Respimat Soft Mist inhaler versus hydrofluoroalkane metered dose inhaler: patient preference and satisfaction.

INTRODUCTION: In addition to offering favorable pharmaceutical performance, an ideal inhaler should be well accepted by patients, as this may facilitate compliance. We report a study that specifically assessed inhaler preference in patients with obstructive lung disease after treatment with ipratropium bromide/fenoterol hydrobromide (Berodual delivered via either Respimat Soft Mist Inhaler (SMI) or hydrofluoroalkane metered dose inhaler (HFA-MDI). METHODS: Patients with COPD, asthma or mixed disease were randomized to receive ipratropium bromide/fenoterol hydrobromide 20/50 microg via Respimat SMI or 40/100 microg via HFA-MDI for 7 weeks each, in a crossover design. Patients were trained in inhaler use and given < or =5 attempts to demonstrate satisfactory technique. At the end of each treatment period, patients completed a 15-item satisfaction questionnaire, and inhaler technique was re-tested. On study completion, patients were asked which inhaler they preferred and they rated their willingness to continue using each inhaler. Clinical efficacy outcomes were measured by diary card to check whether switching inhaler affected efficacy. RESULTS: In total, 245 patients were randomized and 224 used both inhalers within their respective treatment periods. Of 201 patients expressing a preference, 162 (81%) preferred Respimat SMI and 39 (19%) preferred HFA-MDI (p < 0.001). Patients would rather continue using Respimat SMI than HFA-MDI (p < 0.001). Mean scores for 13 of the 15 satisfaction questions were significantly higher for Respimat SMI than HFA-MDI (p < 0.05); in addition, the total score was also significantly higher for Respimat SMI (p < 0.001). Most patients (217/224; 97%) were judged to have good technique with Respimat SMI after 7 weeks' use. Differences in efficacy measures between the devices were not significant. CONCLUSION: These data indicated that a large majority of patients preferred Respimat SMI to HFA-MDI.

Onset and duration of action of formoterol and tiotropium in patients with moderate to severe COPD.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management guidelines recommend regular treatment with one or more long-acting bronchodilators for patients with moderate to severe COPD. OBJECTIVE: To compare the onset and duration of action of formoterol and tiotropium in patients with COPD. METHODS: This randomized, multicentre, open-label crossover study in 38 patients with COPD (mean age 64 years; mean FEV(1) 55% predicted) assessed the effect of 7 days of treatment with formoterol (12 microg b.i.d. via Foradil Aerolizer) vs. tiotropium (18 microg o.d. via Spiriva HandiHaler) on lung function measured over a period of 12 h after the first dose on day 1 and the last dose on day 8. RESULTS: The primary efficacy variable, FEV(1)-AUC during the first 2 h post-dose (FEV(1)-AUC(10-120 min)), was significantly higher for formoterol compared with tiotropium, with between-treatment differences of 124 ml (p = 0.016) after the first dose and 80 ml (p = 0.036) after 7 days' treatment in favour of formoterol. FEV(1) measured 12 h after inhalation did not differ statistically significantly between treatments. Adverse events occurred in 2 (5%) patients after treatment with formoterol and in 5 (12%) patients after treatment with tiotropium. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates faster onset of action and greater bronchodilation of formoterol vs. tiotropium for bronchodilation within the first 2 h of inhalation (FEV(1)-AUC(10-120 min)) and comparable bronchodilation 12 h post-inhalation in patients with moderate to severe COPD.