Use of dry powder inhalers in COPD

Dry Powder Inhalers: From Bench to Bedside

Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) are now widely prescribed and preferred by the majority of patients. These devices have many advantages over the traditional pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) but they do have disadvantages. The characteristics of the dose emitted from a DPI are affected by the inhalation manoeuvre used by a patient. Each patient is different and the severity of their lung disease varies from mild to very severe. This affects how they use an inhaler and so determines the type of dose they inhale. An understanding of the pharmaceutical science related to DPIs is important to appreciate the relevance of how patients inhale through these devices. Also, each type of DPI has its unique dose preparation routine, and thus it is essential to follow these recommended steps because errors at this stage may result in no dose being inhaled. All issues related to the inhalation manoeuvre and dose preparation are addressed in this chapter. The importance of the inhalation technique is highlighted with a realization of inhale technique training and checking. During routine patient management, devices should not be switched nor doses increased unless the patient has demonstrated that they can and do use their DPI.

Misuse and/or treatment delivery failure of inhalers among patients with asthma or COPD: A review and recommendations for the conduct of future research

BACKGROUND

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are widespread chronic conditions with medication frequently delivered by inhalers. These can be challenging to use correctly, but the scale of misuse and the specific aspects of failure are unclear.

METHODS

We used systematic review methods to search 9 databases in May 2015 to identify and review studies that assessed adults (18 years or older) with asthma or COPD using inhalers of various types including pressurised metered dose inhalers (pMDIs), dry powder inhalers and the Respimat inhaler. Studies must have reported the scale of inhaler misuse, variation by type of inhaler or which steps patients had difficulty completing accurately.

RESULTS

The types of inhalers, inhaler interventions and definitions of failure and misuse varied widely in the 38 studies identified. It was not possible to draw conclusions on the differential failure rates between different types of inhalers or any patient characteristics. Of the studies reporting failure or misuse rates, the majority ranged between 0 and 20%. Studies were inconsistent regarding the number of inhaler steps collected, reported and labelled as critical.

CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence for all identified inhalers that some people may be using them incorrectly, but it is unclear which inhalers have higher rates of misuse or which steps within the inhaler technique are most difficult for patients. The optimal techniques for using inhalers are not standardised. Researchers undertaking future inhaler studies are respectfully directed to our recommendations for future research.

Estimating the economic consequences of an increased medication adherence due to a potential improvement in the inhaler technique with Spiromax® compared with Turbuhaler® in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Spain

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to estimate the economic impact of the introduction of DuoResp^® Spiromax^®, budesonide/formoterol fixed-dose combination (FDC), focusing on an increase in medication adherence due to an enhancement of the inhalation technique for the treatment of COPD patients in Spain and 5 regions including Andalusia, Catalonia, Galicia, Madrid, and Valencia.

METHODS

A 4-year budget impact model was developed for the time period of 2015-2018. This study aimed at evaluating the budget impact associated with the introduction of DuoResp Spiromax in comparison with Symbicort^® Turbuhaler^® and Rilast^® Turbuhaler. National and regional data on COPD prevalence were obtained from the literature. Input data on health care resource utilization were obtained by clinical consultation. Resource included primary care visits, specialist visits, hospitalization, and emergency room visits as well as the length of hospital stay. Based on both pharmacological and health care resource costs, overall annual treatment cost per patient was estimated in EUR 2015.

RESULTS

It was calculated that 130,777 adults were treated with budesonide/formoterol FDC delivered by a dry powder inhaler, Turbuhaler, in Spain in 2015. However, the target population decreases over the next 4 years. This pattern was observed in 4 regions, but for Andalusia, the treated population increased slightly. The overall budget savings in Spain with the market share of DuoResp Spiromax were estimated to be €6.01 million for the time period of 2015-2018. Region-specific data resulted in savings of €902,133 in Andalusia, €740,520 in Catalonia, €464,281 in Galicia, €748,996 in Madrid, and €495,812 in Valencia for the time period of 2015-2018.

