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

Correct use and ease of use of a placebo dry powder inhaler was evaluated in two single-arm, United States-multicenter, phase-IV studies in adults with asthma ( n = 259) or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; n = 278) who were receiving maintenance inhaler therapy. Subjects demonstrating correct placebo inhaler use within three attempts at screening were instructed to take once-daily inhalations from the inhaler for 28 ± 2 days (continuing usual maintenance), followed by randomization to complete one of two versions of an ease-of-use questionnaire and reassessment for correct inhaler use. At study end, 96% asthma/93% COPD subjects rated the placebo inhaler as "easy" or "very easy" to use while demonstrating correct use. Furthermore, 99% asthma/99% COPD subjects indicated it was "easy" or "very easy" to determine number of doses remaining, and 81%/84%, respectively, indicated they would be "likely" or "very likely" to request their current medication in the inhaler, if available. Adverse event (AE) rates were 12% asthma/15% COPD, most frequently headache (3%/3%). Treatment-related AEs were reported in one subject with asthma (cough) and four subjects with COPD (cough, n = 3; back pain, n = 1). At study end, most subjects with asthma or COPD operated the placebo inhaler correctly and found it easy to use.

A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing the ELLIPTA and HandiHaler Dry Powder Inhalers in Patients With COPD: Inhaler-Specific Attributes and Overall Patient Preference.

This randomised, open-label, cross-over, placebo-containing inhaler study assessed patient preference indicators for ELLIPTA and HandiHaler dry powder inhalers in patients with COPD (NCT02786927; GSK identifier: 204983). The primary objective of this study was to assess patient preference between ELLIPTA and HandiHaler based on the number of steps needed to use the inhaler. Eligible patients ≥40 years of age with COPD were randomised 1:1 to receive their current COPD medication plus a placebo-containing ELLIPTA or HandiHaler inhaler once daily for 7 ± 2 days (treatment period 1); this was followed by a 7 ± 2-day placebo treatment with the alternative inhaler. A 5-item questionnaire assessed inhaler-related patient preferences. A total of 212 patients (mean age, 65.1 years) were enrolled at 22 US sites; 73% had a COPD duration ≥5 years. Median (range) exposure was 8 ( 5 , 13 ) days for ELLIPTA and 8 ( 1 , 16) days for HandiHaler. Significantly more patients preferred ELLIPTA to HandiHaler in terms of the number of steps to use and all secondary attributes (size, comfort of the mouthpiece, remaining doses, and ease of use of the two inhalers; all p < 0.001). Similar results were observed irrespective of the order of inhaler use. Eighteen patients (8%) reported at least one AE and two (<1%) patients reported four non-fatal SAEs; none were related to the study treatment. Patient attitude toward a particular inhaler and their experiences in using it can affect adherence to therapy, which can in turn strongly influence effectiveness of inhaled medications. This study uses a robust methodology to assess patient preference.

Pilot Study of a Patient Experience with an ELLIPTA Inhaler Electronic Medication Monitor and Associated Integrated System: A Prospective Observational Study Using the COPD Patient-Powered Research Network.

BACKGROUND: Electronic medication monitors (EMMs) are associated with decreased rescue inhaler use, symptom burden, and increased medication adherence in asthma. However, the use of EMMs in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) using the ELLIPTA dry powder inhaler has not been studied. METHODS: This was an open-label, single-arm, prospective observational study of EMMs and associated application (app) use over 12 weeks and up to 24 weeks (April-October 2019) in people with self-reported COPD aged ≥40 years enrolled in the COPD Patient-Powered Research Network, using an ELLIPTA inhaler. The primary outcome was daily active use of the app over 12 weeks. Treatment adherence, rescue inhaler use, and participant satisfaction were assessed over the same period. RESULTS: Among the 122 participants, mean (standard deviation [SD]) proportion of days participants opened the app was 59.5% (31.4), 51.1% (33.5) and 41.3% (34.2) for Days 1-30, 31-60 and 61-90, respectively. Mean (SD) adherence to maintenance medication remained stable: 80.2% (22.7) and 79.9% (26.7) for Days 1-30 and 61-90, respectively. In participants using a rescue inhaler and EMM, mean (SD) rescue-free days increased from 18.5 (10.0; Days 1-30, n=51) to 21.4 (9.6; Days 61-90, n=48). Participants reported high levels of confidence in using the EMM, valued app reminders highly and reported high system satisfaction (mean [SD] scale: 1=low, 5=high; 4.6 [1.1], 4.3 [1.1] and 4.1 [1.1], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Use of an ELLIPTA EMM with frequent app engagement, high participant satisfaction and decreased rescue medication use may aid COPD management.

