Back to Journals » International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease » Volume 8

COPD patient satisfaction with ipratropium bromide/albuterol delivered via Respimat: a randomized, controlled study

Authors Ferguson GT, Ghafouri M, Dai L, Dunn LJ

Received 27 September 2012

Accepted for publication 30 November 2012

Published 19 March 2013 Volume 2013:8 Pages 139—150

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S38577

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewer comments 3


Gary T Ferguson,1 Mo Ghafouri,2 Luyan Dai,2 Leonard J Dunn3

1Pulmonary Research Institute of Southeast Michigan, Livonia, MI, USA; 2Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Ridgefield, CT, USA; 3Clinical Research of West Florida, Inc, Clearwater, FL, USA

Background: Ipratropium bromide/albuterol Respimat inhaler (CVT-R) was developed as an environmentally friendly alternative to ipratropium bromide/albuterol metered-dose inhaler (CVT-MDI), which uses a chlorofluorocarbon propellant.
Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction, device usage, and long-term safety of CVT-R compared to CVT-MDI, and to the simultaneous administration of ipratropium bromide hydrofluoroalkane (HFA; I) and albuterol HFA (A) metered-dose inhalers as dual monotherapies (I + A).
Design: This is a 48-week, open-label, randomized, active-controlled, parallel-group study (n = 470) comparing CVT-R to CVT-MDI and to I + A.
Participants: Patients were at least 40 years of age, diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and current or exsmokers.
Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive: (1) CVT-R, one inhalation four times daily (QID); or (2) CVT-MDI, two inhalations QID; or (3) I + A two inhalations of each inhaler QID.
Main measures: Patient Satisfaction and Preference Questionnaire (PASAPQ) performance score (primary endpoint) and adverse events.
Key results: PASAPQ performance score was significantly higher (CVT-R versus CVT-MDI, 9.6; and CVT-R versus I + A, 6.2; both P < 0.001) when using CVT-R compared to CVT-MDI or I + A at all visits starting from week 3, while CVT-MDI and I + A treatment groups were similar. Time to first COPD exacerbation was slightly longer in the CVT-R group compared to the other treatment groups, although it did not reach statistical significance (CVT-R versus CVT-MDI, P = 0.57; CVT-R versus I + A, P = 0.22). Rates of withdrawal and patient refusal to continue treatment were lower in CVT-R compared with CVT-MDI and I + A groups (CVT-R versus CVT-MDI, P = 0.09; CVT-R versus I + A, P = 0.005). The percentage of patients reporting adverse events and serious adverse events was similar across all three treatment groups.
Conclusion: CVT-R is an effective, environmentally friendly inhaler that provides patients with a high level of user satisfaction and may positively impact clinical outcomes while having no adverse impacts on patients using the device.

Keywords: COPD, consumer satisfaction, consumer preference, inhalers

Creative Commons License 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]