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

Comparative study of the inhalation parameters of COPD patients through NEXThaler® and Ellipta® dry powder inhalers

The deposition of dry powder aerosol drugs depends on the inhalation parameters of the patients through the inhaler. These data are not directly measured in clinical practice. Their prediction based on the routinely measured spirometric data could help in choosing the appropriate device and optimizing the therapy. The aim of this study was to perform inhalation experiments to find correlations between inhalation parameters of COPD patients through two DPI devices and their native spirometric data, gender, age and disease severity. Another goal was to establish relationships between peak inspiratory flows through NEXThaler® and Ellipta® inhalers and their statistical determinants. Breathing parameters of 113 COPD patients were measured by normal spirometry and while inhaling through the two DPIs. Statistical analysis of the measured data was performed. The average values of peak inspiratory flow through the devices (PIFdev) were 68.4 L/min and 78.0 L/min for NEXThaler® and Ellipta®, respectively. PIFdev values were significantly higher for males than for females, but differences upon age, BMI and disease severity group were not significant. PIFdev values correlated best with their native spirometric counterparts (PIF) and linear relationships between them were revealed. Current results may be used in the future to predict the success of inhalation of COPD patients through DPI devices, which may help in the inhaler choice. By choosing the appropriate device-drug pair for each patient the lung dose can be increased and the efficiency of the therapy improved. Further results of the clinical study will be the subject of a next publication.

Prevalence and Factors Affecting the Optimal and Non-optimal Peak Inspiratory Flow Rate in Stable and Exacerbation Phases of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Bronchial Asthma in India

INTRODUCTION

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and bronchial asthma pose significant threats and challenges to global health care, emphasizing the need for precise inhaler therapies to overcome this burden. The optimal peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) is a crucial determinant for the right selection and effective use of an inhaler device. It also helps to improve the treatment effectiveness of obstructive airway diseases worldwide as it allows effective drug delivery to distal airways and lung parenchyma. It is used as a selection criterion by physicians around the world for selecting personalized inhaler devices.

OBJECTIVE

To find out the optimal and non-optimal PIFR prevalence and its influencing factors in stable and exacerbation phases of COPD and bronchial asthma in Tamil Nadu, India.

METHODOLOGY

It is a single-center, observational, cross-sectional study conducted from February 2022 to August 2023. The patients who meet the diagnostic criteria specified by the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines for COPD and the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines for bronchial asthma are enrolled in our study. The PIFR was measured using a hand-held digital spirometry device, along with demographic data collection. Statistical analyses, including t-tests and chi-square tests, were performed using SPSS version 21 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).

RESULTS

Gender, height, and disease severity significantly impacted the PIFR. Females, normal BMI individuals, and those with moderate disease severity exhibited higher optimal PIFR rates. Stable or exacerbation phases, disease, and smoking status do not influence either optimal or non-optimal PIFR. Notably, substantial differences in lung function parameters were observed between optimal (60-90 L/min) and non-optimal PIFR (insufficient: <30 L/min, suboptimal: 30-60 L/min, excessive: >90 L/min) groups, highlighting their impact on respiratory health.

CONCLUSION

This study emphasizes the importance of personalized inhaler strategies, considering gender, height, and disease severity. Proper inhaler device selection, continuous monitoring of inhaler technique, and tailored inhaler education at every OPD visit are vital for optimizing effective COPD and bronchial asthma management and improving adherence to treatment.

Evaluating dry powder inhalers: From in vitro studies to mobile health technologies

Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) are essential in treating patients with pulmonary diseases. Since DPIs were introduced in the 1960s, a remarkable improvement has been made in their technology, dose delivery, efficiency, reproducibility, stability, and performance based on safety and efficacy. While there are many DPIs on the market and several more under development, it is vital to evaluate the performance of DPIs for effective aerosol drug delivery to patients with respiratory disorders. Their performance evaluation includes particle size, metering system, device design, dose preparation, inhalation technique, and patient-device integration. The purpose of this paper is to review current literature evaluating DPIs through in vitro studies, computational fluid models, and in vivo/clinical studies. We will also explain how mobile health applications are used to monitor and evaluate patients' adherence to prescribed medications.

In Vitro Comparison of Two Blister-Type Inhalers

BACKGROUND

Ellipta is a respiratory device that is a successor of the Diskus. A major difference between the devices is that Ellipta, especially the 2-strip type, includes a pair of blisters rather than a single blister as contained in Diskus. This study aimed to compare the particle-release properties and mechanical features of both devices.

METHODS

A pump was used to evacuate air from each dry powder inhaler (DPI) with either a ramp-up or triangular pattern. The particle release volume and peak inspiratory flow of the DPIs were compared. Then the resistance of each component was measured.

RESULTS

Both DPIs required specific threshold flows for particle release. Inspiratory flows exceeding the threshold values (Ellipta 11.3 ± 4.0 L/min and Diskus 29.7 ± 4.7 L/min using ramp-up inhalations; Ellipta 10.6 ± 2.1 L/min and Diskus 28.4 ± 5.2 L/min using triangular ones) did not further increase particle release volumes. The inspiratory flows required for Ellipta were significantly less than those for Diskus. The particle release volume exceeding threshold flow for Ellipta was approximately 2.62 (ramp-up) and 2.01 (triangular) times those of Diskus. The resistance of one blister was similar (0.44 cm H2O/L/min vs 0.42 cm H2O/L/min for Ellipta and Diskus, respectively). As Ellipta includes 2 parallel blisters, similar resistances suggest that Ellipta requires twice the flow of Diskus. The flow distributions for particle release in Ellipta and Diskus were 35.3 and 5.2% of the total inspiratory flow, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The Ellipta required lower inspiratory flow than Diskus, which arises from a higher distribution to blister flow. Ellipta may be preferable to Diskus for patients with impaired pulmonary function.

In Vitro Drug Delivery of a Fixed-Dose Combination of Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol from a Dry Powder Inhaler

Background: Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) require patients to impart sufficient energy through inhalation to ensure adequate dose emission, medication deaggregation, and resultant particle sizes suitable for lung deposition. There is an ongoing debate regarding the level of inspiratory effort, and therefore inspiratory flow rate, needed for optimal dose delivery from DPIs. Materials and Methods: The delivered dose (DD) and fine particle fraction (FPF) for each component of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 μg and FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 μg ELLIPTA DPIs were assessed at flow rates of 30, 60, and 90 L/min. Electronic lung (eLung) (eLung; an electronic breathing simulator) assessments were conducted to replicate inhalation profiles representing a wide range of inhalation parameters and inhaled volumes achieved by patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or asthma of all severity levels. Timing and duration of dose emission were assessed using a particle detector located at the entrance of an anatomical throat cast attached to the eLung. Results: During DD assessment, a mean of >80% of the nominal blister content (nbc) was emitted from the ELLIPTA DPI at all flow rates. In Next Generation Impactor assessments, the observed mean DD across flow rates for FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 μg ranged from 85.9% to 97.0% of nbc and 84.0% to 93.5% for FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 μg. In eLung assessments, 82.8% to 95.5% of nbc was delivered across the PIF range, 43.5 to 129.9 L/min (COPD), and 85.1% to 92.3% across the PIF range, 67.4 to 129.9 L/min (asthma). The FPF (mass <5 μm; % nbc) for each component was comparable across all flow rates and inhalation profiles. Dose emission timings indicated that near-complete dose emission occurs before reaching PIF. Conclusions: Dose delivery assessments across all flow rates and inhalation profiles indicate that patients with all severity levels of COPD or asthma can achieve the required inspiratory effort for efficient delivery of all components of FF/UMEC/VI from the ELLIPTA DPI. Dose emission profiles suggest rapid and near-complete dose delivery from the ELLIPTA DPI before reaching PIF.

Relationship between Peak Inspiratory Flow and Patient and Disease Characteristics in Individuals with COPD—A Systematic Scoping Review

Optimal delivery of medication via dry powder inhalers, the most commonly prescribed inhaler type, is dependent on a patient achieving a minimum level of inspiratory flow during inhalation. However, measurement of peak inspiratory flow (PIF) against the simulated resistance of a dry powder inhaler is not frequently performed in clinical practice due to time or equipment limitations. Therefore, defining which patient characteristics are associated with lower PIF is critically important to help clinicians optimize their inhaler choice through a more personalized approach to prescribing. The objective of this scoping review was to systematically evaluate patient and disease characteristics determining PIF in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Medline, Cochrane and Embase databases were systematically searched for relevant studies on PIF in patients with COPD published in English between January 2000 and May 2021. The quality of evidence was assessed using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation checklist. Of 3382 citations retrieved, 35 publications were included in the review (nine scored as high quality, 13 as moderate, nine as low, and four as very low). Factors correlating with PIF in >70% of papers included both patient characteristics (lower PIF correlated with increased age, female gender, shorter height, decreased handgrip and inspiratory muscle strength, and certain comorbidities) and disease characteristics (lower PIF correlated with markers of lung hyperinflation, lower peak expiratory flow [PEF] and increased disease severity). Other factors correlating with adequate/optimal or improved PIF included education/counseling and exercise/inspiratory muscle training; impaired physical function and errors in inhalation technique/non-adherence were associated with low/suboptimal PIF. In conclusion, clinicians should measure PIF against the simulated resistance of a particular device wherever possible. However, as this often cannot be done due to lack of resources or time, the patient and disease characteristics that influence PIF, as identified in this review, can help clinicians to choose the most appropriate inhaler type for their patients.

Effects of switching from a metered dose inhaler to a dry powder inhaler on climate emissions and asthma control: post-hoc analysis

Objective

To compare the effects of switching from a pressurised metered dose inhaler (pMDI)-based to a dry powder inhaler (DPI)-based maintenance therapy versus continued usual care on greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide equivalents, CO₂e) and asthma control.

Methods

This post-hoc analysis was based on a subset of 2236 (53%) patients from the Salford Lung Study in Asthma who at baseline were using a pMDI-based controller therapy. During the study patients were randomised to fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) via the ELLIPTA DPI (switched from pMDI to DPI) (n=1081) or continued their usual care treatment (n=1155), and were managed in conditions close to everyday clinical practice. Annual CO₂e (kg) was calculated for the total number of maintenance and rescue inhalers prescribed. Asthma control was assessed by the proportion of ACT responders (composite of ACT total score ≥20 and/or increase from baseline ≥3).

Results

The groups were well matched for demographic characteristics and baseline Asthma Control Test (ACT) total score (mean age: 49 years; mean ACT score: usual care, 16.6; FF/VI, 16.5). Annual CO₂e kg per patient (maintenance plus rescue therapy) was significantly lower with FF/VI DPI treatment (‘switch’ group) than usual care (least squares geometric mean 108 kg (95% CI 102 to 114) vs 240 kg (95% CI 229 to 252), p<0.001). Asthma control was consistently superior over the 12 months in the FF/VI DPI group compared with usual care.

Conclusions

Patients switching from a pMDI-based to a DPI-based maintenance therapy more than halved their inhaler carbon footprint without loss of asthma control. The remaining inhaler carbon footprint could be reduced through switches from pMDI to DPI rescue medications or alternative lower-carbon footprint rescue inhalers if available. Asthma control improved in both groups, with greater control demonstrated in those initiated on FF/VI DPI.

Trial registration number

NCT01706198.

Measuring Peak Inspiratory Flow in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) are breath actuated, and patients using DPIs need to generate an optimal inspiratory flow during the inhalation maneuver for effective drug delivery to the lungs. However, practical and standardized recommendations for measuring peak inspiratory flow (PIF)—a potential indicator for effective DPI use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)—are lacking. To evaluate recommended PIF assessment approaches, we reviewed the Instructions for Use of the In-Check™ DIAL and the prescribing information for eight DPIs approved for use in the treatment of COPD in the United States. To evaluate applied PIF assessment approaches, we conducted a PubMed search from inception to August 31, 2021, for reports of clinical and real-life studies where PIF was measured using the In-Check™ DIAL or through a DPI in patients with COPD. Evaluation of collective sources, including 47 applicable studies, showed that instructions related to the positioning of the patient with their DPI, instructions for exhalation before the inhalation maneuver, the inhalation maneuver itself, and post-inhalation breath-hold times varied, and in many instances, appeared vague and/or incomplete. We observed considerable variation in how PIF was measured in clinical and real-life studies, underscoring the need for a standardized method of PIF measurement. Standardization of technique will facilitate comparisons among studies. Based on these findings and our clinical and research experience, we propose specific recommendations for PIF measurement to standardize the process and better ensure accurate and reliable PIF values in clinical trials and in daily clinical practice.

