Literature DB >> 24966061

Ease of use of the ELLIPTA dry powder inhaler: data from three randomised controlled trials in patients with asthma.

Henrik Svedsater1, Loretta Jacques2, Caroline Goldfrad3, Eugene R Bleecker4.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24966061      PMCID: PMC4373320          DOI: 10.1038/npjpcrm.2014.19

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  NPJ Prim Care Respir Med        ISSN: 2055-1010            Impact factor:   2.871


× No keyword cloud information.
Maintenance therapies for asthma are typically delivered via handheld inhalers. Poor adherence to inhaled medications and incorrect inhaler technique are known to adversely affect outcomes in asthma, contributing to the continuing failure for many patients to achieve control despite the availability of effective therapies.[1] The ELLIPTA dry powder inhaler (DPI) is a handheld inhaler with single-step activation, featuring a cover that is opened by the patient to uncover the mouthpiece and activate a dose[2] (ELLIPTA is a trademark of the GlaxoSmithKline group of companies). The actuated dose is subsequently inhaled from the mouthpiece.[2] The ELLIPTA DPI is used to deliver fluticasone furoate (FF), a new inhaled corticosteroid licensed in Europe in combination with vilanterol, a new long-acting β2-agonist, for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and in development as a monotherapy for asthma. The aim of this analysis was to investigate patient perception of the ease of use, and investigator-reported competence in use, of the ELLIPTA DPI. We describe a sub-analysis of the ease of use and inhaler competence data in patients with asthma from three randomised, multicentre clinical trials of FF/vilanterol combination therapy (HZA106827 (100/25 μg) and/or FF monotherapy (FFA114496 (100, 200 μg); FFA115283 (50 μg); HZA106827 (100 μg)), in which the ELLIPTA DPI was used to deliver study medication (including placebo where applicable). Preliminary results have been published in abstract form.[2] The primary clinical trial data are reported separately.[3-5] Patients completed a questionnaire at week 4 of each trial, rating the ease of use of the inhaler and how easy it was to tell how many doses of medication were left in the inhaler. For both questions, patients selected their response from the following ordinal scale: very easy, easy, neutral, difficult, and very difficult. Investigators assessed, by observation, patients’ competence in using the ELLIPTA DPI following one demonstration of correct usage at randomisation, at week 2 and at week 4. Data were analysed and interpreted descriptively; no statistical inference was planned. A total of 1,050 asthma patients (Supplementary Appendix) participated in the trials. Of these, 94% completed the questionnaire. Patient-reported ease of use and investigator-reported inhaler use assessment findings for each of the three clinical trials, together with pooled results, are presented in Table 1. The findings of both assessments were similar across the three trials (Supplementary Appendix).
Table 1

Summary of findings of ELLIPTA dry powder inhaler ease of use questionnaire and investigator assessment of inhaler technique for each study and when pooled together

HZA106827 N=609 FFA114496 N=219 FFA115283 N=222 Total N=1,050
Ease of use questionnaire n=570 n=213 n=206 N=989
How did you rate the ease of use of the inhaler?, n (%)
 Very easy362 (64)146 (69)132 (64)640 (65)
 Easy157 (28)64 (30)68 (33)289 (29)
 Neutral43 (8)3 (1)4 (2)50 (5)
 Difficult7 (1)02 (<1)9 (1)
 Very difficult1 (<1)001 (<1)
How easily are you able to tell how many doses of medication are left in the inhaler?, n (%)
 Very easy419 (74)169 (79)144 (70)732 (74)
 Easy126 (22)42 (20)51 (25)219 (22)
 Neutral22 (4)2 (<1)8 (4)32 (3)
 Difficult3 (<1)01 (<1)4 (<1)
 Very difficult002 (<1)2 (<1)
Inhaler use assessment
 Randomisation,a n (%)
  n 6092182221,049
  Patient used the inhaler correctly578 (95)206 (94)216 (97)1,000 (95)
  1 Additional instruction required22 (4)11 (5)5 (2)38 (4)
  2 Additional instructions required8 (1)1 (<1)1 (<1)10 (1)
  3 Additional instructions required1 (<1)001 (<1)
  >3 Additional instructions required0000
 Week 2, n (%)
  n 5932152161,024
  Patient used the inhaler correctly593 (100)211 (98)216 (100)1,020 (>99)
  1 Additional instruction required03 (1)03 (<1)
  2 Additional instructions required01 (<1)01 (<1)
  3 Additional instructions required0000
  >3 Additional instructions required0000
 Week 4, n (%)
  n 569213206988
  Patient used the inhaler correctly569 (100)210 (99)205 (>99)984 (>99)
  1 Additional instruction required03 (1)1 (<1)4 (<1)
  2 Additional instructions required0000
  3 Additional instructions required0000
  >3 Additional instructions required0000

Week 0; after one demonstration of correct usage.

Overall, 65% of questionnaire respondents reported that the inhaler was very easy to use, and 94% reported that it was easy or very easy to use. Only 1% of patients reported that the inhaler was difficult or very difficult to use. Similarly, 74% reported that they found it very easy to tell how many doses of medication were left in the inhaler using the in-built numerical dose counter, and 96% found it easy or very easy. Less than 1% of patients found it difficult or very difficult to tell how many doses were left in the inhaler. At randomisation, investigators reported that 95% of patients used the inhaler correctly after the initial demonstration of correct usage at randomisation (week 0), and did not require additional instruction. A further 4% of patients were able to use the inhaler correctly at randomisation after one additional instruction. The most common error made at randomisation (before any additional instruction) was to open the cover incorrectly (20 (1.9%) of all patients), followed by inhaling the dose incorrectly (15 (1.4%)), unspecified reason (12 (1.1%)), and closing the cover incorrectly (3 (0.3%)). At week 2 and week 4, >99% of patients used the inhaler correctly; four (0.4%) patients made errors at week 2 and week 4, respectively (Supplementary Appendix). In all three studies, the majority of participants found the inhaler to be easy to use, and were observed to use the inhaler correctly following a single demonstration. The design of the inhaler and appropriateness of the delivery mechanism to the patient may boost patient satisfaction with the medication regimen and competence in device use.[6] Patient preference data obtained from a separate interview-based study[7] are consistent with our findings, suggesting that patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease generally perceive the ELLIPTA DPI positively and find it easy to use. A similar questionnaire has previously been used to assess comparative ease of use in asthma patients participating in randomised controlled trials, whose responses indicated that the DISKUS DPI is easier to use than DiskHaler.[8,9] Similarly, our single-device study was conducted against the background of randomised, controlled clinical trials in which all patients were given clear instruction in correct use of the inhaler at randomisation. Such thorough instruction is unlikely to be replicated in real-world clinical practice;[10] this could therefore be considered a limitation in interpretation of this study. The perceived and observed ease of use findings reported in this analysis suggest that the ELLIPTA DPI may have the potential to reduce inhaler-related handling errors and improve adherence; however, further studies are required to specifically assess these possibilities.
  9 in total

1.  Comparison of Diskus inhaler, a new multidose powder inhaler, with Diskhaler inhaler for the delivery of salmeterol to asthmatic patients. Canadian Study Group.

Authors:  L P Boulet; R Cowie; P Johnston; D Krakovsky; S Mark
Journal:  J Asthma       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 2.515

2.  Inhaler device, administration technique, and adherence to inhaled corticosteroids in patients with asthma.

Authors:  Angkana Roy; Kayleigh Battle; Linda Lurslurchachai; Ethan A Halm; Juan P Wisnivesky
Journal:  Prim Care Respir J       Date:  2011-06

3.  Effects of instruction by practice assistants on inhaler technique and respiratory symptoms of patients. A controlled randomized videotaped intervention study.

Authors:  S Verver; M Poelman; A Bögels; S L Chisholm; F W Dekker
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 2.267

Review 4.  Inhaler competence in asthma: common errors, barriers to use and recommended solutions.

Authors:  D Price; S Bosnic-Anticevich; A Briggs; H Chrystyn; C Rand; G Scheuch; J Bousquet
Journal:  Respir Med       Date:  2012-10-23       Impact factor: 3.415

5.  Fluticasone furoate-vilanterol 100-25 mcg compared with fluticasone furoate 100 mcg in asthma: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Eugene R Bleecker; Jan Lötvall; Paul M O'Byrne; Ashley Woodcock; William W Busse; Edward M Kerwin; Richard Forth; Hilary V Medley; Carol Nunn; Loretta Jacques; Eric D Bateman
Journal:  J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract       Date:  2014-04-24

6.  A study on the clinical equivalence and patient preference of fluticasone propionate 250 microg twice daily via the Diskus/Accuhaler inhaler or the Diskhaler inhaler in adult asthmatic patients.

Authors:  W R Pieters; R A Stallaert; J Prins; A P Greefhorst; H G Bosman; R van Uffelen; A J Schreurs; J L van Helmond; P G Janssen
Journal:  J Asthma       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 2.515

7.  Qualitative assessment of attributes and ease of use of the ELLIPTA™ dry powder inhaler for delivery of maintenance therapy for asthma and COPD.

Authors:  Henrik Svedsater; Peter Dale; Karl Garrill; Richard Walker; Mark W Woepse
Journal:  BMC Pulm Med       Date:  2013-12-07       Impact factor: 3.317

8.  Once-daily fluticasone furoate alone or combined with vilanterol in persistent asthma.

Authors:  Paul M O'Byrne; Eugene R Bleecker; Eric D Bateman; William W Busse; Ashley Woodcock; Richard Forth; William T Toler; Loretta Jacques; Jan Lötvall
Journal:  Eur Respir J       Date:  2013-10-17       Impact factor: 16.671

9.  Efficacy and safety of fluticasone furoate 100 μg and 200 μg once daily in the treatment of moderate-severe asthma in adults and adolescents: a 24-week randomised study.

Authors:  Ashley Woodcock; Jan Lötvall; William W Busse; Eric D Bateman; Sally Stone; Anna Ellsworth; Loretta Jacques
Journal:  BMC Pulm Med       Date:  2014-07-09       Impact factor: 3.317

  9 in total
  10 in total

Review 1.  Inhaled Umeclidinium in COPD Patients: A Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Roy A Pleasants; Tiansheng Wang; Jinming Gao; Huilin Tang; James F Donohue
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 9.546

2.  In Vitro Dosing Performance of the ELLIPTA® Dry Powder Inhaler Using Asthma and COPD Patient Inhalation Profiles Replicated with the Electronic Lung (eLung™).

Authors:  Melanie Hamilton; Richard Leggett; Cheng Pang; Stephen Charles; Ben Gillett; David Prime
Journal:  J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 2.849

3.  Ease-of-use preference for the ELLIPTA® dry powder inhaler over a commonly used single-dose capsule dry powder inhaler by inhalation device-naïve Japanese volunteers aged 40 years or older.

Authors:  Yuko Komase; Akimoto Asako; Akihiro Kobayashi; Raj Sharma
Journal:  Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis       Date:  2014-12-11

4.  Effect of Disease Severity in Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease on Inhaler-Specific Inhalation Profiles Through the ELLIPTA® Dry Powder Inhaler.

Authors:  David Prime; Wilfried de Backer; Melanie Hamilton; Anthony Cahn; Andrew Preece; Dennis Kelleher; Amanda Baines; Alison Moore; Noushin Brealey; Jackie Moynihan
Journal:  J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 2.849

5.  Correct use and ease of use of a placebo dry powder inhaler in subjects with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Authors:  Gregory J Feldman; Dmitry V Galkin; Pinal Patel; Kathryn A Collison; Raj Sharma
Journal:  Chron Respir Dis       Date:  2019 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 2.444

Review 6.  Improving the Efficiency of Respiratory Drug Delivery: A Review of Current Treatment Trends and Future Strategies for Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Authors:  Ayah Shakshuki; Remigius U Agu
Journal:  Pulm Ther       Date:  2017-06-27

Review 7.  Patient perspectives on fluticasone-vilanterol versus other corticosteroid combination products for the treatment of asthma.

Authors:  Suzanne G Bollmeier; Theresa R Prosser
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2016-05-13       Impact factor: 2.711

8.  Real-life effectiveness of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol after switching from fluticasone/salmeterol or budesonide/formoterol therapy in patients with symptomatic asthma: Relvar Ellipta for Real Asthma Control Study (RERACS study).

Authors:  Yasuo Shimizu; Taichi Shiobara; Ryo Arai; Kazuyuki Chibana; Akihiro Takemasa
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 3.005

Review 9.  Identifying Critical Errors: Addressing Inhaler Technique in the Context of Asthma Management.

Authors:  Sinthia Z Bosnic-Anticevich; Biljana Cvetkovski; Elizabeth A Azzi; Pamela Srour; Rachel Tan; Vicky Kritikos
Journal:  Pulm Ther       Date:  2018-04-05

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

Authors:  Philip Halverson; Joel Liem; Logan Heyes; Andy Preece; Philippe Bareille; Jamie Rees; Renu Jain; Richard H Stanford; Warren Lenney; Kathryn Collison; Raj Sharma
Journal:  Pediatr Pulmonol       Date:  2020-11-19
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.