Critical Error Rates with the ELLIPTA Inhaler Compared with Other Dry-Powder Inhalers in Patients with COPD: An Open-Label, Low-Intervention Clinical Study

Wielders, Pascal; Palen, Job van der; Heyes, Logan; Midwinter, Dawn; Preece, Andrew; Collison, Kathryn; Barnes, NC; Sharma, Raj Kumar

doi:10.1164/ajrccm-conference.2019.199.1_meetingabstracts.a2437

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is important to note that no selection of patients based on their inhaler technique was conducted at screening and this low critical error rate may be due to patients having had extensive previous experience of using their inhaler. The low critical error rate contrasts with other studies where error rates have generally been higher, although the ELLIPTA inhaler has previously been associated with low critical error rates compared to other inhalers in patients with COPD [ 10 , 24 , 25 ].…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 75%

INTREPID: single- versus multiple-inhaler triple therapy for COPD in usual clinical practice

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionReal-world trial data comparing single- with multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) in COPD patients are currently lacking. The effectiveness of once-daily single-inhaler fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) and MITT were compared in usual clinical care.MethodsINTREPID was a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase IV effectiveness study comparing FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg via the ELLIPTA inhaler with a clinician's choice of any approved non-ELLIPTA MITT in usual COPD clinical practice in five European countries. Primary end-point was proportion of COPD Assessment Test (CAT) responders (≥2-unit decrease in CAT score from baseline) at week 24. Secondary end-points in a subpopulation included change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and percentage of patients making at least one critical error in inhalation technique at week 24. Safety was also assessed.Results3092 patients were included (FF/UMEC/VI n=1545; MITT n=1547). The proportion of CAT responders at week 24 was significantly greater with FF/UMEC/VI versus non-ELLIPTA MITT (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.13–1.51; p<0.001) and mean change from baseline in FEV1 was significantly greater with FF/UMEC/VI (77 mL versus 28 mL; treatment difference 50 mL, 95% CI 26–73 mL; p<0.001). The percentage of patients with at least one critical error in inhalation technique was low in both groups (FF/UMEC/VI 6%; non-ELLIPTA MITT 3%). Safety profiles, including incidence of pneumonia serious adverse events, were similar between treatments.ConclusionsIn a usual clinical care setting, treatment with once-daily single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI resulted in significantly more patients gaining health status improvement and greater lung function improvement versus non-ELLIPTA MITT.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 75%