Modeling of Inhalation Profiles Through Dry Powder Inhaler in Healthy Adults and Asthma Patients As a Prerequisite for Further In Vitro and In Silico Studies

Background: The severity of airway obstruction may affect patient's ability to perform an effective drug inhalation from a dry powder inhaler (DPI). Also, an incorrect inhalation technique may negatively affect the efficacy of asthma treatment. The aims of the study were (1) to analyze and compare inhalation profiles recorded with the use of different inhalation techniques, and thus, (2) to establish model inhalation profiles representative for healthy subjects and subjects with mild and moderate-to-severe asthma. Methods: This study was performed in healthy volunteers, patients with mild and moderate-to-severe asthma. A modified flow-volume test to define two different expiratory levels (to residual volume and half-way to residual volume) was performed. Inspiratory flow parameters were extracted: peak inspiratory flow rate (PIF_inh), time at which peak inspiratory flow rate occurs (tPIF_inh), total inhalation time (T), and inhaled volume (V). Test of frequency for tPIF_inh100% and tPIF_inh50% by asthma severity was performed, to provide information about initial flow accelerations. The impact of two different expiratory levels preceding inhalation (with severity of asthma as a categorical factor) on inspiratory flow parameters was examined. Results: PIF_inh was dependent upon asthma severity (p = 0.046). Type of exhalation before inhalation had no effect on PIF_inh values. V value was significantly affected both by asthma severity (p = 0.024) and type of exhalation before inhalation (p < 0.0001). Mean T value was influenced by type of exhalation before inhalation (p = 0.0003), but not by asthma severity. Mean tPIF_inh value was affected by the type of exhalation before inhalation only in healthy subjects (p = 0.01). Conclusions: Both asthma severity and type of exhalation before inhalation have little impact on the dynamics of inhalation through a DPI. An alternative form of equation describing inhalation profiles demonstrating a relationship between lung mechanics and dynamics of inspiratory profile has been proposed.

Effect of Age on Efficacy and Safety of Fluticasone Furoate/Vilanterol (FF/VI), Umeclidinium (UMEC), and UMEC + FF/VI in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Analyses of Five Randomized Clinical Trials

Introduction

Concerns have been raised about the practical use and clinical benefits of medications and inhalers in older patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Here, we report analyses according to age from five clinical trials evaluating medications administered using the ELLIPTA dry-powder inhaler (DPI).

Methods

Efficacy and safety according to age groups (<65 and ≥65 years) were assessed using data from five clinical trials in patients ≥40 years of age with symptomatic COPD. There was a mix of pre-specified and post hoc analyses of two 24-week trials with fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol (VI) 100/25 µg; one 24-week trial with umeclidinium (UMEC) 62.5 µg; and two 12-week trials with UMEC 62.5 µg + FF/VI 100/25 µg. The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) obtained 23 and 24 hours after dosing on the last day of the study.

Results

A total of 2876 patients <65 years of age and 2148 patients ≥65 years of age were enrolled across all studies of whom 1333 and 1111 patients, respectively, received treatment at the doses presented. Statistically significant and clinically meaningful treatment differences in improvement from baseline in mean trough FEV₁ were reported for active comparators versus placebo at study end for both <65 and ≥65 years subgroups (FF/VI vs placebo: 143 mL and 111 mL; UMEC vs placebo: 110 mL and 123 mL; UMEC + FF/VI vs placebo + FF/VI: 136 mL and 105 mL; p<0.001 for all comparisons). The incidence of adverse events reported for active treatments was similar between age groups.

Conclusion

These data provide evidence to support the use of FF/VI, UMEC, or UMEC + FF/VI, all delivered via the ELLIPTA DPI, to treat older (≥65 years) and younger (<65 years) patients with COPD.

Inhalation Profiles Through a Dry Powder Inhaler: Relation Between Inhalation Technique and Spirometric Measures

Background: The understanding of the real flow profiles through a dry powder inhaler (DPI), generated by asthma patients, is a prerequisite for satisfactory drug delivery to the lungs. The aims of the study were to assess the relationship between spirometric measures and inhalation profiles through a low-resistance DPI, and to compare parameters of those profiles between optimal and suboptimal inhalation technique type. Methods: Both healthy adult volunteers and patients with asthma were included in the study. Spirometry was conducted along with modified flow-volume test to detect expiratory levels (maximum "100%" exhalation to residual volume [RV] and halfway "50%" to RV). These were the reference levels of the depth of exhalation for each patient to simulate the effect of incomplete exhalation. Individual inhalation profiles were recorded using spirometry in-house software as the volumetric airflow through the inhaler versus time. Inspiratory flow parameters were extracted: time to peak inspiratory flow through inhaler (PIF_inh), time at which peak inspiratory flow occurs (tPIF_inh), total inhalation time (T), and inhaled volume during maneuver (V). Results and Conclusions: There are significant relationships between spirometric indices and parameters of inhalation through a low-resistance, cyclohaler-type DPI (assessed by single-factor analysis of Spearman's rank correlation coefficient). Multiple regression models were constructed, predicting inspiratory flow parameters (including spirometric indices, demographic parameters, and inhaler's usage history as determinants). The exhalation halfway to RV before inhalation did not affect significantly PIF_inh and tPIF_inh (and, thus, initial flow dynamics) in asthma patients. T and V parameters were then significantly decreased, but seemed sufficient for successful DPI performance. Both exhalation to RV and incomplete exhalation halfway to RV preceding inhalation allow for effective usage of low-resistance DPI.

Lung Deposition and Inspiratory Flow Rate in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Using Different Inhalation Devices: A Systematic Literature Review and Expert Opinion

BACKGROUND

Our aim was to describe: 1) lung deposition and inspiratory flow rate; 2) main characteristics of inhaler devices in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to analyze the features and results of inhaler devices in COPD patients. These devices included pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs), dry powder inhalers (DPIs), and a soft mist inhaler (SMI). Inclusion and exclusion criteria were established, as well as search strategies (Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to April 2019). In vitro and in vivo studies were included. Two reviewers selected articles, collected and analyzed data independently. Narrative searches complemented the SLR. We discussed the results of the reviews in a nominal group meeting and agreed on various general principles and recommendations.

RESULTS

The SLR included 71 articles, some were of low-moderate quality, and there was great variability regarding populations and outcomes. Lung deposition rates varied across devices: 8%-53% for pMDIs, 7%-69% for DPIs, and 39%-67% for the SMI. The aerosol exit velocity was high with pMDIs (more than 3 m/s), while it is much slower (0.84-0.72 m/s) with the SMI. In general, pMDIs produce large-sized particles (1.22-8 μm), DPIs produce medium-sized particles (1.8-4.8 µm), and 60% of the particles reach an aerodynamic diameter <5 μm with the SMI. All inhalation devices reach central and peripheral lung regions, but the SMI distribution pattern might be better compared with pMDIs. DPIs' intrinsic resistance is higher than that of pMDIs and SMI, which are relatively similar and low. Depending on the DPI, the minimum flow inspiratory rate required was 30 L/min. pMDIs and SMI did not require a high inspiratory flow rate.

CONCLUSION

Lung deposition and inspiratory flow rate are key factors when selecting an inhalation device in COPD patients.

Peak Inspiratory Flow Rate in COPD: An Analysis of Clinical Trial and Real-World Data

Background

The influence of peak inspiratory flow (PIF) on dose delivery from dry powder inhalers (DPIs) and association with treatment efficacy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has not been fully determined. In vitro studies have demonstrated adequate dose delivery through ELLIPTA DPI at PIF ≥30 L/min. This analysis of two clinical trials and a real-world population of COPD patients determined spirometric PIF distribution, and explored the relationship between PIF and outcomes in the trials.

Methods

The replicate Phase IV, 12-week, randomized, double-blind 207608/207609 (NCT03478683/NCT03478696) trials evaluated fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol via ELLIPTA DPI versus budesonide/formoterol+tiotropium in COPD patients. This post hoc analysis assessed spirometric PIF distribution at screening and relationship between PIF and lung function outcomes in the pooled 207608/207609 population. Spirometric PIF distributions in a real-world population of COPD patients were evaluated by retrospective analysis of the Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW) database to assess similarities between clinical trial and real-world populations.

Results

A total of 1460 (207608/207609) and 3282 (KPNW) patients were included. There was considerable overlap between spirometric PIF distributions for both populations. Overall, 99.7% and 99.8% of the 207608/207609 and KPNW populations, respectively, reported spirometric PIF ≥50 L/min, estimated as equivalent to ELLIPTA PIFR ≥30 L/min. In the 207608/207609 combined analysis, there was no significant interaction between spirometric PIF and treatment for lung function endpoints, indicating treatment effect is independent of PIF.

Conclusion

Nearly all COPD patients in the 207608/207609 and KPNW populations achieved spirometric PIF values estimated as equivalent to PIFR of ≥30 L/min through the ELLIPTA DPI. Lack of correlation between spirometric PIF at screening and treatment efficacy aligns with consistent dose performance from the ELLIPTA DPI across a wide range of PIFs, achieved by patients with COPD of all severities.

Patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can generate sufficient inspiratory flows via Easyhaler® dry powder inhaler: a pooled analysis of two randomized controlled trials

Background

To 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).

Methods

A 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.

Results

The 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.

Conclusions

Over 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.

Evaluation of Suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow in Patients with Stable COPD

Objective: Although the importance of assessing inspiratory flow in the selection of treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is understood, evaluation of this factor is not yet widespread or standardized. The objective of the present work was to evaluate the peak inspiratory flow (PIF) of patients with COPD and to explore the variables associated with a suboptimal PIF. Methods: An observational, cross-sectional study was carried out at specialized nursing consultations over a period of 6 months. We collected clinical data as well as data on symptoms, treatment adherence, and patient satisfaction with their inhalers via questionnaires. PIF was determined using the In-Check Dial G16^® device (Clement Clarke International, Ltd., Harlow, UK). In each case, the PIF was considered suboptimal when it was off-target for any of the prescribed inhalers. The association with suboptimal PIF was evaluated using multivariate logistic regression and the results were expressed as the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: A total of 122 COPD patients were included in this study, of whom 34 (27.9%) had suboptimal PIF. A total of 229 inhalers were tested, of which 186 (81.2%) were dry powder devices. The multivariate analysis found an association between suboptimal PIF and age (OR = 1.072; 95% CI (1.019, 1.128); p = 0.007) and forced vital capacity (OR = 0.961; 95% CI (0.933, 0.989); p = 0.006). Conclusions: About a third of patients in complex specialized COPD care have suboptimal PIFs, which is related to age and forced vital capacity.

Switching Inhalers: A Practical Approach to Keep on UR RADAR

The choice of an inhaler device is often as important as the medication put in it to achieve optimal outcomes for our patients with asthma and/or COPD. With a multitude of drug–device combinations available, optimization of respiratory treatment could well be established by switching devices rather than changing or even augmenting pharmacological or non-pharmacological therapies. Importantly, while notable between-device differences in release mechanism, particle size, drug deposition and required inspiratory flow exist, a patient uncomfortable with their device is unlikely to use it regularly and certainly will not use it properly. Switching requires a careful process and should not be done without patient consent. Switching devices entails several steps that need to be considered, which can be guided using the UR-RADAR mnemonic. It starts with (i) UncontRolled asthma/COPD (or UnaffoRdable device), followed by RADAR: (ii) review the patient’s condition (e.g. diagnosis, phenotype, co-morbidities) and address reasons for suboptimal control (e.g. triggers, smoking, non-adherence, poor inhaler technique) to be ruled out before switching; (iii) assess patient’s skills related to inhalation (e.g. inspiratory force); (iv) discuss inhaler switch options, patient preferences (e.g. size, daily regimen) and treatment goals; (v) allow patients input and use shared decision-making to decide final treatment choice, acknowledging individual patient skills, preferences and goals; and (vi) re-educate to the new device (at minimum, physical demonstration, verbal explanation and patient repetition, both verbally and physically) and prime the patient for the follow-up (i.e. explain the future patient journey, including multidisciplinary work flows with physicians, nurses and pharmacists).

Effect of Age on the Efficacy and Safety of Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple-Therapy Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Patients With COPD: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Informing the Pathway of COPD Treatment Trial

BACKGROUND

In the Informing the Pathway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) trial, single-inhaler triple-therapy fluticasone furoate (FF), umeclidinium (UMEC), and vilanterol (VI) reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates vs FF/VI and UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations, with a similar safety profile.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Are trial outcomes with single-inhaler triple-therapy FF/UMEC/VI vs FF/VI and UMEC/VI affected by age in patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

IMPACT was a phase III, double-blind, 52-week trial. Patients ≥ 40 years of age with symptomatic COPD and ≥ 1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the previous year were randomly assigned 2:2:1 to FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 μg, FF/VI 100/25 μg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg. End points assessed by age included annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations, change from baseline (CFB) in trough FEV₁, proportion of St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) responders (≥ 4 units decrease from baseline in SGRQ total score), and safety.

RESULTS

The intention-to-treat population comprised 10,355 patients; 4,724 (46%), 4,225 (41%), and 1,406 (14%) were ≤ 64, 65 to 74, and ≥ 75 years of age, respectively. FF/UMEC/VI reduced on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rates vs FF/VI (% reduction [95% CI]: ≤ 64 years, 8% [-1 to 16]; P = .070; 65-74 years, 22% [14-29]; P < .001; ≥ 75 years, 18% [3-31]; P = .021) and vs UMEC/VI (≤ 64 years, 16% [7-25]; P = .002; 65-74 years, 33% [25-41]; P < .001; ≥ 75 years, 24% [6-38]; P = .012), with greatest rate reduction seen in the 65 to 74 and ≥ 75 years subgroups. Post hoc analyses of CFB in trough FEV₁ and proportion of SGRQ responders at week 52 were significantly greater with FF/UMEC/VI than with FF/VI or UMEC/VI in all subgroups. No new safety signals were identified.

INTERPRETATION

FF/UMEC/VI reduced the rate of moderate/severe exacerbations and improved lung function and health status vs FF/VI and UMEC/VI irrespective of age for most end points, with a similar safety profile.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02164513; URL: www.clinicaltrials.govCTT116855.

Inhaler devices in asthma and COPD patients - a prospective cross-sectional study on inhaler preferences and error rates

Background

Inhalation therapy is the backbone of asthma and COPD control. However, inhaler adherence and device mishandling continue to be a problem in real life. Some studies have shown that using a patient-preferred inhaler may reduce device handling errors and improve adherence to prescribed chronic inhaler drug therapy. The aim of this study was to compare the preferences for commonly used inhaler devices in Germany in patients with chronic obstructive respiratory disease. We also pursued the question which properties of an inhaler device are particularly important to the user and what effects age, gender and type of disease (asthma or COPD) may have on device preference and handling errors.

Methods

Prospective, open-label cross-sectional study in which 105 patients with asthma (58%) or COPD (42%) participated. Validated checklists were used to objectively assess inhaler technique and errors with 10 different placebo devices. For each device, patients were asked to test the handling, to assess the device properties and to name the device that they would most or least prefer.

Results

Across the 10 placebo inhaler devices tested, patients needed an average of 1.22 attempts to error-free use. The device with the lowest mean number of attempts was the Turbohaler® (1.02), followed by the Nexthaler® (1.04), the Diskus® (1.07) and the Spiromax® (1.10). Patients over 60 years vs. younger age (p = 0.002) and COPD vs. asthma patients (p = 0.016) required more attempts to ensure correct use. 41% of the study participants chose one of the devices they already used as the most preferred inhaler. Overall, 20% opted for the Spiromax®, 15% for the Nexthaler® and 14% for the Turbohaler® or a pMDI. The least preferred device was the Elpenhaler® (0%). From a selection of 7 predefined inhaler attributes, patients stated easy handling as the most important for them. This was followed by short inhalation time and low inhalation resistance.

Conclusions

Patient preference may vary between inhaler devices. The lowest number of attempts to error-free use was reported for the Turbohaler® and the Nexthaler®. The Spiromax® and the Nexthaler® achieved the best overall ratings and were the devices most preferred by patients.

Prevalence and predictors of suboptimal peak inspiratory flow rate in COPD patients

The aim of this study was to determine prevalence and possible clinical predictors of suboptimal peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) with different dry powder inhalers. PIFR was measured across all resistance ranges of In-Check Dial® in 180 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) subjects before hospital discharge. COPD subjects were defined as suboptimal if measured PIFR was suboptimal with any resistance representative of specific inhalers (R1-R5). Demographics and clinical data were collected, including COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) scores, Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) stage spirometry by Spirodoc® and peak flow meter measurements with portable peak inspiratory and expiratory flow meters. All were correlated with In-Check Dial PIFRs. Suboptimal PIFR was 44.44% prevalent in COPD subjects. 55% of the suboptimal cohort was female which represent 57.14% of the total female population in the study. The distribution of suboptimal PIFR included 43.75% with R1, 67.5% with R2, 100% with R3, 13.75% with R4, and 21.25% with R5. In the suboptimal cohort, CAT score was significantly higher and spirometry demonstrated significantly lower lung function results compared to the optimal cohort (p < 0.05). The only parameter to show strong and moderate correlation with In-Check Dial PIFRs was PIFR measured by peak flow meter (p < 0.001). Suboptimal PIFR is common among COPD subjects at hospital discharge. Female gender and peak flow meter PIFR was the only predictor of suboptimal PIFR. Inhaler therapy for COPD patients must be personalized based on simple routine measurement of In-Check Dial PIFRs or peak flow meter PIFR to optimize clinical benefits .

Can medicines development improve outcomes in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease management by driving effectiveness?

Despite the availability of treatment guidelines and inhaled medications for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), much remains to be done to lessen the burden of these respiratory diseases for patients. The challenge of selecting effective and efficacious drugs for patients is a key focus area for healthcare professionals. Here we discuss the concept of "drivers of effectiveness"- features of a medicine which may increase or decrease its effectiveness in the presence of real-world factors - and highlight the importance of considering these drivers in the early stages of drug development, and exploring their impact in carefully designed pragmatic trials. Using the Salford Lung Studies (SLS) in asthma and COPD as an illustrative example, we discuss various features of the inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist combination, fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI), as potential drivers of effectiveness that may have contributed to the improved patient outcomes observed with initiation of FF/VI versus continuation of usual care in the UK primary care setting.

Inhaler Devices for Delivery of LABA/LAMA Fixed-Dose Combinations in Patients with COPD

Inhaled fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of a long-acting β-agonist (LABA) and a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) have become the cornerstone for the maintenance treatment of symptomatic COPD patients. In this regard, global COPD treatment guidelines have recognized the importance of inhaler devices as integral contributors to the effectiveness of LABA/LAMA FDCs and recommend regular assessment of inhaler device use by the patients in order to improve long-term clinical outcomes. Optimal disease control is also highly dependent upon patient preferences and adherence to inhaler devices. This review objectively examines and compares the major inhaler devices used to deliver different LABA/LAMA FDCs, discusses the inhaler device characteristics that determine drug deposition in the airways, real-life preference for inhaler devices, and handling of inhaler devices that impact the results of the long-term management of COPD. The introduction of new LABA/LAMA FDCs, new inhaler devices, and more clinical studies have created confusion among physicians in choosing the optimal inhaled therapy for COPD patients; in this context, this review attempts to provide an evidence-based framework for informed decision-making with a particular focus on the inhaler devices.Funding. The preparation of this manuscript was funded by Novartis Pharma AG.

Efficacy and safety of the dual bronchodilator combination umeclidinium/vilanterol in COPD by age and airflow limitation severity: A pooled post hoc analysis of seven clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and those with more severe airway limitation are perceived to experience reduced efficacy from inhaled bronchodilators, especially those administered in a dry powder inhaler. This study compared the efficacy and safety of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β₂-agonist dry powder combination in elderly patients with COPD and patients with moderate-to-very severe airflow limitation.

METHODS

This post hoc pooled analysis of seven randomized studies of ≥12 weeks' duration investigated the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25 μg versus tiotropium (TIO) 18 μg or fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) 250/50 μg. Change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), a common efficacy measure in all trials, proportion of FEV₁ responders (≥100 mL increase from baseline) and safety outcomes were analyzed at Day 28, 56, and 84 in patients classified by age (<65, ≥65, and ≥75 years of age) and severity of baseline airflow limitation (Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease [GOLD] stage 2 [moderate] and stage 3/4 [severe/very severe]). A 24-week analysis was also conducted for the UMEC/VI versus TIO comparison.

RESULTS

The pooled intent-to-treat population comprised 3821 patients (≥65 years: 44-45%; ≥75 years: 9-10%; GOLD stage 3/4: 50-55%); 2246, 874, and 701 patients received UMEC/VI, TIO, or FP/SAL, respectively. Significant improvements in trough FEV₁ at Day 84 were observed with UMEC/VI versus TIO or FP/SAL irrespective of age (all p ≤ 0.029) or GOLD stage (all p < 0.001). The proportion of FEV₁ responders at Day 84 was significantly greater with UMEC/VI versus TIO or FP/SAL across all age groups (all p ≤ 0.016) and GOLD stages (all p < 0.001). Safety profiles were similar between treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

UMEC/VI consistently demonstrated improved lung function versus TIO and FP/SAL across age and airflow limitation severity subgroups, with no safety concerns, indicating that UMEC/VI provides no loss in efficacy or additional safety concerns for both elderly patients with COPD and patients with severe/very severe airway limitation.

Randomized dose-finding study of batefenterol via dry powder inhaler in patients with COPD

Background

Batefenterol is a novel bifunctional muscarinic antagonist β₂-agonist in development for COPD. The primary objective of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, active comparator, Phase IIb study was to model the dose–response of batefenterol and select a dose for Phase III development.

Patients and methods

Patients aged ≥40 years with COPD and FEV₁ ≥30% and ≤70% predicted normal were randomized equally to batefenterol 37.5, 75, 150, 300, or 600 µg, placebo, or umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25 µg once daily. The primary and secondary endpoints were weighted-mean FEV₁ over 0–6 hours post-dose and trough FEV₁, analyzed by Bayesian and maximum likelihood estimation E_max of dose–response modeling, respectively, on day 42.

Results

In the intent-to-treat population (N=323), all batefenterol doses demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvements from baseline vs placebo in the primary and secondary endpoints (191.1–292.8 and 182.2–244.8 mL, respectively), with a relatively flat dose–response. In the subgroup reversible to salbutamol, there were greater differences between batefenterol doses. Lung function improvements with batefenterol ≥150 µg were comparable with those with UMEC/VI. Batefenterol was well tolerated and no new safety signals were observed.

Conclusion

Batefenterol 300 µg may represent the optimal dose for Phase III studies.

Prevalence and factors associated with suboptimal peak inspiratory flow rates in COPD

Purpose

Adequate peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) is required for drug dispersion with dry powder inhalers (DPIs). Prevalence of PIFR discordance (suboptimal PIFR with prescribed inhalers) and factors influencing device-specific PIFR are unclear in COPD. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of PIFR discordance and associated clinical factors in a stable COPD population.

Patients and methods

An observational, single-center, cohort study was conducted including 66 outpatients with COPD. PIFR was measured using the In-Check™ Dial with applied resistance of prescribed inhalers. Participants were defined as discordant if measured PIFR was <30 L/min and <60 L/min for high and low–medium resistance devices, respectively, using an inspiratory effort the participant normally used with their prescribed DPI.

Results

The median age of the COPD participants was 69.4 years, 92% were white and 47% were female. A total of 48% were using low–medium resistance DPIs (Diskus^®/Ellipta^®) and 76% used high-resistance DPI (Handihaler^®). A total of 40% of COPD participants were discordant to prescribed inhalers. Female gender was the only factor consistently associated with lower PIFR. Shorter height was associated with reduced PIFR for low–medium resistance (r=0.44; P=0.01), but not high resistance (r=0.20; P=0.16). There was no correlation between PIFR by In-Check™ dial and PIFR measured by standard spirometer.

Conclusion

PIFR is reduced in stable COPD patients, with female gender being the only factor consistently associated with reduced PIFR. Discordance with prescribed inhalers was seen in 40% of COPD patients, suggesting that many COPD patients do not generate adequate inspiratory force to overcome prescribed DPIs resistance in the course of normal use.

The Ellipta® in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: device characteristics and patient acceptability

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are primarily treated with inhaled medication, but delivery of that medication to its site of action is problematic; patients' ability to use inhalers will affect therapeutic response. Multiple inhaler devices are available but they are variably easy to use with consequent effects on compliance, intentional or otherwise. The Ellipta^® device is a novel blister strip dry powder inhaler with medium resistance and a consistent delivered dose across a range of inspiratory flow rates. The Ellipta has proven easy to use and is preferred by patients across several evaluations and compared with other inhaler devices. The Ellipta is used to administer multiple inhaled medications, all in single daily-dose regimens, making it ideal for patients who struggle with complex inhaled therapy regimens.

New developments in optimizing bronchodilator treatment of COPD: a focus on glycopyrrolate/formoterol combination formulated by co-suspension delivery technology

COPD causes considerable health and economic burden worldwide, with incidence of the disease expected to continue to rise. Inhaled bronchodilators, such as long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs), are central to the maintenance treatment of patients with COPD. Clinical studies have demonstrated that combined LAMA + LABA therapies improve efficacy while retaining a safety profile similar to LAMA or LABA alone. This has led to the development of several LAMA/LABA fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapies, which provide patients with the convenience of two active compounds in a single inhaler. GFF MDI (Bevespi Aerosphere®) is an FDC of glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate 18/9.6 µg formulated using innovative co-suspension delivery technology for administration via metered dose inhaler (MDI). GFF MDI was developed to make a treatment option available for patients who have a requirement or preference to use an MDI, rather than a dry powder or soft mist inhaler. Now that several LAMA/LABA FDCs have been approved for use in COPD, we review the impact of dual-bronchodilator treatment on COPD therapy and discuss recent clinical studies that are helping to develop a more comprehensive understanding of how LAMA/LABA FDCs can improve patient outcomes.

Efficacy of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Elderly Patients with COPD: A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this pooled analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25 µg dual bronchodilation versus placebo in elderly symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

We conducted a post hoc pooled analysis of data from 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Change from baseline (CFB) in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), proportion of FEV₁ responders (≥ 100-mL increase from baseline), and safety were analyzed in patients aged < 65, ≥ 65, and ≥ 75 years on Days 28, 56, and 84 (12-week analysis of parallel-group design studies), Days 28, 56, 84, 112, 140, 168, and 169 (24-week analysis of parallel-group design studies), and Days 2, 42, and 84 (12-week analysis of crossover design studies).

RESULTS

The UMEC/VI intent-to-treat (ITT) populations comprised 2246, 1296, and 472 patients in the 12-week parallel-group, 24-week parallel-group, and 12-week crossover analysis, respectively (≥ 65 years: 36-44%; ≥ 75 years: 7-11%). The placebo ITT populations comprised 528, 280, and 505 patients, respectively (≥ 65 years: 37-41%; ≥ 75 years: 5-11%). Significant improvements in trough FEV₁ and significantly greater proportions of FEV₁ responders were seen with UMEC/VI compared with placebo in all analyses regardless of patient age or timepoint considered (p ≤ 0.023), except Day 84 trough FEV₁ CFB in the 12-week crossover analysis in patients aged ≥ 75 years (p = 0.064). UMEC/VI safety profile was similar to placebo in all age groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this pooled analysis of RCT data, once-daily UMEC/VI was well tolerated and provided clinically significant lung function benefits compared with placebo in younger and older patients with COPD.

FUNDING

GlaxoSmithKline (study 208125).

Comparison of peak inspiratory flow rate via the Breezhaler®, Ellipta® and HandiHaler® dry powder inhalers in patients with moderate to very severe COPD: a randomized cross-over trial

BACKGROUND

The 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.

METHODS

This 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.

RESULTS

In 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.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients 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 REGISTRATION

The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02596009 on 4 November 2015.

Maintenance inhaler preference, attribute importance, and satisfaction in prescribing physicians and patients with asthma, COPD, or asthma-COPD overlap syndrome consulting for routine care

Background

In respiratory disorders, patient- and physician-perceived satisfaction with the maintenance inhaler device is an important factor driving treatment compliance and outcomes. We examine inhaler preferences in asthma and COPD from patient and physician perspectives, particularly focusing on the relative importance of individual device attributes and patient characteristics guiding inhaler choice.

Materials and methods

Real-world data from >7,300 patients with asthma, COPD, or asthma–COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS) consulting for routine care were derived from respiratory Disease Specific Programs conducted in Europe, USA, Japan, and China. Outcome variables included current pattern of inhaled maintenance therapy and device type, physician preference, patient-reported device attribute importance, and satisfaction.

Results

The most commonly prescribed inhalers for maintenance therapy of asthma, COPD, and ACOS were dry powder inhalers (62.8%–88.5% of patients) and pressurized metered dose inhalers (18.9%–35.3% of patients). One-third of physicians stated no preference for maintenance device when prescribing treatment, and less than one-third of patients reported being “extremely satisfied” with any attribute of their device. Instructions being “simple and easy to follow” was the inhaler attribute most commonly selected as important. For approximately one-third of patients across all groups, “ease of use/suitability of inhaler device” was a reason for the prescribing decision, as stated by the physician. Device characteristics were more likely to impact the prescribing decision in older patients (in asthma and COPD; P<0.01) and those with worse disease severity (in COPD; P<0.001).

Conclusion

A relatively high proportion of physicians had no preference for inhaler type across asthma, COPD, and ACOS. Simplicity of use was the most important inhaler attribute from a patient’s perspective. Physicians appeared to place most importance on ease of use and device suitability when selecting inhalers for older patients and those with more severe disease, particularly in COPD.

Estimation of inhalation flow profile using audio-based methods to assess inhaler medication adherence

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients are required to inhale forcefully and deeply to receive medication when using a dry powder inhaler (DPI). There is a clinical need to objectively monitor the inhalation flow profile of DPIs in order to remotely monitor patient inhalation technique. Audio-based methods have been previously employed to accurately estimate flow parameters such as the peak inspiratory flow rate of inhalations, however, these methods required multiple calibration inhalation audio recordings. In this study, an audio-based method is presented that accurately estimates inhalation flow profile using only one calibration inhalation audio recording. Twenty healthy participants were asked to perform 15 inhalations through a placebo Ellipta™ DPI at a range of inspiratory flow rates. Inhalation flow signals were recorded using a pneumotachograph spirometer while inhalation audio signals were recorded simultaneously using the Inhaler Compliance Assessment device attached to the inhaler. The acoustic (amplitude) envelope was estimated from each inhalation audio signal. Using only one recording, linear and power law regression models were employed to determine which model best described the relationship between the inhalation acoustic envelope and flow signal. Each model was then employed to estimate the flow signals of the remaining 14 inhalation audio recordings. This process repeated until each of the 15 recordings were employed to calibrate single models while testing on the remaining 14 recordings. It was observed that power law models generated the highest average flow estimation accuracy across all participants (90.89±0.9% for power law models and 76.63±2.38% for linear models). The method also generated sufficient accuracy in estimating inhalation parameters such as peak inspiratory flow rate and inspiratory capacity within the presence of noise. Estimating inhaler inhalation flow profiles using audio based methods may be clinically beneficial for inhaler technique training and the remote monitoring of patient adherence.

Peak Inspiratory Flow Rate in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Implications for Dry Powder Inhalers

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the third leading cause of death in the United States with a significant economic burden related to hospital admissions for exacerbations. One of the primary treatment modalities for COPD is medications delivered through breath-actuated dry powdered inhalers (DPIs). For users to successfully receive inhaled medication, they must inhale with enough flow to overcome the internal resistance of the device, leading to deaggregation of the medication powder. Peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) is the maximal flow rate obtained during an inspiratory maneuver. PIFR measurement can be impacted by the internal resistance of the device, which varies with device design. Many devices require a PIFR >60 L/min for adequate medication dispersal, while others appear to have adequate drug deaggregation with a PIFR >30 L/min. Studies have shown PIFRs are reduced among females and decrease with age, without a clear correlation between forced expiratory volume in 1 second and PIFR. PIFR can be reduced at the time of COPD exacerbation. Recent data suggest that reduced PIFR may be associated with worse COPD-related symptom burden, increased odds of COPD-related hospital readmissions, and improved responsiveness to nebulized therapy. This review article aims to examine the physiology and clinical correlations of PIFR, as well as review published studies related to PIFR with DPIs used to treat COPD.