CONCLUSION

The introduction of budesonide/formoterol FDC delivered by Spiromax for COPD treatment is likely to contribute in a reduction of health care costs for Spain and in 5 Spanish regions. This model forecasts that Spain and these 5 Spanish regions were likely to have savings, which might be due to fewer days of hospitalization, avoided emergency room, and primary care visits.

Long-acting muscarinic antagonists

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major cause of death and disability worldwide. Inhaled bronchodilators are the mainstay of COPD pharmacological treatment. Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) are a major class of inhaled bronchodilators. Some LAMA/device systems with different characteristics and dosing schedules are currently approved for maintenance therapy of COPD and a range of other products are being developed. They improve lung function and patient-reported outcomes and reduce acute bronchial exacerbations with good safety. LAMAs are used either alone or associated with long-acting β₂-agonists, eventually in fixed dose combinations. Long-acting β₂-agonist/LAMA combinations assure additional benefits over the individual components alone. The reader will obtain a view of the safety and efficacy of the different LAMA/device systems in COPD patients.

Inhaler devices for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: insights from patients and healthcare practitioners

BACKGROUND

The choice of inhaler device for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) depends upon multiple attributes. An online survey was devised to assess COPD patients' and healthcare practitioners' (HCPs; physicians and nurses) opinions and preferences for inhaler devices.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with COPD ≥6 months from United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), France, and Germany, and HCPs from the US, UK, France, Italy, and Japan were enrolled to participate in an online quantitative 35 minutes survey. A proprietary analytical tool from Sawtooth Software was used to collect, randomize, and analyze participant opinions and preferences of device attributes, including functionality.

RESULTS

A total of 245 patients (mean age, 60.7 years) completed the survey. Of these, 124 and 121 patients were taking fluticasone/salmeterol, and tiotropium, respectively. Patients cited ease of use, dose recording, and dose capacity (single or multi-dose) as important attributes for the device. Key factors that patients considered would make the device easier to use were fewer steps to operate the inhaler, confirmation that the dose has been taken correctly, easier coordination of breathing manoeuver, and least resistance while inhaling. A total of 504 HCPs (380 physicians and 124 nurses) completed the survey, and cited patient satisfaction and ease of use as the most important attributes when selecting an inhaler device for patients. Dose recording and multi-dose versus single-dose designs were given less importance than other attributes such as patient satisfaction and cost by HCPs.

CONCLUSION

The survey provides important insights into what patients and HCPs consider to be key attributes of an ideal inhaler device for COPD management. Given that patients with COPD self-administer their COPD chronic medication and need to deliver the correct dose, it is important to consider these insights for the appropriate management of COPD.

Evaluation of patient preference and willingness to pay for attributes of maintenance medication for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

Background

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. COPD is characterized by poor treatment adherence, and patient medication preferences may contribute to adherence.

Methods

A discrete choice experiment with an internet panel drawn from the USA was used to evaluate preference and willingness to pay (WTP) of COPD patients for long-acting maintenance medications. Key attributes derived from earlier qualitative research (brief literature review and focus groups) with COPD patients on maintenance therapy included symptom relief, speed of feeling medication start to work, inhaler ease of use, rescue medication use, side effects, and monthly out-of-pocket co-pay. Patients were presented with hypothetical medications with different profiles and asked which they preferred. Utilities and marginal WTP in monthly co-pay dollars were estimated for all patients and by severity.

Results

Utilities for 515 participants were in the expected direction and highest for the most favorable attribute levels. Each attribute evaluated was important, and participants were willing to pay a premium to obtain each benefit. On average, WTP was as high as $US64 for complete symptom relief, $US59 for no side effects, $US32 to rarely use rescue medication, $US16 for a quick and easy to use inhaler, and $US13 for feeling medication work quickly (within 5 min; average WTP $US18/month for patients with severe/very severe COPD).

Conclusion

As expected, efficacy and safety were most valued by patients; however, this study showed that other COPD medication attributes, such as rescue medication, ease of use, and feeling medication work quickly, are also important in patient preferences.

