Blog
About

7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Correct usage, ease of use, and preference of two dry powder inhalers in patients with COPD: analysis of five phase III, randomized trials

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Handheld inhalers are used to deliver treatment for COPD. Incorrect usage leads to suboptimal disease control. Complex treatment regimens and use of multiple inhalers may reduce patient compliance. The Anoro Ellipta™ dry powder inhaler (DPI) simultaneously delivers umeclidinium bromide (UMEC) and vilanterol (VI) without coformulation being required.

          Aim

          To assess the correct usage and ease of use of the Ellipta™ DPI administering UMEC/VI and to compare patient preference for Ellipta™ with the HandiHaler ® through exploratory analyses of patient and observer questionnaires in five Phase III studies.

          Methods

          Two Phase III, 3-month double-blind, placebo-controlled studies assessed the correct usage of the Ellipta™ DPI at Day 1 and after 6 weeks, and ease of use of the Ellipta™ DPI using a nonvalidated patient questionnaire after 6 weeks or early withdrawal. In three 6-month, blinded double-dummy, active comparator studies (two Phase IIIa and one Phase IIIb), patients completed a COPD device preference questionnaire between the Ellipta™ DPI and the Handi-Haler ® at Day 168 (Week 24) or early withdrawal.

          Results

          In the 3-month placebo-controlled studies, ≥98% of patients used the Ellipta™ DPI correctly and 99% of patients found the inhaler easy/very easy-to-use and the dose counter easy/very easy to read. Across the two Phase IIIa active comparator studies, patients consistently stated a preference for the Ellipta™ DPI over HandiHaler ® regarding the number of steps to use (59% vs 17%), time taken to use (62% vs 14%), and ease of use (63% vs 15%) regardless of which inhaler contained active drug. Results were consistent in the Phase IIIb active comparator study.

          Conclusion

          Delivery of UMEC/VI via the Ellipta™ DPI was considered easy-to-use, and patients with COPD demonstrated clear preference for this inhaler compared with HandiHaler ®.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Efficacy and safety of umeclidinium plus vilanterol versus tiotropium, vilanterol, or umeclidinium monotherapies over 24 weeks in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from two multicentre, blinded, randomised controlled trials.

          Combination long-acting bronchodilator treatment might be more effective than long-acting bronchodilator monotherapy for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium (UMEC) plus vilanterol (VI) with tiotropium (TIO) monotherapy, UMEC monotherapy, or VI monotherapy in patients with moderate to very severe COPD. In two multicentre, randomised, blinded, double-dummy, parallel-group, active-controlled trials, eligible patients (current or former smokers aged 40 years or older with an established clinical history of COPD) were randomly assigned in 1:1:1:1 ratio to UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg, UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg, TIO 18 μg, and either VI 25 μg (study 1) or UMEC 125 μg (study 2). All study drugs were used once daily for 24 weeks. TIO was delivered via the HandiHaler inhaler and all other active treatments were delivered via the ELLIPTA dry powder inhaler. Random assignment (by a validated computer-based system) was done by centre and was not stratified. All patients and physicians were masked to assigned treatment during the studies. The primary efficacy endpoint of both studies was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) on day 169, which was analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Both studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01316900 (study 1) and NCT01316913 (study 2). 1141 participants were recruited in study 1, and 1191 in study 2. For study 1, after exclusions, 208, 209, 214, and 212 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analyses for TIO monotherapy, VI monotherapy, UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg, and UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg, respectively. For study 2, 215, 222, 215, and 217 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analyses for TIO monotherapy, UMEC monotherapy, UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg, and UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg, respectively. In both studies, we noted improvements in trough FEV1 on day 169 for both doses of UMEC plus VI compared with TIO monotherapy (study 1, UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·088 L [95% CI 0·036 to 0·140; p=0·0010]; study 1, UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·090 L [0·039 to 0·141; p=0·0006]; study 2, UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·074 L [0·025 to 0·123; p=0·0031]; study 2, UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·060 L [0·010 to 0·109; nominal p=0·0182]). Both doses of UMEC plus VI also improved trough FEV1 compared with VI monotherapy (UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·088 L [0·036 to 0·140; p=0·0010]; UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·090 L [0·039 to 0·142; p=0·0006], but not compared with UMEC 125 μg monotherapy (UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·037 L [-0·012 to 0·087; p=0·14]; UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·022 L [-0·027 to 0·072; p=0·38]). All treatments produced improvements in dyspnoea and health-related quality of life; we noted no significant differences in symptoms, health status, or risk of exacerbation between UMEC plus VI and TIO. The most common on-treatment, severe-intensity adverse event in both studies was acute exacerbation of COPD (1-4 [<1-2%] patients across treatment groups in study 1 and 1-6 [<1-3%] patients in study 2). We recorded five to 15 (2-7%) on-treatment serious adverse events across treatment groups in study 1, and nine to 22 (4-10%) in study 2. We noted no substantial changes from baseline in vital signs, clinical laboratory findings, or electrocardiography findings in any of the treatment groups. Combination treatment with once-daily UMEC plus VI improved lung function compared with VI monotherapy and TIO monotherapy in patients with COPD. Overall our results suggest that the combination of UMEC plus VI could be beneficial for the treatment of moderate to very severe COPD. GlaxoSmithKline. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Inhaler competence in asthma: common errors, barriers to use and recommended solutions.

