Open Research Newcastle
Browse

A randomized, cross-over study comparing critical and overall errors, learning time, and preference of the ELLIPTA versus BREEZHALER dry powder inhalers in patients with asthma

Download (2.05 MB)
journal contribution
posted on 2025-05-10, 20:45 authored by Job van der Palen, David Slade, Sunita Rehal, Manish Verma, Maximilian Plank
Background: Many patients with asthma make errors using inhalers, affecting the amount of medication received. Previous evidence demonstrated that patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease make fewer critical errors with the ELLIPTA inhaler after reading the patient information leaflet (PIL) versus other dry powder inhalers. We assessed errors made by patients with asthma using placebo ELLIPTA or BREEZHALER inhalers. Methods: This randomized, multicenter, open-label placebo inhaler-handling study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04813354) with 2x2 complete block crossover design was conducted at three centers in the Netherlands and enrolled patients aged ≥18 years with mild-to-moderate asthma. Inclusion criteria were inhaler use for ≥12 weeks prior to enrollment and naivety to ELLIPTA and BREEZHALER inhalers. Patients were randomized to ELLIPTA or BREEZHALER inhaler first and were assessed for errors in use of both inhalers after 1) reading PIL instructions, 2) receiving further instruction from a healthcare professional (HCP) if they made an error. Results: 114 patients with asthma (57% female; mean age of 55.3 years) were assessed. After reading the PIL, 6% of patients made ≥1 critical error with ELLIPTA versus 26% with BREEZHALER (odds ratio [OR]: 0.11 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.01–0.40]; p < 0.001). With ELLIPTA, 27% of patients made ≥1 overall error after reading the PIL versus 41% with BREEZHALER (OR: 0.25 [95% CI: 0.03–0.74]; p = 0.005). Fewer patients required HCP instruction with ELLIPTA than BREEZHALER (25% versus 32%). Conclusions: Fewer patients made critical and overall errors using the ELLIPTA inhaler versus BREEZHALER after reading the PIL.

History

Journal title

Respiratory Medicine

Volume

205

Issue

December 2022

Article number

107031

Publisher

Elsevier

Language

  • en, English

College/Research Centre

College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing

School

School of Biomedical Sciences and Pharmacy

Rights statement

© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Usage metrics

    Publications

    Categories

    No categories selected

    Licence

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC