Dataset Information

ELLIPTA Versus DISKUS plus HandiHaler in COPD: A Randomized, Open-Label, Crossover Study in a Clinical Trial Setting.

ABSTRACT: Background:Inhaler errors among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can reduce treatment efficacy. Methods:This randomized, open-label, crossover study evaluated correct use of ELLIPTA versus DISKUS plus HandiHaler. Participants with COPD attended at least 3 study visits (Day 1 [Visit 1], Day 28 [Visit 2], and Day 56 [Visit 3]). Inhalers contained placebo; usual maintenance medication was continued. Participants were randomized to an inhaler sequence (ELLIPTA then DISKUS plus HandiHaler, or the reverse) and preference questionnaire at Visit 1. Participants read the instructions for use in the approved prescribing information for their inhaler(s) and correct use was assessed at Visit 1 (verbal guidance provided if required). Correct use was reassessed at Visit 2, and with the next inhaler(s) at Visit 3. Primary endpoint was the proportion of participants demonstrating correct use (0 errors) with the assigned inhaler(s) after 28 days. Results:A greater proportion of study participants (n = 217) correctly used ELLIPTA (96%) versus DISKUS plus HandiHaler (87%) after 28 days. The odds of demonstrating correct use with ELLIPTA were 6.88 times that of DISKUS plus HandiHaler (p < 0.001). Overall, > 99% of participants made 0 critical errors (errors leading to no or significantly reduced medication inhaled) with ELLIPTA versus 89% with DISKUS plus HandiHaler after 28 days. ELLIPTA was the patient-preferred option versus DISKUS plus HandiHaler or no preference (p < 0.001). Conclusions:Delivery of COPD maintenance therapy via ELLIPTA demonstrates higher correct use rates and lower critical error rates compared with DISKUS plus HandiHaler.

SUBMITTER: Kerwin EM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7454022 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

ELLIPTA Versus DISKUS plus HandiHaler in COPD: A Randomized, Open-Label, Crossover Study in a Clinical Trial Setting.

Kerwin Edward M EM Spangenthal Selwyn S Zvarich Michael M Millar Valerie V Jain Renu R Collison Kathryn K Sharma Raj R

Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (Miami, Fla.) 20200401 2

<h4>Background</h4>Inhaler errors among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can reduce treatment efficacy.<h4>Methods</h4>This randomized, open-label, crossover study evaluated correct use of ELLIPTA versus DISKUS plus HandiHaler. Participants with COPD attended at least 3 study visits (Day 1 [Visit 1], Day 28 [Visit 2], and Day 56 [Visit 3]). Inhalers contained placebo; usual maintenance medication was continued. Participants were randomized to an inhaler sequence (ELLIPT ...[more]

PMID: 32324983

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAdministering maintenance COPD therapy with a combination of multiple inhalers may increase inhaler errors. This study evaluated the potential benefits of using a single Ellipta dry powder inhaler (DPI) compared with two combinations of DPIs commonly used to deliver triple maintenance therapy.MethodsPatients receiving inhaled COPD medication were enrolled in this multicenter, randomized, open-label, placebo-device, crossover study with a 2×2 complete block design (NCT0298218), which comprised two substudies: Ellipta vs Diskus + HandiHaler (substudy 1) or Turbuhaler + HandiHaler (substudy 2). Patients demonstrated inhaler use after reading the relevant patient information leaflet (PIL). A trained investigator assessed user errors (critical errors [errors likely to result in no or significantly reduced medication being inhaled] and overall errors). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients making ≥1 critical error after reading the PIL. The secondary endpoints included error rates during ≤2 reassessments following investigator instruction (if required), instruction time, and patient preference.ResultsAfter reading the PIL, significantly fewer patients made critical errors with Ellipta compared with Diskus + HandiHaler (9% [7/80] vs 75% [60/80], respectively; P<0.001) or Turbuhaler + HandiHaler (9% [7/79] vs 73% [58/79], respectively; P<0.001). The number of patients making overall errors was also lower with Ellipta vs tested inhaler combinations (P<0.001 for each substudy). The median instruction time needed for error-free use was shorter with Ellipta in substudies 1 and 2 (2.7 and 2.6 minutes, respectively) vs either combination (10.6 [Diskus + HandiHaler] and 11.3 minutes [Turbuhaler + HandiHaler], respectively). Significantly more patients preferred Ellipta over Diskus + HandiHaler or Turbuhaler + HandiHaler overall for taking their COPD medication (81% vs 9% and 84% vs 4%, respectively) and per the number of steps for taking their COPD medication (89% vs 8% and 91% vs 5%, respectively).ConclusionFewer patients with COPD made critical errors with the single DPI, and patients required less instruction time, compared with each dual DPI combination.

Project description:BackgroundThe 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsPatients 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 registrationThe trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02596009 on 4 November 2015.

Project description:BackgroundHepatocellular carcinoma has high recurrence rates after surgery; however, there are no approved standard-of-care neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapies. Immunotherapy has been shown to improve survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma; we therefore aimed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of perioperative immunotherapy in resectable hepatocellular carcinoma.MethodsIn this single-centre, randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial, patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 240 mg of nivolumab intravenously every 2 weeks (for up to three doses before surgery at 6 weeks) followed in the adjuvant phase by 480 mg of nivolumab intravenously every 4 weeks for 2 years, or 240 mg of nivolumab intravenously every 2 weeks (for up to three doses before surgery) plus one dose of 1 mg/kg of ipilimumab intravenously concurrently with the first preoperative dose of nivolumab, followed in the adjuvant phase by 480 mg of nivolumab intravenously every 4 weeks for up to 2 years plus 1 mg/kg of ipilimumab intravenously every 6 weeks for up to four cycles. Patients were randomly assigned to the treatment groups by use of block randomisation with a random block size. The primary endpoint was the safety and tolerability of nivolumab with or without ipilimumab. Secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients with an overall response, time to progression, and progression-free survival. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03222076) and is completed.FindingsBetween Oct 30, 2017, and Dec 3, 2019, 30 patients were enrolled and 27 were randomly assigned: 13 to nivolumab and 14 to nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Grade 3-4 adverse events were higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (six [43%] of 14 patients) than with nivolumab alone (three [23%] of 13). The most common treatment-related adverse events of any grade were increased alanine aminotransferase (three [23%] of 13 patients on nivolumab vs seven [50%] of 14 patients on nivolumab plus ipilimumab) and increased aspartate aminotransferase (three [23%] vs seven [50%]). No patients in either group had their surgery delayed due to grade 3 or worse adverse events. Seven of 27 patients had surgical cancellations, but none was due to treatment-related adverse events. Estimated median progression-free survival was 9·4 months (95% CI 1·47-not estimable [NE]) with nivolumab and 19·53 months (2·33-NE) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (hazard ratio [HR] 0·99, 95% CI 0·31-2·54); median time to progression was 9·4 months (95% CI 1·47-NE) in the nivolumab group and 19·53 months (2·33-NE) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (HR 0·89, 95% CI 0·31-2·54). In an exploratory analysis, three (23%) of 13 patients had an overall response with nivolumab monotherapy, versus none with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Three (33%) of nine patients had a major pathological response (ie, ≥70% necrosis in the resected tumour area) with nivolumab monotherapy compared with three (27%) of 11 with nivolumab plus ipilimumab.InterpretationPerioperative nivolumab alone and nivolumab plus ipilimumab appears to be safe and feasible in patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Our findings support further studies of immunotherapy in the perioperative setting in hepatocellular carcinoma.FundingBristol Myers Squibb and the US National Institutes of Health.

Dataset Information

ELLIPTA Versus DISKUS plus HandiHaler in COPD: A Randomized, Open-Label, Crossover Study in a Clinical Trial Setting.

Publications

ELLIPTA Versus DISKUS plus HandiHaler in COPD: A Randomized, Open-Label, Crossover Study in a Clinical Trial Setting.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets