A Randomized, Crossover Trial Evaluating Patient Handling, Preference, and Ease of Use of the Fluticasone Propionate/Formoterol Breath-Triggered Inhaler

Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Comparison of Fluticasone Propionate/Formoterol Fumarate Administered via a Pressurized Metered-Dose Inhaler and a Novel Breath-Actuated Inhaler in Healthy Volunteers

Introduction: Fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate (fluticasone/formoterol) exposures, following administration of Flutiform^® K-haler^®, a breath-actuated inhaler (BAI), were compared with the Flutiform pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) with/without spacer in two healthy volunteer studies. In addition, formoterol-induced systemic pharmacodynamic (PD) effects were examined in the second study. Methods: Study 1: single-dose, three-period, crossover pharmacokinetic (PK) study with oral charcoal administration. Fluticasone/formoterol 250/10 μg was administered via BAI, pMDI, or pMDI with spacer (pMDI+S). Pulmonary exposure for BAI was deemed no less than for pMDI (primary comparator) if the lower limit of 94.12% confidence intervals (CIs) for BAI:pMDI maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUCt) ratios was ≥80%. Study 2: two-stage adaptive design, both stages being single-dose, crossover without charcoal administration. The PK stage compared fluticasone/formoterol 250/10 μg via BAI, pMDI, or pMDI+S. The primary comparisons were as follows: BAI versus pMDI+S for fluticasone and BAI versus pMDI for formoterol. Systemic safety with BAI was deemed no worse than primary comparator if the upper limit of 94.12% CIs for Cmax and AUCt ratios was ≤125%. PD assessment was to be conducted if BAI safety was not confirmed in the PK stage. Based on PK results, only formoterol PD effects were evaluated. The PD stage compared fluticasone/formoterol 1500/60 μg via BAI, pMDI, or pMDI+S; fluticasone/formoterol 500/20 μg pMDI; and formoterol 60 μg pMDI. The primary endpoint was maximum reduction in serum potassium within 4 hours postdose. Equivalence was defined as 95% CIs for BAI versus pMDI+S and pMDI ratios within 0.5-2.0. Results: Study 1: lower limit of 94.12% CIs for BAI:pMDI ratios >80%. Study 2, PK stage: upper limit of 94.12% CIs for fluticasone (BAI:pMDI+S) ratios <125%; upper limit of 94.12% CIs for formoterol (BAI:pMDI) ratios >125% (for Cmax, not AUCt). Study 2, PD stage: 95% CIs for serum potassium ratios 0.7-1.3 (BAI:pMDI+S) and 0.4-1.5 (BAI:pMDI). Conclusions: Fluticasone/formoterol BAI performance was within the range observed for the pMDI with/without a spacer. Sponsor: Mundipharma Research Ltd. EudraCT 2012-003728-19 (Study 1) and 2013-000045-39 (Study 2).

Multidisciplinary consensus on inhaled therapy in asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma is managed by health professionals from different specialties. We aim to reach a consensus on the optimal use of inhaled therapy and the initial steps of asthma treatment, taking into account the opinions of the involved specialists.

METHODS

A modified Delphi approach was used. A scientific committee provided 52 controversial statements, which were submitted to primary care physicians, allergists, and pulmonologists. Discrepancies among specialties were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 209 specialists completed the questionnaire (20.2 ± 9.3 years of asthma management experience). A consensus was reached on 37 statements (71.1%), discrepancies among specialties were found in 14. The most recommended maintenance treatment for mild persistent asthma in adults/adolescents was low-dose-inhaled corticosteroids daily. MART (Maintenance and Reliever Therapy) was recommended as salvage treatment for moderate persistent asthma. Panelists agreed on the most frequent critical errors with pressurized Metered-Dose Inhalers or Dry-Powder Inhalers, and considered that Breath-Actuated Inhalers are a suitable option for all patients with the ability to inhale voluntarily.

CONCLUSIONS

The experts endorse the main guidelines recommendations; however, do not fully agree on recent GINA recommendations about the treatment of the initial steps of the disease. The experts value positively the differential characteristics of BAI over other devices.

Inhaled Formoterol-Fluticasone Single Inhaler Therapy in Asthma: Real-World Efficacy, Budget Impact, and Potential to Improve Adherence

Asthma is the commonest chronic disease affecting airways in humans and has an increasing global disease burden. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the first-line therapeutic option for asthma, and addition of a long-acting beta 2-agonist (LABA) has been shown to improve asthma control. A combination of the two agents in a single inhaler is beneficial with regard to ease of administration and patient compliance. Various ICS-LABA formulations are available across various countries in the world, one among them being formoterol-fluticasone. Both formoterol and fluticasone have pharmacologic peculiarities which places the combination in a uniquely advantageous position when it comes to asthma therapy. The present review focuses on some of the, hitherto, less explored aspects of this combination inhaler such as real-world efficacy, impact on budget allocation, results of switch-over therapy, and potential to improve adherence to asthma treatment. It also provides practical recommendations on positioning it in real-world asthma management.