Dry powder inhalers in COPD, lung inflammation and pulmonary infections

INTRODUCTION

The number of pulmonary diseases that are effectively treated by aerosolized medicine continues to grow.

AREAS COVERED

These diseases include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), lung inflammatory diseases (e.g., asthma) and pulmonary infections. Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) exhibit many unique advantages that have contributed to the incredible growth in the number of DPI pharmaceutical products. To improve the performance, there are a relatively large number of DPI devices available for different inhalable powder formulations. The relationship between formulation and inhaler device features on performance of the drug-device combination product is critical. Aerosol medicine products are drug-device combination products. Device design and compatibility with the formulation are key drug-device combination product aspects in delivering drugs to the lungs as inhaled powders. In addition to discussing pulmonary diseases, this review discusses DPI devices, respirable powder formulation and their interactions in the context of currently marketed DPI products used in the treatment of COPD, asthma and pulmonary infections.

EXPERT OPINION

There is a growing line of product options available for patients in choosing inhalers for treatment of respiratory diseases. Looking ahead, combining nanotechnology with optimized DPI formulation and enhancing device design presents a promising future for DPI development.

[The choice of inhalation device: A medical act]

Inhaled treatments are essential for respiratory diseases management, including COPD and asthma. Optimal control of the disease largely depends on patient's compliance and proper use of these treatments. Different types of ready-to-use inhaler devices are available: metered dose inhaler, dry powder inhaler or soft mist inhaler. Each of these devices presents specific characteristics and constraints that have to be evaluated and taken into account before prescription. In order to optimize adherence and treatment efficacy, the choice of inhaler device should depend on the specific needs, abilities and preferences of each patient and a specific education to treatment should be provided. Inhaled treatments, even containing the same drug, have different technical constraints and are thus not easily interchangeable. Their substitution without prior medical consent and without proper training can lead to errors in taking treatment, treatment failures and increased health care consumption. In France, substitution by the pharmacist is not authorized. While patient education must be carried out in collaboration with all health professionals, it is preferable that the choice of inhaler device remains the responsibility of the physician.

Combined corticosteroid and long-acting beta₂-agonist in one inhaler versus placebo for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Both long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) have been recommended in guidelines for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Their coadministration in a combination inhaler may facilitate adherence to medication regimens and improve efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of combined ICS and LABA for stable COPD in comparison with placebo.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials, reference lists of included studies and manufacturers' trial registries. The date of the most recent search was June 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and double-blind studies of at least four weeks' duration. Eligible studies compared combined ICS and LABA preparations with placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study risk of bias and extracted data. Dichotomous data were analysed as fixed-effect odds ratios (OR) or rate ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), and continuous data as mean differences with 95% confidence intervals.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria (with 10,400 participants randomly assigned, lasting between 4 and 156 weeks, mean 42 weeks). Studies used three different combined preparations (fluticasone/salmeterol, budesonide/formoterol or mometasone/formoterol). The studies were generally at low risk of bias for blinding but at unclear or high risk for attrition bias because of participant dropouts. Compared with placebo, both fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol reduced the rate of exacerbations. Mometasone/formoterol reduced the number of participants experiencing one or more exacerbation. Pooled analysis of the combined therapies indicated that exacerbations were less frequent when compared with placebo (Rate Ratio 0.73; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.78, 7 studies, 7495 participants); the quality of this evidence when GRADE criteria were applied was rated as moderate. Participants included in these trials had on average one or two exacerbations per year, which means that treatment with combined therapy would lead to a reduction of one exacerbation every two to four years in these individuals. An overall reduction in mortality was seen, but this outcome was dominated by the results of one study (TORCH) of fluticasone/salmeterol. Generally, deaths in the smaller, shorter studies were too few to contribute to the overall estimate. Further longer studies on budesonide/formoterol and mometasone/formoterol are required to clarify whether this is seen more widely. When a baseline risk of death of 15.2% from the placebo arm of TORCH was used, the three-year number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) with fluticasone/salmeterol to prevent one extra death was 42 (95% CI 24 to 775). All three combined treatments led to statistically significant improvement in health status measurements, although the mean differences observed are relatively small in relation to the minimum clinically important difference. Furthermore, symptoms and lung function assessments favoured combined treatments. An increase in the risk of pneumonia was noted with combined inhalers compared with placebo treatment (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.36 to 1.94), and the quality of this evidence was rated as moderate, but no dose effect was seen. The three-year NNTH for one extra case of pneumonia was 17, based on a 12.3% risk of pneumonia in the placebo arm of TORCH. Fewer participants withdrew from the combined treatment arms for adverse events or lack of efficacy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Combined inhaler therapy led to around a quarter fewer COPD exacerbations than were seen with placebo. A significant reduction in all-cause mortality was noted, but this outcome was dominated by one trial (TORCH), emphasising the need for further trials of longer duration. Increased risk of pneumonia is a concern; however, this did not translate into increased exacerbations, hospitalisations or deaths. Current evidence does not suggest any major differences between inhalers in terms of effects, but nor is the evidence strong enough to demonstrate that all are equivalent. To permit firmer conclusions about the effects of combined therapy, more data are needed, particularly in relation to the profile of adverse events and benefits in relation to different formulations and doses of inhaled ICS. Head-to-head comparisons are necessary to determine whether one combined inhaler is better than the others.

Combined corticosteroid and long-acting beta(2)-agonist in one inhaler versus inhaled corticosteroids alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Both long-acting beta(2)-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids have been recommended in guidelines for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Their co-administration in a combined inhaler is intended to facilitate adherence to medication regimens and to improve efficacy. Three preparations are currently available: fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FPS). budesonide/formoterol (BDF) and mometasone furoate/formoterol (MF/F).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of combined long-acting beta2-agonist and inhaled corticosteroid (LABA/ICS) preparations, as measured by clinical endpoints and pulmonary function testing, compared with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone, in the treatment of adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials, which is compiled from systematic searches of multiple literature databases. The search was conducted in June 2013. In addition, we checked the reference lists of included studies and contacted the relevant manufacturers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were included if they were randomised and double-blind. Compared studies combined LABA/ICS with the ICS component.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The primary outcomes were exacerbations, mortality and pneumonia. Health-related quality of life (as measured by validated scales), lung function and side effects were secondary outcomes. Dichotomous data were analysed as fixed-effect odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and continuous data as mean differences or rate ratios and 95% CIs.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 15 studies of good methodological quality met the inclusion criteria by randomly assigning 7814 participants with predominantly poorly reversible, severe COPD. Data were most plentiful for the FPS combination. Exacerbation rates were significantly reduced with combination therapies (rate ratio 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.94, 6 studies, N = 5601) compared with ICS alone. The mean exacerbation rate in the control (ICS) arms of the six included studies was 1.21 exacerbations per participant per year (range 0.88 to 1.60), and we would expect this to be reduced to a rate of 1.05 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.14) among those given combination therapy. Mortality was also lower with the combination (odds ratio (OR) 0.78, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.94, 12 studies, N = 7518) than with ICS alone, but this was heavily weighted by a three-year study of FPS. When this study was removed, no significant mortality difference was noted. The reduction in exacerbations did not translate into significantly reduced rates of hospitalisation due to COPD exacerbation (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07, 10 studies, N = 7060). Lung function data favoured combination treatment in the FPS, BDF and MF/F trials, but the improvement was small. Small improvements in health-related quality of life were measured on the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) with FPS or BDF compared with ICS, but this was well below the minimum clinically important difference. Adverse event profiles were similar between the two treatments arms, and rates of pneumonia when it was diagnosed by chest x-ray (CXR) were lower than those reported in earlier trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Combination ICS and LABA offer some clinical benefits in COPD compared with ICS alone, especially for reduction in exacerbations. This review does not support the use of ICS alone when LABAs are available. Adverse events were not significantly different between treatments. Further long-term assessments using practical outcomes of current and new 24-hour LABAs will help determine their efficacy and safety. For robust comparisons as to their relative effects, long-term head-to-head comparisons are needed.

Inhaler devices for patients with COPD

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) continues to be associated with increased morbidity and mortality risk in spite of updated guidelines and a better understanding of this condition. Progressive airflow limitation and resultant hyperinflation-the respiratory hallmarks of this complex and often under-diagnosed disease-can be treated with pharmacotherapies emitted via nebulizers, pressurized metered-dose inhalers, dry powder inhalers, or a Soft Mist inhaler. Pharmaceutical company proprietary issues, technological innovations, and societal pressure have expanded the list of available inhalers, with a limited range of medications available for any one device. Each device has different operating and maintenance instructions, and successful use of a given drug/device combination requires that patients understand, maintain, and use each of their devices properly in order to ensure consistent and optimal pulmonary drug delivery. Clinicians are faced with a range of physical and psychosocial issues unique to each patient with COPD that must be overcome in order to match a suitable inhaler to the individual. Improved drug delivery afforded by next-generation inhalers, coupled with an awareness of device-specific and patient-specific variables affecting inhaler use, may improve clinical outcomes in the treatment of COPD.

Inhaler devices - from theory to practice

This brief overview of the factors determining lung deposition of aerosols provides background information required by health care providers when instructing patients to use their prescribed inhalers. We discuss differences in the optimal inhalation manoeuvres for each type of aerosol generator and the difficulties patients face. Provision of short, clear instructions with demonstration of critical steps and checking technique during later clinical visits are necessary if these aerosolised medications are to be fully beneficial.

Practical aspects of inhaler use in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the primary care setting

Sustained bronchodilation using inhaled medications in moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) grades 2 and 3 (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease guidelines) has been shown to have clinical benefits on long-term symptom control and quality of life, with possible additional benefits on disease progression and longevity. Aggressive diagnosis and treatment of symptomatic COPD is an integral and pivotal part of COPD management, which usually begins with primary care physicians. The current standard of care involves the use of one or more inhaled bronchodilators, and depending on COPD severity and phenotype, inhaled corticosteroids. There is a wide range of inhaler devices available for delivery of inhaled medications, but suboptimal inhaler use is a common problem that can limit the clinical effectiveness of inhaled therapies in the real-world setting. Patients' comorbidities, other physical or mental limitations, and the level of inhaler technique instruction may limit proper inhaler use. This paper presents information that can overcome barriers to proper inhaler use, including issues in device selection, steps in correct technique for various inhaler devices, and suggestions for assessing and monitoring inhaler techniques. Ensuring proper inhaler technique can maximize drug effectiveness and aid clinical management at all grades of COPD.

Pitfalls associated with the therapeutic reference pricing practice of asthma medication

Background

Therapeutic reference pricing (TRP) based on the WHO daily defined dose (DDD) is a method frequently employed for the cost-containment of pharmaceuticals. Our objective was to compare average drug use in the real world with DDD and to evaluate whether TRP based on DDD could result in cost savings on maintenance medication and the total direct health expenditures for asthma patients treated with Symbicort Turbuhaler (SYT) and Seretide Diskus (SED) in Hungary.

Methods

Real-world data were derived from the Hungarian National Health Insurance Fund database. Average doses and costs were compared between the high-dose and medium-dose SYT and SED groups. Multiple linear regressions were employed to adjust the data for differences in the gender and age distribution of patients.

Results

27,779 patients with asthma were included in the analysis. Average drug use was lower than DDD in all groups, 1.38-1.95 inhalations in both SED groups, 1.28-1.97 and 1.74-2.49 inhalations in the medium and high-dose SYT groups, respectively. Although the cost of SED based on the DDD would be much lower than the cost of SYT in the medium-dose groups, no difference was found in the actual cost of the maintenance therapy. No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of total medical costs.

Conclusions

Cost-containment initiatives by payers may influence clinical decisions. TRP for inhalation asthma drugs raises special concern, because of differences in the therapeutic profile of pharmaceuticals and the lack of proven financial benefits after exclusion of the effect of generic price erosion. Our findings indicate that the presented TRP approach of asthma medications based on the daily therapeutic costs according to the WHO DDD does not result in reduced public healthcare spending in Hungary. Further analysis is required to show whether TRP generates additional expenditures by inducing switching costs and reducing patient compliance. Potential confounding factors may limit the generalisability of our conclusions.

Teaching inhaler use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients

PURPOSE

To review barriers to the successful use of inhalers in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and the role of the nurse practitioner (NP) in facilitating optimum inhaler use.

DATA SOURCES

Review of the national and international scientific literature.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacologic treatment of COPD patients comprises mainly inhaled medications. Incorrect use of inhalers is very common in these individuals. Some of the consequences of poor inhaler technique include reduced therapeutic dosing, medication adherence, and disease stability, which can lead to increased morbidity, decreased quality of life, and a high burden on the healthcare system. Knowledgeable evaluation and frequent reassessment of inhaler use coupled with education of patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals can significantly improve the benefits COPD patients derive from inhaled therapy.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Patient education is vital for correct use of inhalers and to ensure the effectiveness of inhaled medications. The NP has a critical role in assessing potential barriers to successful learning by the patient and improving inhaler technique and medication management. The NP can also facilitate success with inhaled medications by providing up-to-date inhaler education for other healthcare team members, who may then act as patient educators.

Efficacy and safety of two dry-powder inhalers for the administration of mometasone furoate in asthma patients

OBJECTIVE

Mometasone furoate (MF) is a new, potent synthetic inhaled corticosteroid. Worldwide, MF is administered via a dry-powder inhaler that contains multiple doses. As a preparation that would be more cost-effective, single-dose MF capsules were developed in Brazil. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the two inhalers for MF administration in patients with asthma.

METHODS

A randomized, multicenter, open-label, parallel-group clinical trial involving 74 adult patients with moderate, persistent asthma who were randomized into two groups to receive approximately 400 µg of MF once a day for 60 days, either via the multiple-dose inhaler or via the newly developed single-dose inhaler.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding the primary endpoints (FEV1 and rescue medication use) or the secondary endpoints (morning PEF, tolerability, and safety, the last as assessed on the basis of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis function).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the single-dose inhaler developed in Brazil for MF administration is as effective and safe as is that of a standard inhaler in the treatment of patients with asthma.

Effects of arformoterol twice daily, tiotropium once daily, and their combination in patients with COPD

PURPOSE

Current guidelines support using in combination more than one class of long-acting bronchodilator for COPD patients whose symptoms are not controlled by mono-therapy. This 2-week, multi-center (34 sites), randomized, modified-blind, parallel group study evaluated the efficacy and safety of concomitant treatment with nebulized arformoterol (the formoterol(R,R)-isomer) BID and tiotropium DPI QD.

METHODS

COPD patients (mean FEV(1) 1.37L, 45.4% predicted) were randomized to receive mono-therapy (either arformoterol 15microg BID [n=76] or tiotropium 18microg QD [n=80]), or combined therapy (sequential dosing of arformoterol 15microg BID and tiotropium 18microg QD [n=78]). Changes in pulmonary function, dyspnea, and rescue levalbuterol use were evaluated, as were safety outcomes.

RESULTS

Mean FEV(1)AUC(0-24) (the primary endpoint) improved similarly from baseline for arformoterol (0.10L) and tiotropium (0.08L) treatment groups and greater for the combined therapy group (0.22L; all p-values <0.005). Peak FEV(1), peak FVC, 24-h trough FEV(1), and inspiratory capacity also improved similarly for the mono-therapies and greatest for the combined therapy. Dyspnea (mean transition dyspnea index) improved similarly for arformoterol (+2.3) and tiotropium (+1.8) and greatest with combined therapy (+3.1; p-values <0.05). Levalbuterol use decreased for all treatment groups (range -1.8 to -2.5 actuations/day). All treatments had similar frequency of adverse events.

CONCLUSION

In this study, the combination of nebulized arformoterol 15microg BID plus tiotropium 18microg DPI QD was the most effective in improving pulmonary function and disease symptoms. Mono-therapy improvement with arformoterol or tiotropium was similar. All three treatments were well tolerated.