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

Pablo Altman, Luis Wehbe, Juergen Dederichs, Tadhg Guerin, Brian Ament, Miguel Cardenas Moronta, Andrea Valeria Pino, Pankaj Goyal, Pablo Altman, Luis Wehbe, Juergen Dederichs, Tadhg Guerin, Brian Ament, Miguel Cardenas Moronta, Andrea Valeria Pino, Pankaj Goyal

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Breezhaler®; Dry powder inhalers; Inspiratory effort; Peak inspiratory flow; Pressure drop.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was conducted according to the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study protocol was reviewed by the institutional review boards and ethics committees for each center (list included in Additional file 1). Written informed consent was obtained from each patient prior to performing any study related assessment.

Competing interests

The authors declared that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study design. *Sequence of testing via inhaler 1, 2 and 3 for each patient will depend on randomization
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Setup to record inhalation profile of patients

References

    1. Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management and Prevention of COPD, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD). 2017.
    1. Bonini M, Usmani OS. The importance of inhaler devices in the treatment of COPD. COPD Res Prac. 2015;1:9. doi: 10.1186/s40749-015-0011-0.
    1. Lavorini F, Mannini C, Chellini E, Fontana GA. Optimising inhaled pharmacotherapy for elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the importance of delivery devices. Drugs Aging. 2016;33(7):461–473. doi: 10.1007/s40266-016-0377-y.
    1. Dolovich MB, Ahrens RC, Hess DR, Anderson P, Dhand R, Rau JL, et al. Device selection and outcomes of aerosol therapy: evidence-based guidelines: American College of Chest Physicians/American College of Asthma, allergy, and immunology. Chest. 2005;127(1):335–371. doi: 10.1378/chest.127.1.335.
    1. Lenney J, Innes JA, Crompton GK. Inappropriate inhaler use: assessment of use and patient preference of seven inhalation devices. EDICI Respir Med. 2000;94(5):496–500. doi: 10.1053/rmed.1999.0767.
    1. Atkins PJ. Dry powder inhalers: an overview. Respir Care. 2005;50(10):1304–1312.
    1. Pedersen S, Steffensen G. Fenoterol powder inhaler technique in children: influence of inspiratory flow rate and breath-holding. Eur J Respir Dis. 1986;68(3):207–214.
    1. Labiris NR, Dolovich MB. Pulmonary drug delivery. Part II: the role of inhalant delivery devices and drug formulations in therapeutic effectiveness of aerosolized medications. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2003;56(6):600–612. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2125.2003.01893.x.
    1. Clark AR, Hollingworth AM. The relationship between powder inhaler resistance and peak inspiratory conditions in healthy volunteers--implications for in vitro testing. J Aerosol Med. 1993;6(2):99–110. doi: 10.1089/jam.1993.6.99.
    1. Dederichs JJ, Singh D, Pavkov R. Inspiratory flow profiles generated by patients with COPD through the Breezhaler® inhaler and other marketed dry powder inhalers. Poster presented at the Am J Respir Crit Care Med, American Thoracic Society International Conference, May 15–20, 2015, Denver, CO, USA, 2015. Vol. 191.
    1. Colthorpe P, Voshaar T, Kieckbusch T, Cuoghi E, Jauernig J. Delivery characteristics of a low-resistance dry-powder inhaler used to deliver the long-acting muscarinic antagonist glycopyrronium. J Drug Assess. 2013;2(1):11–16. doi: 10.3109/21556660.2013.766197.
    1. Mueller S, Haeberlin B. S. E. Comparison of performance characteristics for Foradil Aerolizer® and Foradil Concept1 (a new single dose dry powder inhaler) at different test flow rates. Resp Drug Deliv. 2008;3:67–678.
    1. Pavkov R, Singh D. Concept1 (a new single dose dry powder inhaler) peak inspiratory flow rate study with COPD patients. Resp Drug Deliv. 2008;3:683–686.
