Narrative Review of the Role of Patient-Reported Outcomes and Inhaler Handling Errors in the Control of Asthma and COPD.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are chronic respiratory diseases that remain uncontrolled in many patients, despite the wide range of therapeutic options available. This review analyzes the available clinical evidence on 3 budesonide/formoterol DPI devices, Spiromax®, Turbuhaler®, and Easyhaler®, in terms of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), inhaler errors, and asthma and COPD control. RECENT FINDINGS: The effectiveness of dry powder inhalers (DPI) depends largely on the device and the patient's inhaler technique. Equally important are the patient's perception of the inhaler and adherence. Given the high burden of these diseases, it is important that efforts be made to select the best DPI for each patient and to analyze the impact of these variables to help improve the health and quality of life of our patients. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the present knowledge about PROs, inhaler handling errors, and asthma and COPD control achieved by Spiromax®, Turbuhaler®, and Easyhaler®.

Real-life association between inhaler technique, patient preference and asthma control in patients with uncontrolled asthma switched to budesonide/formoterol DuoResp® Spiromax® combination.

Objective: In asthma, treatment effectiveness is strongly influenced by the quality of inhaler use. New devices such as Spiromax® have been specifically developed to improve ease of use. It is crucial to determine whether switching to such a device improves inhaler technique and clinical outcomes, and to identify factors associated with handling errors.Methods: This observational study assessed inhaler device handling errors in 1435 asthma patients recruited via 135 participating physicians in France, before and after switching therapy from the Symbicort Turbuhaler® or Seretide® Diskus® to DuoResp® Spiromax®. Patients received training in the use of their new device at baseline and were re-assessed after three months.Results: After three months of use, 67% of patients were using the DuoResp® Spiromax® with no handling errors, and 88% with no critical errors. The presence of comorbidities was associated with handling errors overall. Concurrent illness potentially affecting device handling and previous training were associated with critical device handling errors. Most patients (85.4%) preferred DuoResp® Spiromax® over their previous device. Levels of inadequately controlled or uncontrolled asthma were reduced from baseline among patients using DuoResp® Spiromax® (8.6% versus 64.6%), and were higher in patients with critical handling errors.Conclusions: Effective patient education, correct inhaler technique, treatment adherence and devices associated with high patient satisfaction are interrelated factors key to the successful delivery of inhaled asthma therapy. Inhaler technique and patient device satisfaction should be routinely assessed in treated patients with uncontrolled asthma. Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at publisher's website.

DuoResp® Spiromax® adherence, satisfaction and ease of use: findings from a multi-country observational study in patients with asthma and COPD in Europe (SPRINT).

Objective: Adherence and inhaler technique are often suboptimal in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). New inhalers have been developed to improve these determinants of treatment effectiveness. We assessed treatment adherence, satisfaction, and ease of use of DuoResp® Spiromax® among SPRINT study participants.Methods: The Phase IV SPRINT study was conducted in 10 European countries. Asthma and COPD patients were receiving a fixed-dose combination of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA), delivered via various inhalers including DuoResp Spiromax. DuoResp Spiromax users self-assessed adherence using the 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8®), and ease of use and satisfaction using 10-point scales, during a single physician's office visit.Results: Of 1661 (asthma: n = 1101; COPD: n = 560) SPRINT study participants, 342 (asthma: n = 235; COPD: n = 107) received DuoResp Spiromax prior to inclusion. Overall, 72.5% of DuoResp Spiromax users reported medium or high adherence (MMAS-8 score ≥6). Mean (standard deviation [SD]) satisfaction score for DuoResp Spiromax was 8.9 (1.6). Almost all (98.8%) DuoResp Spiromax users were at least satisfied with their inhaler; 85.4% were very satisfied. Mean (SD) ease of use score for DuoResp Spiromax was 9.1 (1.3).Conclusions: Asthma and COPD patients using DuoResp Spiromax reported moderate-to-high medication adherence, were very satisfied with their inhaler and found it easy to use.

Patient Satisfaction and Clinical Outcomes with Budesonide plus Formoterol Spiromax for Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Real-World, Observational Trial.

BACKGROUND: The fixed-dose combination of budesonide/formoterol (B/F) has been available in the Spiromax® dry powder inhaler since 2014. OBJECTIVES: To assess patient satisfaction, inhaler use errors, and disease control in patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treated with B/F Spiromax. METHODS: This non-interventional, prospective, 12-week study enrolled consecutive asthma or COPD patients who had recently begun treatment with B/F Spiromax or were switched from another inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist combination to B/F Spiromax in routine clinical practice. Patients recruited from 243 specialist respiratory clinics or general practices in Germany were assessed for patient satisfaction (Satisfaction with Inhalers and Preference questionnaire), inhaler application errors (modified Easy Low Instruction over Time checklist), disease control, and safety. RESULTS: The population included 3,943 patients: asthma n = 2,707 (68.7%); COPD n = 1,236 (31.3%). At baseline, 60.1% of patients were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their previous inhaler, and this increased to 88.8% at week 12 of B/F Spiromax use. Overall, 62.1% of pre-treated patients preferred B/F Spiromax to their old inhaler. The frequency of any handling error observed with B/F Spiromax at week 12 was lower than at baseline (11.9 vs. 25.5% of patients, respectively). After 12 weeks, 77.4% were assessed as having improved (minimally, much, or very much) overall health status versus baseline. Guideline-defined disease severity (as rated by physicians) and patient-reported symptom severity improved during the study in both asthma and COPD patients. B/F Spiromax was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: B/F Spiromax was associated with high patient satisfaction, low device handling error rate, and improvements in clinical outcomes in real-world clinical practice.

Onset of action of budesonide/formoterol Spiromax(®) compared with budesonide/formoterol Turbuhaler(®) in patients with COPD.

Budesonide/formoterol (BF) is available in two delivery systems, the dry powder inhaler (DPI) Turbuhaler and a pressurized metered dose inhaler (pMDI) for use in patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Spiromax DPI was recently developed as an alternative to Turbuhaler DPI. In the present study, we examined whether there is a difference in the onset of bronchodilatation between BF 320/9 µg delivered by Spiromax and BF 320/9 µg delivered by Turbuhaler in 16 outpatients with stable moderate-to-severe COPD. Our results confirm the rapid onset of action of formoterol when combined with budesonide in patients with COPD and indicate that the onset of bronchodilation induced by BF Spiromax is faster than that elicited by BF Turbuhaler. Furthermore, they show that BF fixed-dose combination does not induce a decrease in SpO2 or an increase in heart rate in patients with COPD, irrespective of the DPI used to deliver this combination. Given the evidence that both inhalers have an equal safety profile, BF Spiromax offers to prescribers and COPD patients an effective alternative to BF Turbuhaler depending also on their preference, availability and cost.

A randomized, double-blinded, double-dummy efficacy and safety study of budesonide-formoterol Spiromax® compared to budesonide-formoterol Turbuhaler® in adults and adolescents with persistent asthma.

BACKGROUND: Budesonide and formoterol (BF) Spiromax® is a dry powder inhaler designed to deliver BF with maximum ease of use for patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. METHODS: A phase 3b, 12-week, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, controlled trial in patients (≥12 years) with persistent asthma. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: to demonstrate non-inferiority of twice-daily BF Spiromax 160/4.5 mcg to BF Turbuhaler® 200/6 mcg in change from baseline in weekly average of daily trough morning peak expiratory flow (PEF). Secondary endpoints included: Patient Satisfaction and Preference Questionnaire scores, change from baseline in evening PEF, trough forced expiratory volume in one second, percentage of symptom-free and rescue-free 24-hour periods, and safety. RESULTS: The analysis was based on the per-protocol population (BF Spiromax, n = 290; BF Turbuhaler, n = 284). The least squares mean change from baseline to week 12 in morning PEF was: BF Spiromax, 18.8 L/min and BF Turbuhaler, 21.8 L/min. Non-inferiority of BF Spiromax vs BF Turbuhaler was demonstrated (the lower limit of the 95% two-sided confidence interval was -9.02 L/min, which is greater than -15 L/min [the criteria specified for non-inferiority]). The mean difference in the total performance domains scores for BF Spiromax vs BF Turbuhaler were 0.248 at baseline and 0.353 at week 12 (both, p <0.001), indicating statistical superiority for BF Spiromax. No statistical or numerical differences were recorded in the total convenience domain score between the two devices. Scores for 'device preference' and 'willingness to continue' supported BF Spiromax at baseline and at week 12 (p = 0.0005 vs BF Turbuhaler). No significant between-group differences were observed in the other secondary efficacy endpoints. Both treatments were well tolerated, with no significant differences in adverse events or asthma exacerbations. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the non-inferiority of BF Spiromax vs BF Turbuhaler in patients (≥12 years) with asthma. More patients preferred the Spiromax device over Turbuhaler for its performance, and were willing to continue therapy with BF Spiromax beyond the 12-week study period. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01803555; February 28, 2013.

Assessment of inhalation errors, training time and patient preference for DuoResp® Spiromax® and Symbicort® Turbuhaler® in patients with asthma and COPD.