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

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are heterogeneous airway diseases associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Pharmacological treatment is delivered primarily through the inhalation route using various devices. Optimal disease control is highly dependent upon patient adherence. Both patients with asthma and COPD are prone to exacerbations leading to hospitalization, which can significantly impact quality of life. Poor adherence is a complex and multifactorial problem that does not have one simple solution. However, it is the biggest risk factor for exacerbations and consequently high healthcare utilization. This review discusses the complex and multifactorial obstacles that impact patient adherence as well as the effect on overall treatment outcomes and healthcare utilization. We also critically examined and compared relatively recent improvements in breath-activated pressurized metered dose inhalers, dry powder inhalers, and e-technology in asthma and COPD. Finally, future treatment strategies for better patient compliance such as personalized medicine and the importance of decision-making between patients and physicians were highlighted.

Significance of breath-hold time in dry powder aerosol drug therapy of COPD patients

Aerosol drugs are effectively used to treat chronic respiratory diseases. The efficiency of the therapy depends also on the amount and distribution of drug deposited within the airways. The objective of this study is to apply numerical techniques to analyse the effect of the duration of breath-hold after the inhalation of six different commercialized dry powder drugs on their lung deposition. For this purpose a computational airway deposition model has been adapted and validated to the special case of therapeutic aerosols. Our results show that lung dose of the studied drugs can be enhanced by 11.3%-26.5% with a 5s breath-hold and by 20.7%-53% with a 25s breath-hold compared to the no-breath-hold case. Although this later duration may not be achieved by COPD patients, present results clearly show the importance of holding the breath as long as possible. Current computations also revealed that there is a strong positive correlation between the enhancement of lung dose as a result of breath-hold and the amount of fine particles in the drugs. Present tendencies aiming at producing drug particles of smaller and smaller sizes will lead to the further enhancement of the importance of producing a sufficiently long breath-hold time after the drug inhalation. In addition, higher lung deposition will be possible by the more correct use of inhalation devices, more precise and detailed patient information materials and personalized drug choice and therapy.

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

A number of new agents for the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are at different stages of development, including several inhaled long-acting antimuscarinics (LAMA). Long-acting bronchodilators are considered to be central to the management of COPD due to the evidence supporting their efficacy and safety. Umeclidinium, a LAMA, has recently been approved for the maintenance treatment of moderate to very severe COPD in a number of countries. This comprehensive review and pooled meta-analysis provides detailed information about the efficacy and safety of this agent. The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of umeclidinium observed in phase I and II studies support its once-daily administration. Umeclidinium is rapidly cleared from blood, and renal or hepatic impairment do not lead to significant changes in drug disposition. A pooled analysis of phase III and comparative studies of umeclidinium in patients with moderate to very severe COPD showed significant improvement in lung function measures, including trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), as well as in acute exacerbations of COPD, dyspnea, and quality of life. Adverse effects, including known anticholinergic effects, were uncommon with umeclidinium. Limited data suggest the efficacy of umeclidinium is similar to that of tiotropium. Umeclidinium is administered as a dry powder inhaler, provides adequate lung delivery in patients with moderate to very severe airflow obstruction, and appears to be easily used by patients. Umeclidinium provides a safe and effective option as an inhaled LAMA for the management of COPD.

Dose-response to inhaled glycopyrrolate delivered with a novel Co-Suspension™ Delivery Technology metered dose inhaler (MDI) in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD

BACKGROUND

This study forms part of the first complete characterization of the dose-response curve for glycopyrrolate (GP) delivered using Co-Suspension™ Delivery Technology via a metered dose inhaler (MDI). We examined the lower GP MDI dose range to determine an optimal dose for patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, chronic-dosing, balanced incomplete-block, placebo-controlled, crossover study compared six doses of GP MDI (18, 9, 4.6, 2.4, 1.2, and 0.6 μg, twice daily [BID]) with placebo MDI BID and open-label tiotropium dry powder inhaler (18 μg, once daily [QD]) in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Patients were randomized into 1 of 120 treatment sequences. Each sequence included 4 of 8 treatments administered for 14-day periods separated by 7- to 21-day washout periods. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s area under the curve from 0 to 12 h (FEV1 AUC0-12) on Day 14. Secondary efficacy endpoints included peak change from baseline (post-dose) in FEV1 and inspiratory capacity (IC) on Days 1, 7, and 14; change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough FEV1 on Days 7 and 14; change from baseline in 12-h post-dose trough FEV1 on Day 14; time to onset of action (≥10 % improvement in mean FEV1) and the proportion of patients achieving ≥12 % improvement in FEV1 on Day 1; and pre-dose trough IC on Days 7 and 14. Safety and tolerability were also assessed.

RESULTS

GP MDI 18, 9, 4.6, and 2.4 μg demonstrated statistically significant and clinically relevant increases in FEV1 AUC0-12 compared with placebo MDI following 14 days of treatment (modified intent-to-treat population = 120). GP MDI 18 μg was non-inferior to open-label tiotropium for peak change in FEV1 on Day 1 and morning pre-dose trough FEV1 on Day 14. All doses of GP MDI were well tolerated with no unexpected safety findings.

CONCLUSIONS

These efficacy and safety results support GP MDI 18 μg BID as the most appropriate dose for evaluation in Phase III trials in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01566773 . Registered 27 March 2012.

Clinically Relevant In Vitro Testing of Orally Inhaled Products-Bridging the Gap Between the Lab and the Patient

Current pharmacopeial methods for in vitro orally inhaled product (OIP) performance testing were developed primarily to support requirements for drug product registration and quality control. In addition, separate clinical studies are undertaken in order to quantify safety and efficacy in the hands of the patient. However, both laboratory and clinical studies are time-consuming and expensive and generally do not investigate either the effects of misuse or the severity of the respiratory disease being treated. The following modifications to laboratory evaluation methodologies can be incorporated without difficulty to provide a better linkage from in vitro testing to clinical reality: (1) examine all types of OIP with patient-representative breathing profiles which represent normal inhaler operation in accordance with the instructions for use (IFU); (2) evaluate OIP misuse, prioritizing the importance of such testing on the basis of (a) probability of occurrence and (b) consequential impact in terms of drug delivery in accordance with the label claim; and (3) use age-appropriate patient-simulated face and upper airway models for the evaluation of OIPs with a facemask. Although it is not necessarily foreseen that these suggestions would form part of future routine quality control testing of inhalers, they should provide a closer approximation to the clinical setting and therefore be useful in the preparation for in vivo studies and in improving guidance for correct use.