A randomized, open-label, single-visit crossover study simulating triple-drug delivery with Ellipta compared with dual inhaler combinations in patients with COPD
Received 23 March 2018
Accepted for publication 15 June 2018
Published 21 August 2018 Volume 2018:13 Pages 2515—2523
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewers approved by Dr Colin Mak
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Richard Russell
Job van der Palen,1,2 Wendy Moeskops-van Beurden,1 Carolyn M Dawson,3 Wai-Yee James,3 Andrew Preece,4 Dawn Midwinter,4 Neil Barnes,5 Raj Sharma6
1Department of Pulmonology, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands; 2Department of Research Methodology, Measurement, and Data Analysis, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands; 3William Harvey Heart Centre, St Bartholomew Hospital, London, UK; 4Respiratory Therapy Area Unit, GlaxoSmithKline, Stockley Park, UK; 5Medical Department, GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, UK; 6Respiratory Medical Franchise, GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, UK
Background: Administering 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.
Methods: Patients 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.
Results: After 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).
Conclusion: Fewer patients with COPD made critical errors with the single DPI, and patients required less instruction time, compared with each dual DPI combination.
Keywords: COPD, triple therapy, instruction, patient preference, inhaler technique, critical errors
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. 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. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]