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

BACKGROUND: Reduced error rates have been demonstrated with the ELLIPTA inhaler versus other commonly used devices. OBJECTIVE: This phase IV, randomized, crossover study evaluated correct use of ELLIPTA compared with 2 commonly prescribed metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) in adults with asthma and optimized inhaler technique. METHODS: The study comprised 2 crossover substudies (ELLIPTA vs MDI-1 and ELLIPTA vs MDI-2). Inhaler use was assessed at the start of each period, following instruction from a health care professional, and after 28 days of use without instruction. Data for each inhaler were pooled within substudies, irrespective of treatment sequence; study objectives were addressed in each substudy. The primary end point, percentage of participants making 0 errors after 28 days of use, was analyzed separately for each substudy using a Mainland-Gart test for each ELLIPTA versus MDI comparison. RESULTS: Correct use rates after 28 days were higher with ELLIPTA than with MDI-1 and MDI-2 (ELLIPTA vs MDI-1, 96% vs 84%; ELLIPTA vs MDI-2, 98% vs 91%). Among discordant cases, statistically significantly more participants correctly used ELLIPTA but made 1 or more overall error with MDIs than did those who correctly used the MDIs but made 1 or more overall error using ELLIPTA (87% vs 13% in both substudies; P < .001 and P = .007 for ELLIPTA vs MDI-1 and ELLIPTA vs MDI-2, respectively). More participants made multiple device errors with MDIs than with ELLIPTA. CONCLUSIONS: Inhaler technique can be optimized in trial settings. In such settings, ELLIPTA is associated with higher rates of correct use and lower error rates than are MDIs.

Use of clinical characteristics to predict spirometric classification of obstructive lung disease.

Background: There is no consensus on how to define patients with symptoms of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A diagnosis of asthma-COPD overlap (ACO) syndrome has been proposed, but its value is debated. This study (GSK Study 201703 [NCT02302417]) investigated the ability of statistical modeling approaches to define distinct disease groups in patients with obstructive lung disease (OLD) using medical history and spirometric data. Methods: Patients aged ≥18 years with diagnoses of asthma and/or COPD were categorized into three groups: 1) asthma (nonobstructive; reversible), 2) ACO (obstructive; reversible), and 3) COPD (obstructive; nonreversible). Obstruction was defined as a post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)/forced vital capacity <0.7, and reversibility as a post-albuterol increase in FEV1 ≥200 mL and ≥12%. A primary model (PM), based on patients' responses to a health care practitioner-administered questionnaire, was developed using multinomial logistic regression modeling. Other multivariate statistical analysis models for identifying asthma and COPD as distinct entities were developed and assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) assessed the degree of overlap between groups. Results: The PM predicted spirometric classifications with modest sensitivity. Other analysis models performed with high discrimination (area under the ROC curve: asthma model, 0.94; COPD model, 0.87). PLS-DA identified distinct phenotypic groups corresponding to asthma and COPD. Conclusion: Within the OLD spectrum, patients with asthma or COPD can be identified as two distinct groups with a high degree of precision. Patients outside these classifications do not constitute a homogeneous group.