Asthma management with breath-triggered inhalers: innovation through design

Background

Asthma affects the lives of hundred million people around the World. Despite notable progresses in disease management, asthma control remains largely insufficient worldwide, influencing patients’ wellbeing and quality of life. Poor patient handling of inhaling devices has been identified as a major persistent problem that significantly reduces inhaled drugs’ efficacy and is associated with poor adherence to treatment, impairing clinical results such as asthma control and increasing disease-related costs. We herein review key research and development (R&D) innovation in inhaler devices, highlighting major real-world critical errors in the handling and inhalation technique with current devices and considering potential solutions. Furthermore, we discuss current evidence regarding breath-triggered inhalers (BTI).

Main body

The two most common significant problems with inhalers are coordinating actuation and inhalation with pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs), and the need to inhale forcibly with a dry powder inhaler. BTI R&D plans were designed to overcome these problems. Its newest device k-haler® has several other important features, generating a less forceful aerosol plume than previous pMDIs, with efficient drug delivery and lung deposition, even in patients with low inspiratory flow. The local and systemic bioavailability of fluticasone propionate and formoterol (FP/FORM) administered via k-haler® has been shown to be therapeutically equivalent when administered via the previous FP/FORM pMDI. This device requires very few steps and has been considered easy to use (even at first attempt) and preferred by the patients in a randomized crossover study. In our country, FP/FORM k-haler is available without additional costs compared to FP/FORM pMDI. All devices continue to require education and regular checking of the correct inhalation technique.

Conclusion

BTI R&D can bring advantage over current available inhalers, avoiding the two most common identified critical errors in inhalation technique. K-haler® BTI is currently available, without an increased cost, and approved for adolescents and adults with asthma in whom treatment with inhaled combined therapy with long-acting beta₂-agonists and corticosteroids is indicated. Its attractive and practical design to facilitate its use has been awarded. K-haler® represents added value through innovation to fulfill actual asthma patient needs, thus with potential relevant impact in asthma management and effective control.

What drives inhaler prescription for asthma patients? Results from a real-life retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

The choice of inhaler device for asthma patients depends upon multiple attributes. We investigated factors that may drive general practitioners (GPs) and respiratory specialists in the prescription of inhaler devices for asthma patients who initiated inhalation therapy.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed prescriptions by GPs and respiratory specialists to asthma patients commencing inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist combination therapy available as both pressurised metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) and dry powder inhalers (DPIs). Patient characteristics were compared by device and multivariate analysis was used to model the likelihood of receiving a pMDI as opposed to a DPI in order to identify drivers for prescription. A sample of the respiratory specialists completed an ad-hoc survey of their perceived success in achieving asthma control in their patients and barriers to attaining full control.

RESULTS

Prescription of a particular inhaler device was unrelated to the characteristics of the patients. Multivariate analysis revealed that the main driver for the choice of inhaler device was the medication (Odds Ratio and 95% Confidence Interval, respectively for GPs and specialists: 0.19 [0.16-0.23]; 0.17 [0.08-0.37]). Specialists perceived asthma as being inadequately controlled in 41% of their patients, and considered patients' difficulties in using DPIs and pMDIs as instrumental in this, citing a need for a novel, more effective inhaler technology.

CONCLUSION

Physicians choose inhaler devices according to the prescribed drugs and not to the characteristics of the individual patient. This may reflect a lack of confidence in existing inhaler devices and underlines the need for technologies, which are more reliable and easier to use by patients.

An innovative corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist breath-triggered inhaler: facilitating lung delivery of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate for the treatment of asthma

