Dataset Information

Successful Use of Easyhaler^® Dry Powder Inhaler in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease; Analysis of Peak Inspiratory Flow from Three Clinical Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

There is increasing pressure to use environmentally friendly dry powder inhalers (DPI) instead of pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDI). However, correct inhalation technique is needed for effective inhaler therapy, and there is persistent concern whether patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can generate sufficient inspiratory effort to use DPIs successfully. The aims of this study were to find clinical predictors for peak inspiratory flow rate (PIF) and to assess whether patients with COPD had difficulties in generating sufficient PIF with a high resistance DPI.

Methods

Pooled data of 246 patients with COPD from previous clinical trials was analyzed to find possible predictors of PIF via the DPI Easyhaler (PIFEH) and to assess the proportion of patients able to achieve an inhalation flow rate of 30 l/min, which is needed to use the Easyhaler successfully.

Results

The mean PIF was 56.9 l/min and 99% (243/246) of the study patients achieved a PIF ≥ 30 l/min. A low PIF was associated with female gender and lower forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), but the association was weak and a statistical model including both only accounted for 18% of the variation seen in PIFEH.

Conclusions

Based on our results, impaired expiratory lung function or patient characteristics do not predict patients' ability to use DPIs in COPD; 99% of the patients generated sufficient PIFEH for successful dose delivery. Considering the targets for sustainability in health care, this should be addressed as DPIs are a potential option for most patients when choosing the right inhaler for the patient.

Trial registration

Two of three included trials were registered under numbers NCT04147572 and NCT01424137. Third trial preceded registration platforms and therefore, was not registered.

SUBMITTER: Kainu A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10881915 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Successful Use of Easyhaler<sup>®</sup> Dry Powder Inhaler in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease; Analysis of Peak Inspiratory Flow from Three Clinical Trials.

Kainu Annette A Vartiainen Ville A VA Mazur Witold W Hisinger-Mölkänen Hanna H Lavorini Federico F Janson Christer C Andersson Martin M

Pulmonary therapy 20240103 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>There is increasing pressure to use environmentally friendly dry powder inhalers (DPI) instead of pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDI). However, correct inhalation technique is needed for effective inhaler therapy, and there is persistent concern whether patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can generate sufficient inspiratory effort to use DPIs successfully. The aims of this study were to find clinical predictors for peak inspiratory flow rate (PIF) ...[more]

PMID: 38170393

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo evaluate whether patients of varying ages and lung function with asthma or those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can achieve sufficient inspiratory flows for effective use of the fixed-dose combination of salmeterol-fluticasone propionate and budesonide-formoterol dispensed with the Easyhaler® (EH) device-metered, multi-dose dry powder inhaler (DPI).MethodsA pooled analysis of two randomized, multicenter, crossover, open-label studies (NCT01424137; NCT009849061) was conducted to characterize inspiratory flow parameters across the EH, Seretide Diskus (DI) and Symbicort Turbuhaler (TH) inhalers in patients with asthma and/or COPD of varying severity. The primary endpoint was peak inspiratory flow (PIF) rate through the EH.ResultsThe intent-to-treat population comprised 397 patients; 383 patients were included in the per-protocol (PP) population. The mean PIF (standard deviation) values through the EH in patients <18 and ≥18 years of age with asthma and in those with COPD, were similar: 61.4 (11.5), 69.7 (13.5), and 61.9 (13.2) L/min, respectively. These flow rates correspond to pressure drops of 5.05 (1.80), 6.52 (2.34) and 5.19 (2.07) kPa, respectively. In total, 380 (99.2%) of patients in the PP population were able to generate a PIF rate through the EH of ≥30 L/min, which is required to enable consistent dose delivery from the DPI; there was a moderate direct association between age and PIF in younger patients with asthma, but this was inverse and less apparent in adult patients with asthma and/or those with COPD. Height and weight were also moderately correlated with PIF. Stronger associations with PIF were observed for some lung function parameters, particularly native PIF and forced inspiratory vital capacity.ConclusionsOver 99% of patients with asthma and/or COPD were able to inhale through the EH with an adequate PIF rate, irrespective of age, or severity of airway obstruction. This confirms that patients with asthma and/or COPD can achieve inspiratory flows via the EH DPI that are sufficient for its effective use.

