients were enrolled. The frequency of asthmatic symptoms showed a non-inferiority for MicroAIR U100 group vs. MDI. Accordingly, no significant difference was found in the average % of days with cough, wheezing, breathlessness after exercise, days lost at school, and not-programmed visits. Considering only patients with >1 day with symptoms, no significant sdifferences were found in the number of exacerbations nor in the cumulative days with symptoms. The acceptance and usability of both devices have been favorable. However, the MDI+AeroChamber® device showed better acceptability. Conclusions: Our study shows that MicroAIR U-100, a mesh nebulizer, has similar clinical efficacy but lower acceptance and usability than an MDI plus Aerochamber® in delivering therapy in preschool wheezers. Therefore, MicroAIR U-100 might be a valuable second choice, when the delivery of medication with an MDI plus Aerochamber® is not accepted, or wrongly used by the parents.
| S-EPMC7758231 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Two main types of devices are used to facilitate the administration of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting β-agonist (LABA) in combination, dry powder inhalers (DPIs) and pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs). There are few reports comparing the effects of the two devices, and it is unknown which should be recommended for asthma patients with given sets of characteristics. In the current study, the beneficial effects and side effects associated with DPIs and pMDIs were compared, and the question of which device should be recommended for asthma patients was investigated. A prospective, randomized, crossover, comparative study in adult outpatients with asthma was conducted using salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination (SFC) 50 μg/250 μg, one inhalation of Adoair® 250 Diskus® twice daily or two inhalations of Adoair® 125 Aerosol twice daily, for 8 weeks. Questionnaires, exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) tests and pulmonary function tests were administered after the use of each device for 8 weeks, and the results derived from each device were compared. Sixty-eight subjects were included in the final analysis. There were no significant differences between quality-of-life scores, FeNO, spirometry test results and forced oscillation results. With regard to patient preferences, 57.4% preferred the Adoair® Aerosol and 35.3% preferred the Adoair® Diskus®, as determined via the comparative evaluation questionnaire. Although DPI prescription accounts for the predominant market share of combined ICS/LABA in Japan, patients preferred a pMDI device to a DPI device. Compared to DPIs, pMDIs may be the preferential choice for patients with asthma.
| S-EPMC8241158 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLong-term use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) has been associated with increased risk of bone and ocular comorbidities. We evaluated the effects of the triple fixed-dose combination budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (BGF MDI), formulated using co-suspension delivery technology, on bone mineral density (BMD) and ocular safety in patients with moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).MethodsIn this extension study, a subset of patients from the 24-week, phase III, randomized, double-blind KRONOS study (NCT02497001) continued treatment (BGF MDI 320/18/9.6 μg, budesonide/formoterol fumarate [BFF] MDI 320/9.6 μg or glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate [GFF] MDI 18/9.6 μg, as a non-steroidal comparator) for an additional 28 weeks. Primary endpoints were percentage change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD and change from baseline in lens opacities classification system III posterior subcapsular cataract (P) score, both at Week 52. Adverse events were also assessed.ResultsIn total, 456 patients were included in the safety population (53.1% male, mean age 62.8 years). Changes from baseline in lumbar spine BMD (least squares mean [LSM] range - 0.12 to 0.38%) and P score (LSM range 0.02-0.15) were small for all treatments. Both BGF MDI and BFF MDI were non-inferior to GFF MDI using margins of -2% (BMD) and 0.5 units (P score). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was generally similar among groups. Rates of confirmed pneumonia were low overall (2.4%) and highest in the GFF MDI group (3.4%), followed by BGF MDI (2.1%) and BFF MDI (1.1%). There were no cumulative adverse effects of treatment over time as the incidence and types of TEAEs, were generally similar in the first 24 weeks of the study and after Week 24.ConclusionsIn patients with COPD, both ICS-containing therapies were non-inferior to GFF MDI for the primary BMD and ophthalmological endpoints. Changes from baseline in all three treatment groups over 52 weeks were small and not clinically meaningful. All treatments were well tolerated with no new or unexpected safety findings.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02536508. Registered 27 August 2015.
| S-EPMC6664772 | biostudies-literature