    1. Kuttler A, Dimke T. A novel biophysical simulation model of drug deposition implemented to predict and optimize QVA149 delivery to the lungs., American Thoracic Society International Conference, San Diego, CA, US, 16 May–21 May., 2014. Vol Abstract A3038.
    1. Pavkov R, Mueller S, Fiebich K, Singh D, Stowasser F, Pignatelli G, et al. Characteristics of a capsule based dry powder inhaler for the delivery of indacaterol. Curr Med Res Opin. 2010;26(11):2527–2533. doi: 10.1185/03007995.2010.518916.
    1. Molimard M, Raherison C, Lignot S, Balestra A, Lamarque S, Chartier A, et al. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation and inhaler device handling: real-life assessment of 2935 patients. Eur Respir J. 2017;49(2)
    1. Chapman KR, Fogarty CM, Peckitt C, Lassen C, Jadayel D, Dederichs J, et al. Delivery characteristics and patients’ handling of two single-dose dry-powder inhalers used in COPD. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2011;6:353–363.
    1. Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management and Prevention of COPD, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD). 2014.
    1. Chodosh S, Flanders JS, Kesten S, Serby CW, Hochrainer D, Witek TJ., Jr Effective delivery of particles with the HandiHaler dry powder inhalation system over a range of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease severity. J Aerosol Med. 2001;14(3):309–315. doi: 10.1089/089426801316970268.
    1. Phillip Krüger BE, Zier M, Greguletz R. Inspiratory flow resistance of marketed dry powder inhalers (DPI) Eur Respir J. 2014;2014(44):4635.
    1. Darba J, Ramirez G, Sicras A, Francoli P, Torvinen S, Sanchez-de la Rosa R. The importance of inhaler devices: the choice of inhaler device may lead to suboptimal adherence in COPD patients. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2015;10:2335–2345. doi: 10.2147/COPD.S90155.
    1. Hira D, Koide H, Nakamura S, Okada T, Ishizeki K, Yamaguchi M, et al. Assessment of inhalation flow patterns of soft mist inhaler co-prescribed with dry powder inhaler using inspiratory flow meter for multi inhalation devices. PLoS One. 2018;13(2):e0193082. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193082.
    1. Ibrahim M, Verma R, Garcia-Contreras L. Inhalation drug delivery devices: technology update. Med Devices (Auckl) 2015;8:131–139.
    1. Prime D, de Backer W, Hamilton M, Cahn A, Preece A, Kelleher D, et al. Effect of disease severity in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on inhaler-specific inhalation profiles through the ELLIPTA(R) dry powder inhaler. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv. 2015;28(6):486–497. doi: 10.1089/jamp.2015.1224.
    1. Mahler DA, Waterman LA, Gifford AH. Prevalence and COPD phenotype for a suboptimal peak inspiratory flow rate against the simulated resistance of the Diskus(R) dry powder inhaler. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv. 2013;26(3):174–179. doi: 10.1089/jamp.2012.0987.
    1. Price D, Chrystyn H. Concept review of dry powder inhalers: correct interpretation of published data. Multidiscip Respir Med. 2015;10:36. doi: 10.1186/s40248-015-0033-0.
    1. Behara SR, Larson I, Kippax P, Stewart P, Morton DA. Insight into pressure drop dependent efficiencies of dry powder inhalers. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2012;46(3):142–148. doi: 10.1016/j.ejps.2012.02.019.
    1. Ciciliani AM, Langguth P, Wachtel H. In vitro dose comparison of Respimat((R)) inhaler with dry powder inhalers for COPD maintenance therapy. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2017;12:1565-77.
    1. Wieshammer S, Dreyhaupt J. Dry powder inhalers: which factors determine the frequency of handling errors? Respiration. 2008;75(1):18-25.
    1. Brennan VK, Osman LM, Graham H, Critchlow A, Everard ML. True device compliance: the need to consider both competence and contrivance. Respir Med. 2005;99(1):97-102.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnere