The capsule based DPI device is a low resistance device, suitable for use by patients with a wide range of COPD severities, delivering a consistent dose irrespective of disease severity and age. The device provided consistent delivery of indacaterol with no reported device failures in clinical trials.

For optimal efficacy, an inhaler should deliver doses consistently and be easy for patients to use with minimal instruction. The delivery characteristics, patients’ correct use, and preference of two single-dose dry powder inhalers (Breezhaler and HandiHaler) were evaluated in two complementary studies. The first study examined aerodynamic particle size distribution, using inhalation profiles of seven patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The second was an open-label, two-period, 7-day crossover study, evaluating use of the inhalers with placebo capsules by 82 patients with mild to severe COPD. Patients’ correct use of the inhalers was assessed after reading written instructions on Day 1, and after training and 7 days of daily use. Patients’ preference was assessed after completion of both study periods. Patient inhalation profiles showed average peak inspiratory flows of 72 L/minute through Breezhaler and 36 L/minute through HandiHaler. For Breezhaler and HandiHaler, fine particle fractions were 27% and 10%, respectively. In the second study, correct use of Breezhaler and HandiHaler was achieved by >77% of patients for any step after 7 days; 61% of patients showed an overall preference for Breezhaler and 31% for HandiHaler (P = 0.01).Breezhaler is a low-resistance inhaler suitable for use by patients with a range of disease severities. Most patients used both inhalers correctly after 7 days, but more patients showed an overall preference for the Breezhaler compared with the HandiHaler. These are important factors for optimum dose delivery and successful COPD management.

BackgroundThe chronic and progressive nature of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) requires self-administration of inhaled medication. Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) are increasingly being used for inhalation therapy in COPD. Important considerations when selecting DPIs include inhalation effort required and flow rates achieved by patients. Here, we present the comparison of the peak inspiratory flow rate (PIF) values achieved by COPD patients, with moderate to very severe airflow limitation, through the Breezhaler®, the Ellipta® and the HandiHaler® inhalers. The effects of disease severity, age and gender on PIF rate were also evaluated.MethodsThis randomized, open-label, multicenter, cross-over, Phase IV study recruited patients with moderate to very severe airflow limitation (Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease 2014 strategy), aged ≥40 years and having a smoking history of ≥10 pack years. No active drug or placebo was administered during the study. The inhalation profiles were recorded using inhalers fitted with a pressure tap and transducer at the wall of the mouthpiece. For each patient, the inhalation with the highest PIF value, out of three replicate inhalations per device, was selected for analysis. A paired t-test was performed to compare mean PIFs between each combination of devices.ResultsIn total, 97 COPD patients were enrolled and completed the study. The highest mean PIF value (L/min ± SE) was observed with the Breezhaler® (108 ± 23), followed by the Ellipta® (78 ± 15) and the HandiHaler® (49 ± 9) inhalers and the lowest mean pressure drop values were recorded with the Breezhaler® inhaler, followed by the Ellipta® inhaler and the HandiHaler® inhaler, in the overall patient population. A similar trend was consistently observed in patients across all subgroups of COPD severity, within all age groups and for both genders.ConclusionsPatients with COPD were able to inhale with the least inspiratory effort and generate the highest mean PIF value through the Breezhaler® inhaler when compared with the Ellipta® and the HandiHaler® inhalers. These results were similar irrespective of patients’ COPD severity, age or gender.Trial registrationThe trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02596009 on 4 November 2015. Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12890-018-0662-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Indacaterol is the first once-daily, long-acting β2-adrenergic agonist (LABA) approved for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Indacaterol was developed using a combination of informed drug design and molecular chemistry to generate a β2-adrenergic agonist with a fast onset and long duration of action, enabling once-daily dosing with an acceptable safety profile. Early preclinical studies with indacaterol demonstrated these characteristics, and this promising molecule was taken into clinical development, originally for asthma treatment. Subsequent safety concerns over LABA monotherapy in patients with asthma redirected indacaterol's development to centre on COPD, where a good evidence base and guideline recommendations for bronchodilator monotherapy existed. Clinical development was initially complicated by different inhaler devices and differing doses of indacaterol. Using a phase III innovative adaptive-design clinical trial (INHANCE), indacaterol 150 and 300 μg once-daily doses were selected to be taken forward into the phase III INERGIZE programme. This programme delivered placebo-controlled and active-comparator data, including comparisons with formoterol, tiotropium and salmeterol/fluticasone, as well as the use of indacaterol in combination with tiotropium. Together, these studies provided a comprehensive assessment of the benefit-risk profile of indacaterol, allowing for regulatory submission. Indacaterol was first approved at once-daily doses of 150 and 300 μg in the European Union in 2009, followed by 150 µg in Japan (2011) and China (2012), and 75 μg in the United States (2011). To date, indacaterol is approved and marketed in more than 100 countries worldwide for once-daily maintenance treatment of COPD.

No abstract