ELLIPTA Dry Powder Versus Metered-Dose Inhalers in an Optimized Clinical Trial Setting

A randomized controlled trial of long-acting muscarinic antagonist and long-acting β2 agonist fixed-dose combinations in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Background

In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, combination treatment with long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and long-acting β2 agonist (LABA) increases forced expiratory volume in one second and reduces symptoms compared to monotherapy. In Japan, three different once-daily fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) have been prescribed since 2015, although a direct comparison of these FDCs has never been performed. The objective of the present study was to compare the effectiveness, preference, and safety of three LAMA/LABA FDCs—glycopyrronium/indacaterol (Gly/Ind), umeclidinium/vilanterol (Ume/Vil), and tiotropium/olodaterol (Tio/Olo)—in patients with COPD.

Methods

We enrolled 75 COPD outpatients (male:female ratio, 69:6; 77.4 ± 6.9 years). A prospective, randomized, crossover study was conducted on three groups using three FDCs: Gly/Ind; Ume/Vil; and Tio/Olo. Each medication was administered for 4 weeks before crossover (total 12 weeks). After each FDC administration, a respiratory function test and questionnaire survey were conducted. A comparative questionnaire survey of all three LAMA/LABA FDCs was conducted after 12 weeks (following administration of final FDC).

Results

No significant differences in COPD Assessment Test or modified Medical Research Council dyspnea questionnaire were reported in the surveys completed after each FDC administration; no significant differences in spirometric items were observed. In the final comparative questionnaire survey, patients reported better actual feeling of being able to inhale following Gly/Ind administration compared with Tio/Olo, although no significant differences in adverse events or other evaluations were reported.

Conclusions

The three LAMA/LABA FDCs administered to COPD patients show similar effects and safety, although some minor individual preference was reported.

Trial registration This study retrospectively registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (number UMIN000041342, registered on August 6, 2020).

The evaluation of the correct use and ease-of use of the ELLIPTA DPI in children with asthma

RATIONALE

Asthma studies show many children use inhalers incorrectly even after instruction. For two age groups of children with asthma, we determined the proportions who used the once-daily ELLIPTA dry-powder inhaler (DPI) correctly, and who found it easy to use.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, single-arm, stratified, open-label, placebo study (NCT03478657). Children aged 5-7 and 8-11 years were trained in, and required to demonstrate, correct placebo ELLIPTA DPI use at their first clinic visit. The inhaler was used at home once daily for 28 ± 2 days. On returning to the clinic, children were randomized to an age-appropriate, ease-of-use questionnaire that had been developed and validated previously, and which rated the inhaler as "easy" or "hard" to use. Following questionnaire completion, children were then asked to demonstrate correct inhaler use. Correct use and ease-of use were assessed in each age group (co-primary endpoints) and overall (secondary endpoints).

RESULTS

Of 222 enrolled children, 221 completed the study. Among children aged 5-7 years, 92% (n = 81/88) demonstrated correct ELLIPTA use on their first attempt, compared with 93% (n = 124/133) aged 8-11 years. Of these children, 98% (5-7 years: n = 79/81; 8-11 years: n = 121/124) rated the inhaler easy to use. Overall, 93% (n = 205/221) demonstrated correct inhaler use on their first attempt, and 98% (n = 200/205) rated it easy to use.

CONCLUSION

ELLIPTA DPI was used correctly and easily by most children on their first attempt without additional training.

Comparing Inhaler Use Technique Based on Inhaler Type in Elderly Patients with Respiratory Disease

Background

The aim of this study was to investigate inhaler device handling in elderly patients. Inhaler devices with respect to misuse and error correction were also compared.

Methods

Inhaler use technique was assessed using standardized checklists at the first visit and 3-month follow-up visit after retraining. The primary outcome was difference in the acceptable use ratio among inhaler devices. Secondary outcomes included differences in error correction, the most common step of misuse, and factors affecting the accuracy of inhaler use.

Results

A total of 251 patients (mean age, 76.4 years) were included. The handling of 320 devices was assessed in the study. All patients had been trained before. However, only 24.7% of them used inhalers correctly. Proportions of acceptable use for Evohaler, Respimat, Turbuhaler, Ellipta, and Breezhaler/Handihaler were 38.7%, 50.0%, 61.4%, 60.8%, and 43.2%, respectively (p=0.026). At the second visit, the acceptable use ratio had increased. There were no significant differences among inhaler types (Evohaler, 63.9%; Respimat, 86.1%; Turbuhaler, 74.3%; Ellipta, 64.6%; and Breezhaler/Handihaler, 65.3% [p=0.129]). In multivariate analysis, body mass index, Turbuhaler, and Ellipta showed positive correlations with acceptable use of inhalers, whereas Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Assessment Test score showed a negative correlation.

Conclusion

Although new inhalers have been developed, the accuracy of inhaler use remains low. Elderly patients showed more errors when using pressurized metered-dose inhalers than using dry powder inhalers and soft-mist inhalers. However, there were no significant differences in misuse among inhaler devices after individual training. Results of this study suggests that repeat training is more important than inhaler type.