While poor inhaler technique in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can compromise the effectiveness of inhaled medications, identifying and quantifying these errors may suggest ways to improve inhalation technique and patient outcomes. The objective of this international, multicentre care improvement programme was to investigate errors in inhaler use (handling errors and inhalation errors) made by patients in handling two dry powder inhalers; DuoResp® Spiromax® and Symbicort® Turbuhaler®. Patients with asthma or COPD aged between 18 and 80 years attending the allergology/pneumology departments of 14 hospitals in Spain and Portugal were included. All assessments were performed during one regular scheduled visit to the study clinic. Among 161 eligible patients (138 with asthma; 23 with COPD), inhalation errors were the most common type of error, with no significant difference between devices in overall total error rate, handling error rate or inhalation error rate. Significantly fewer total errors per patient (1.4 vs. 1.9; p < 0.001) and handling errors per patient (0.5 vs. 0.8; p < 0.001) were observed with DuoResp® Spiromax® compared with Symbicort® Turbuhaler®. The mean number of attempts for patients using DuoResp® Spiromax® to perform two correct procedures was 1.9 (0.6) compared with 2.1 (0.9) attempts for patients using Symbicort® Turbuhaler® (p = 0.016). Compared with Symbicort® Turbuhaler®, DuoResp® Spiromax® was found to be easy to learn how to use (p < 0.001), easy to prepare (p < 0.001), easy to use (p < 0.001), comfortable in terms of weight and size (p = 0.001), and patients felt that they were using the device correctly (p < 0.001). Overall, 79.5% of patients stated that they preferred DuoResp® Spiromax® as their first option over Symbicort® Turbuhaler®. The findings of this study may be useful in developing effective inhaler training programmes and thus improve outcomes in asthma and COPD.

Real-world evidence effect of budesonide+formoterol Spiromax on patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Sweden.

Background and Objective: Despite improved asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management, treatment remains inadequate in many patients. Understanding the impact of current treatment in settings outside of controlled trials would add important clinical decision-making information. This study evaluated costs and outcomes associated with budesonide+formoterol (BF) Spiromax® initiation among real-world Swedish patients with asthma and/or COPD. Methods:In this retrospective observational analysis of Swedish patients with asthma and/or COPD, data were collected from the National Patient Register, National Dispensed Drug Register, and Cause of Death Register 1 year before and after initiating BF Spiromax (index date). Outcomes included exacerbation occurrence, treatment patterns, inpatient care, and healthcare costs. Results: The study included 576 patients (asthma: 51.6%; COPD: 32.8%; and asthma and COPD: 15.6%). Following BF Spiromax initiation in asthma patients, there were significant decreases in exacerbations (41.1% to 30.0%; P < 0.001), mean comorbidity-related inpatient visits (0.5 to 0.2; P < 0.001), and inpatient days (1.9 to 0.6; P = 0.006), and a trend toward fewer asthma-related inpatient visits (mean, 0.2 to 0.1; P = 0.056) and asthma-related inpatient days (mean, 0.7 to 0.3; P = 0.060). Increased inpatient utilization was observed in patients with COPD or both diagnoses. All-cause and asthma-/COPD-related medication costs decreased in all groups. Conclusions: After switching to BF Spiromax, asthma patients had fewer exacerbations and hospital visits versus the prior year and COPD patients showed an increase in all-cause and COPD-related healthcare resource utilization. All-cause and asthma-/COPD-related medication costs decreased in all groups after switching to BF Spiromax.

Real-life budesonide and formoterol dose emission from the medium and high strength fixed dosed combinations in a Spiromax® dry powder inhaler using inhalation profiles from patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) are passive devices used to administer inhaled medication for the management of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). DPIs require patients to generate a sufficient internal turbulent airflow force during each inhalation to deaggregate the powdered drug formulation into an emitted dose containing particles with the greatest likelihood of lung deposition. This internal force is generated by the interaction between the user's inhalation flow and the resistance of the DPI. Traditional compendial in vitro methods of measuring dose emission use a vacuum pump to simulate inhalation. We have adapted this in vitro method by replacing the square wave inhalation profile generated by a vacuum pump with the inhalation profiles of patients using an empty DPI. This method enables accurate assessment of the actual dose they would have inhaled. In the present study, real-life inhalation profiles were selected from 15 patients with COPD who inhaled through an empty placebo Spiromax® DPI. Ex vivo dose emissions were measured for the medium (emitted dose of 160 µg/4.5 µg) and high-strength (320 µg/9 µg) budesonide/formoterol formulations from the Spiromax DPI. These profiles were used to investigate the effect of the primary inhalation parameter-peak inhalation flow (PIF). Some profiles were modified to isolate other inhalation parameters (namely, inhaled volume [Vin] and acceleration rate of the inhalation maneuver [ACIM]). Both the medium-strength and high-strength DuoResp Spiromax displayed flow-dependent dose emission. When the PIF of a patient's inhalation maneuver increased from 26.8 L/min to 69.7 L/min, there was a significant (p < 0.05) effect on the dose-emission characteristics of the medium-strength and high-strength DuoResp Spiromax. At each PIF, an increase in Vin from approximately 500 mL to 2000 mL had no effect on the dose-emission characteristics of either strength. However, at each Vin there was a significant (p < 0.05) effect on the dose-emission characteristics as PIF increased. The effect of ACIM on the dose-emission characteristics was small. The ex vivo methodology used in this study provides a practical approach to identify the actual dose a patient might inhale during routine real-life use of the DuoResp Spiromax.

