Dataset Information

Comparison of User Satisfaction and Preference with Inhalant Devices Between a Pressurized Metered-Dose Inhaler and Ellipta in Stable Asthma Patients: A Randomized, Crossover Study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Inhalation therapy involves two types of adherence: adherence to the drug and adherence to the procedures for the inhalation device. User satisfaction and preference are key factors for maintaining good adherence of both types, and they should be evaluated based on three conditions being well maintained: asthma control level (ACL), adherence, and adequate device operability during usage duration. We compared user satisfaction and preference between a pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) and a dry powder inhaler (Ellipta), while maintaining the three conditions during usage in stable asthma patients.

Methods

In this open-label, randomized, two-way crossover study, patients with stable asthma [Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) scores < 0.75] were classified into a 20-64-year age group (G1) and a ≥ 65-year age group (G2) and randomly assigned to either a formoterol/fluticasone combination (FFC) as the pMDI group or a vilanterol/fluticasone combination (VFC) as the Ellipta group. Satisfaction and preference levels were evaluated at week 4. ACL was measured using the ACQ and Japan Asthma Control Survey questionnaires at weeks 0 and 4. Device operability and respiratory resistance were also examined.

Results

Forty-four patients (23 G1, age 45.8 ± 1.9 years; 21 G2, 74.1 ± 1.3 years) were enrolled and maintained good ACL during the study. Adherence to FFC pMDI and VFC Ellipta was > 97% in all groups. Device operability did not differ significantly between FFC pMDI and VFC Ellipta in the G1 (p = 0.189) or G2 (p = 0.506) group. Overall satisfaction was marginally higher with the FFC pMDI than with the VFC Ellipta in G2 (p = 0.012) but non-significantly different in G1 (p = 0.733). Factors affecting overall satisfaction in G2 were difference of inhalation device and body mass index. Respiratory resistance did not change significantly over the study in G2.

Conclusion

Based on maintaining good ACL, adherence, and device operability, FFC pMDI showed significantly higher satisfaction and preference levels than VFC Ellipta in elderly persons.

Trial registration

Japan Registry of Clinical Trials identifier, jRCTs041180001 (registered 21 August 2018).

SUBMITTER: Ohbayashi H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8137762 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

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: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.