Project description:BackgroundTwo studies were undertaken to characterize the maximal effort inhalation profiles of healthy subjects and patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) through a moderate-resistance dry powder inhaler (DPI). Correlations between inhaler-specific inhalation characteristics and inhaler-independent lung function parameters were investigated.MethodsHealthy subjects (n = 15), patients with mild, moderate, or severe asthma (n = 45), and patients with mild, moderate, severe, or very-severe COPD (n = 60) were included in the studies. Inhalation pressure drop versus time profiles were recorded using an instrumented ELLIPTA® DPI or bespoke resistor component with equivalent resistivity. Inhaler-independent lung function assessments included pharyngometry, spirometry, plethysmography, and diffusion.ResultsFor the inhaler-specific inhalation profiles, the mean maximal effort peak inspiratory flow rates (PIFRs) varied across the subgroups from 65.8-110.6 L/min (range: 41.6-142.9). Peak pressure drop, PIFR, inhaled volume, and average inhalation flow rate (primary endpoints) did not differ markedly between healthy subjects and patients with asthma or mild COPD. Moderate, severe, and very-severe COPD patients demonstrated lower mean peak pressure drops, PIFRs and inhaled volumes, which tended to decrease with increasing COPD severity. Severe and very-severe COPD patients demonstrated shorter mean inhalation times compared with all other participants. Inhaler-independent lung function parameters were consistent with disease severity, and statistically significant (p < 0.05) strong correlations (R > 0.7) with components of the inhaler-specific inhalation profiles were observed in the COPD cohort; correlations in the asthma cohort tended to be weaker.ConclusionsAll participants achieved a maximal effort PIFR ≥ 41.6 L/min through the moderate resistance of the ELLIPTA inhaler. Patients with asthma achieved similar inhalation profiles to healthy subjects, but increasing COPD severity tended to reduce a patient's inhalation capability. Correlation analyses suggest that some lung function parameters may be a useful indicator of ability to inhale efficiently through a moderate-resistance DPI, such as the ELLIPTA inhaler.

Project description:BackgroundInhaler selection is important when managing respiratory conditions; a patient's inhalation technique should be appropriate for the selected device, and patients should ideally be able to use a device successfully regardless of disease severity. The NEXThaler is a multidose dry-powder inhaler with a breath-actuated mechanism (BAM) and dose counter that activates only following inhalation, so effectively an 'inhalation counter'. We assessed inspiratory flow through the NEXThaler in two studies and examined whether inhalation triggered the BAM.MethodsThe two studies were open-label, single-arm, and single visit. One study recruited patients with asthma aged ≥ 18 years; the other recruited patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) aged ≥ 40 years. All patients inhaled twice through a placebo NEXThaler. The inspiratory profile through the device was assessed for each inhalation using acoustic monitoring, with flow at and time to BAM firing, peak inspiratory flow (PIF), and total inhalation time assessed.ResultsA total of 40 patients were enrolled in the asthma study: 20 with controlled asthma and 20 with partly controlled/uncontrolled asthma. All patients were able to trigger the BAM, as evidenced by the inhalation counter activating on closing the device. Mean flow at BAM firing following first inhalation was 35.0 (range 16.3-52.3) L/min; mean PIF was 64.6 (35.0-123.9) L/min. A total of 72 patients were enrolled in the COPD study, with data analysed for 69 (mean forced expiratory volume in 1 s 48.7% predicted [17-92%]). As with the asthma study, all patients, regardless of airflow limitation, were able to trigger the BAM. Mean flow at BAM firing following first inhalation was 41.9 (26.6-57.1) L/min; mean PIF was 68.0 (31.5-125.4) L/min. Device usability was rated highly in both studies, with 5 min sufficient to train the patients, and a click heard shortly after inhalation in all cases (providing feedback on BAM firing).ConclusionsInhalation flows triggering the BAM in the NEXThaler were similar between patients with controlled and partly controlled/uncontrolled asthma, and were similar across COPD airflow limitation. All enrolled patients were able to activate the device.

Project description:BackgroundThe chronic and progressive nature of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) requires self-administration of inhaled medication. Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) are increasingly being used for inhalation therapy in COPD. Important considerations when selecting DPIs include inhalation effort required and flow rates achieved by patients. Here, we present the comparison of the peak inspiratory flow rate (PIF) values achieved by COPD patients, with moderate to very severe airflow limitation, through the Breezhaler®, the Ellipta® and the HandiHaler® inhalers. The effects of disease severity, age and gender on PIF rate were also evaluated.MethodsThis randomized, open-label, multicenter, cross-over, Phase IV study recruited patients with moderate to very severe airflow limitation (Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease 2014 strategy), aged ≥40 years and having a smoking history of ≥10 pack years. No active drug or placebo was administered during the study. The inhalation profiles were recorded using inhalers fitted with a pressure tap and transducer at the wall of the mouthpiece. For each patient, the inhalation with the highest PIF value, out of three replicate inhalations per device, was selected for analysis. A paired t-test was performed to compare mean PIFs between each combination of devices.ResultsIn total, 97 COPD patients were enrolled and completed the study. The highest mean PIF value (L/min ± SE) was observed with the Breezhaler® (108 ± 23), followed by the Ellipta® (78 ± 15) and the HandiHaler® (49 ± 9) inhalers and the lowest mean pressure drop values were recorded with the Breezhaler® inhaler, followed by the Ellipta® inhaler and the HandiHaler® inhaler, in the overall patient population. A similar trend was consistently observed in patients across all subgroups of COPD severity, within all age groups and for both genders.ConclusionsPatients with COPD were able to inhale with the least inspiratory effort and generate the highest mean PIF value through the Breezhaler® inhaler when compared with the Ellipta® and the HandiHaler® inhalers. These results were similar irrespective of patients' COPD severity, age or gender.Trial registrationThe trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02596009 on 4 November 2015.

Project description:BackgroundIn patients receiving inhaled medication, dissatisfaction with and difficulty in using the inhaler can affect treatment adherence. The incidence of handling errors is typically higher in the elderly than in younger people. The aim of the study was to assess inhaler preference for and handling errors with the ELLIPTA® dry powder inhaler (DPI), (GSK), compared with the established BREEZHALER™, a single-dose capsule DPI (Novartis), in inhalation device-naïve Japanese volunteers aged ≥40 years.MethodsIn this open-label, nondrug interventional, crossover DPI preference study comparing the ELLIPTA DPI and BREEZHALER, 150 subjects were randomized to handle the ELLIPTA or BREEZHALER DPIs until the point of inhalation, without receiving verbal or demonstrative instruction (first attempt). Subjects then crossed over to the other inhaler. Preference was assessed using a self-completed questionnaire. Inhaler handling was assessed by a trained assessor using a checklist. Subjects did not inhale any medication in the study, so efficacy and safety were not measured.ResultsThe ELLIPTA DPI was preferred to the BREEZHALER by 89% of subjects (odds ratio [OR] 70.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 33.69-146.01; P-value not applicable for this inhaler) for ease of use, by 63% of subjects (OR 2.98, CI 1.87-4.77; P<0.0001) for ease of determining the number of doses remaining in the inhaler, by 91% for number of steps required, and by 93% for time needed for handling the inhaler. The BREEZHALER was preferred to the ELLIPTA DPI for comfort of the mouthpiece by 64% of subjects (OR 3.16, CI 1.97-5.06; P<0.0001). The incidence of handling errors (first attempt) was 11% with ELLIPTA and 68% with BREEZHALER; differences in incidence were generally similar when analyzed by age (< or ≥65 years) or sex.ConclusionThese data, obtained in an inhalation device-naïve population, suggest that the ELLIPTA DPI is preferred to an established alternative based on its ease-of-use features and is associated with fewer handling errors.

Project description:BackgroundDry powder inhalers (DPIs) rely on both internal resistance and patients' inspiratory capacity for effective operation. Optimal inspiratory technique is crucial for DPI users. This study assessed the accuracy and repeatability of two available devices, PF810® and In-Check DIAL®, and analyzed their measurement errors and consistency in detecting inspiratory capacity.MethodsThe accuracy and repeatability of peak inspiratory flow (PIF) and forced inspiratory vital capacity (FIVC) against various internal resistances of the two devices were assessed using standard waveforms generated by a breathing simulator. The agreement of PIF measurements between the two devices in healthy volunteers and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients was analyzed with the intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman graphical analysis.ResultsPF810® showed great accuracy and repeatability in measuring PIF, except for square waveforms at the lowest flow rate (20 L/min). In-Check DIAL® exhibited poor accuracy against high resistance levels. In scenarios with no resistance, In-Check DIAL® had significantly smaller measurement errors than PF810®, but larger errors against high resistance levels. The two devices showed excellent agreement (ICC > 0.80, P < 0.05), except for healthy volunteers against medium to high resistance (R3-R5) where the ICC was insignificant. Bland-Altman plots indicated small disagreements between the two devices for both healthy volunteers and COPD patients.ConclusionsIn-Check DIAL® exhibited poor accuracy and larger measurement errors than PF810® when detecting PIFs against higher internal resistances. However, its good performance against lower internal resistances, along with its cost-effectiveness and convenience made it appropriate for primary care. PF810® showed good accuracy and repeatability and could detect additional parameters of inspiratory capacity beyond PIF, though required further studies to confirm its clinical benefits.

Dataset Information

Successful Use of Easyhaler^® Dry Powder Inhaler in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease; Analysis of Peak Inspiratory Flow from Three Clinical Trials.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Successful Use of Easyhaler<sup>®</sup> Dry Powder Inhaler in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease; Analysis of Peak Inspiratory Flow from Three Clinical Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets

Dataset Information

Successful Use of Easyhaler® Dry Powder Inhaler in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease; Analysis of Peak Inspiratory Flow from Three Clinical Trials.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Successful Use of Easyhaler<sup>®</sup> Dry Powder Inhaler in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease; Analysis of Peak Inspiratory Flow from Three Clinical Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets

Successful Use of Easyhaler^® Dry Powder Inhaler in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease; Analysis of Peak Inspiratory Flow from Three Clinical Trials.