            Whilst the inhaled route is the first line administration method in the management of asthma, it is well documented that patients can have problems adopting the correct inhaler technique and thus receiving adequate medication. This applies equally to metered dose inhalers and dry powder inhalers and leads to poor disease control and increased healthcare costs. Reviews have highlighted these problems and the recent European Consensus Statement developed a call to action to seek solutions. This review takes forward the challenge of inhaler competence by highlighting the issues and suggesting potential solutions to these problems. The opportunity for technological innovation and educational interventions to reduce errors is highlighted, as well as the specific challenges faced by children. This review is intended as a policy document, as most issues faced by patients have not changed for half a century, and this situation should not be allowed to continue any longer. Future direction with respect to research, policy needs and practice, together with education requirements in inhaler technique are described. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Medication adherence issues in patients treated for COPD

              Although medical treatment of COPD has advanced, nonadherence to medication regimens poses a significant barrier to optimal management. Underuse, overuse, and improper use continue to be the most common causes of poor adherence to therapy. An average of 40%–60% of patients with COPD adheres to the prescribed regimen and only 1 out of 10 patients with a metered dose inhaler performs all essential steps correctly. Adherence to therapy is multifactorial and involves both the patient and the primary care provider. The effect of patient instruction on inhaler adherence and rescue medication utilization in patients with COPD does not seem to parallel the good results reported in patients with asthma. While use of a combined inhaler may facilitate adherence to medications and improve efficacy, pharmacoeconomic factors may influence patient’s selection of both the device and the regimen. Patient’s health beliefs, experiences, and behaviors play a significant role in adherence to pharmacological therapy. This manuscript reviews important aspects associated with medication adherence in patients with COPD and identifies some predictors of poor adherence.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis
                Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis
                International Journal of COPD
                International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
                Dove Medical Press
                1176-9106
                1178-2005
                2016
                16 August 2016
                : 11
                : 1873-1880
                Affiliations
                [1 ]MDC Global Clinical Development – UK, GlaxoSmithKline
                [2 ]Value Evidence and Outcomes, GlaxoSmithKline, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UK
                [3 ]Respiratory Medicines Development Center, GlaxoSmithKline, Durham, NC, USA
                Author notes
                Correspondence: John H Riley, MDC Global Clinical Development – UK, GlaxoSmithKline, Stockley Park West, 1-3 Iron Bridge Road, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UB11 1BS, UK, Tel +44 208 990 2418, Email john.h.riley@ 123456gsk.com
                Article
                copd-11-1873
                10.2147/COPD.S109121
                4996255
                © 2016 Riley et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited

                The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                Categories
                Original Research

                Comments

                Comment on this article