Introduction: Incorrect inhaler technique is one reason why the efficacies of inhaled asthma treatments in clinical trials and effectiveness in the real world differ. Inhaler technique is critical for drug delivery to the lungs; incorrect technique negatively impacts asthma control and long-term outcomes. Breath-triggered inhalers (BTIs) can simplify drug administration and are suitable for most patients, including those with reduced inspiratory flow. Until recently, no inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂-agonist combination BTI was available in Europe. The flutiform® (fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate [FP/FORM]) k-haler® is the first combination BTI now approved in Europe for asthma maintenance treatment.Areas covered: We review studies examining the challenges posed to patients by different inhaler types and explore evidence demonstrating the clinical efficacy of FP/FORM administered via a pressurized metered-dose inhaler. We also review the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies supporting FP/FORM k-haler use, and consider data showing high lung deposition with the device. Finally, we review patient experiences using the BTI, device characteristics, and health economic aspects.Expert opinion: Despite the availability of therapies, asthma control levels remain low, and there is a clear need for easy-to-use inhalers. Research to increase our understanding of critical errors with each inhaler and how to overcome them is important for improving care.Abbreviations: AUC_t: area under the plasma concentration-time curve from the time of dosing to the last measurable concentration; BDP: beclometasone dipropionate; BTI: breath-triggered inhaler; BUD: budesonide; CI: confidence interval; C_max: maximum observed plasma concentration; DPI: dry powder inhaler; FDC: fixed-dose combination; FEV₁: forced expiratory volume in 1 s; FORM: formoterol fumarate; FP: fluticasone propionate; HCP: health-care professional; ICS: inhaled corticosteroid; LABA: long-acting β₂-agonist; OR: odds ratio; PIL: patient information leaflet; pMDI: pressurized metered-dose inhaler; SAL: salmeterol xinafoate.

Cost-utility analysis of an intervention designed to reduce the critical handling error of insufficient inspiratory effort

OBJECTIVES

Up to 70-80% of patients use inhalers incorrectly. Dry-powder inhalers (DPIs) require forceful inhalation for optimal delivery, and approximately 40% of Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA)-defined Step-3+ patients inhale corticosteroid and long-acting beta-agonist through DPIs. The CRITIKAL study (Price et al. in J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 5:1071-e9-1081-e9, 2017) found a statistically significant association between 'insufficient inspiratory effort' error and increased risk of uncontrolled asthma and hospitalisation-requiring exacerbations. This paper explores the cost-effectiveness of an error-targeted intervention.

METHODS

A probabilistic Markov cost-utility model simulated patients transitioning between controlled and uncontrolled health states over one year. Odds ratios (ORs, from the CRITIKAL study) of a patient having uncontrolled asthma conditional on making the error were applied to baseline transition probabilities sourced from the literature, both indirectly via an adjustment formula (Zhang et al. in JAMA 280:1690-1691, 1998) and directly by assuming OR approximates relative risk (RR). The analysis explored complete/partial eradication of the error when the intervention was priced to match comparators, as well as impact of indirect costs based on lost/reduced productivity.

RESULTS

The intervention dominated both DPI comparators over one year, with direct cost savings of £45/£86 with 0.0053/0.0102 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and had the highest probability of being cost-effective at a £20,000/QALY threshold. Key factors driving variance were weekly utilities per state and RR of moving to an uncontrolled state.

CONCLUSION

The analysis demonstrated the economic and societal costs of 'insufficient inspiratory effort' and potential economic benefits of introducing an effective intervention to reduce/eradicate this error. Further research should assess the economic impact of other handling errors.

Pulmonary deposition of fluticasone propionate/formoterol in healthy volunteers, asthmatics and COPD patients with a novel breath-triggered inhaler

INTRODUCTION

A combination of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate (FP/FORM) has been incorporated within a novel, breath-triggered device, named K-haler^®. This low resistance device requires a gentle inspiratory effort to actuate it, triggering at an inspiratory flow rate of approximately 30 L/min; thus avoiding the need for coordination of inhalation with manual canister depression. The aim of the study was to evaluate total and regional pulmonary deposition of FP/FORM when administered via the K-haler device.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twelve healthy subjects, 12 asthmatics, and 12 COPD patients each received a single dose of 2 puffs ^99mtechnetium-labelled FP/FORM 125/5 μg. A gamma camera was used to obtain anterior and posterior two-dimensional images of drug deposition. Prior transmission scans (using a^99mtechnetium flood source) allowed the definition of regions of interest and calculation of attenuation correction factors. Image analysis was performed per standardised methods.

RESULTS

Of 36 subjects, 35 provided evaluable post-dose scintigraphic data. Mean subject ages were 35.7 (healthy), 44.5 (asthma) and 61.7 years (COPD); mean FEV₁% predicted values were 109.8%, 77.4% and 43.2%, respectively. Mean pulmonary deposition was 26.6% (healthy), 44.7% (asthma), 39.0% (COPD) of the delivered dose. The respective mean penetration indices (peripheral:central ratio normalised to a transmission lung scan) were 0.44, 0.31 and 0.30.

CONCLUSION

FP/FORM administration via the K-haler device resulted in high lung deposition in patients with obstructive lung disease but somewhat lesser deposition in healthy subjects. Regional deposition data demonstrated drug deposition in both the central and peripheral regions in all subject populations.

EUDRACT NUMBER

2015-000744-42.