Budesonide + formoterol delivered via Spiromax® for the management of asthma and COPD: The potential impact on unscheduled healthcare costs of improving inhalation technique compared with Turbuhaler®.

BACKGROUND: Fixed-dose combinations of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting ß2 agonists are commonly used for the treatment of asthma and COPD. However, the most frequently prescribed dry powder inhaler delivering this medicine - Symbicort® (budesonide and formoterol, BF) Turbuhaler® - is associated with poor inhalation technique, which can lead to poor disease control and high disease management costs. A recent study showed that patients make fewer inhaler errors when using the novel DuoResp® (BF) Spiromax® inhaler, compared with BF Turbuhaler®. Therefore switching patients from BF Turbuhaler® to BF Spiromax® could improve inhalation technique, and potentially lead to better disease control and healthcare cost savings. METHODS: A model was developed to estimate the budget impact of reducing poor inhalation technique by switching asthma and COPD patients from BF Turbuhaler® to BF Spiromax® over three years in Germany, Italy, Sweden and the UK. The model estimated changes to the number, and associated cost, of unscheduled healthcare events. The model considered two scenarios: in Scenario 1, all patients were immediately switched from BF Turbuhaler® to BF Spiromax®; in Scenario 2, 4%, 8% and 12% of patients were switched in years 1, 2 and 3 of the model, respectively. RESULTS: In Scenario 1, per patient cost savings amounted to €60.10, €49.67, €94.14 and €38.20 in Germany, Italy, Sweden and the UK, respectively. Total cost savings in each country were €100.86 million, €19.42 million, €36.65 million and €15.44 million over three years, respectively, with an estimated 597,754, 151,480, 228,986 and 122,368 healthcare events avoided. In Scenario 2, cost savings totalled €8.07 million, €1.55 million, €2.93 million and €1.23 million over three years, respectively, with 47,850, 12,118, 18,319, and 9789 healthcare events avoided. Savings per patient were €4.81, €3.97, €7.53 and €3.06. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that reductions in poor inhalation technique by switching patients from BF Turbuhaler® to BF Spiromax® are likely to improve patients' disease control and generate considerable cost savings through healthcare events avoided.

Spiromax, a New Dry Powder Inhaler: Dose Consistency under Simulated Real-World Conditions.

BACKGROUND: Spiromax(®) is a novel dry powder inhaler for patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The studies presented here provide further data on attributes (in vitro dosing consistency with budesonide-formoterol (DuoResp) Spiromax; flow rates through empty versions of the Spiromax and Turbuhaler inhaler) of importance to patients with asthma or COPD. METHODS: Dose-delivery studies were performed using low-, middle-, and high-strength DuoResp Spiromax. Dose consistency was assessed over inhaler life. Total emitted doses (TEDs) were measured at various flow rates, after exposure to high and low temperature or humidity, at different inhaler orientations, and after dropping the inhaler. The criterion for evaluating dose uniformity was whether mean TEDs were within the product specification limits. In separate studies, flow rates were measured after training, using the patient information leaflets, and again after enhanced training as part of a randomized, open-label, cross-over study. RESULTS: Mean values for both budesonide and formoterol were within 85%-115% of the label claim for each strength of DuoResp Spiromax for initial dose uniformity and for the other investigated conditions (temperature, humidity, orientation, dropping, knocking), with the exception of approximately an 80% increase in first dose after dropping the inhaler (subsequent doses not affected). In the flow rate patient study, two patients' inhalations with Spiromax and six with Turbuhaler were <30 L/min. The majority of asthma patients [91% (Spiromax) versus 82% (Turbuhaler)] achieved the preferred flow rate of >60 L/min. CONCLUSIONS: DuoResp Spiromax consistently meets dose uniformity criteria, under controlled laboratory conditions and with variations intended to mimic real-world use. Following enhanced training, all patients in the flow study were able to achieve the minimal inspiratory flow rate of >30 L/min, which is required for effective treatment.