Patient perception of Breezhaler and Ellipta device feedback mechanisms in COPD: the ADVANTAGE study

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the ADVANTAGE study was to compare device-naive chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients' perception of the Breezhaler® and Ellipta® devices' feedback mechanisms of dose delivery confirmation. The secondary objective was to assess comfort with the inhalers' mouthpiece in terms of ease to form a tight seal around the mouthpiece. These objectives were achieved by using a novel, patient perception of inhaler questionnaire developed and tested during cognitive interviews of patients by Evidera, London, United Kingdom. METHODS: Ten COPD patients were interviewed to collect feedback on the interpretation, relevance and language of the questionnaire. This questionnaire was then used in ADVANTAGE to compare patients' perception (n = 100) of both devices. Patients completed the questionnaire after a single inhalation of placebo through each inhaler. RESULTS: Using the final questionnaire, patients reported being more confident of the feedback mechanism of Breezhaler than that of the Ellipta device (mean score 4.3 versus 3.6 respectively, estimated difference [95% CI]: 0.75 [0.51, 0.99], p < .0001). Patients also reported better comfort (ease to form a tight seal with the lips) with the Breezhaler mouthpiece than the Ellipta mouthpiece (mean score 4.3 versus 3.9 respectively, estimated difference [95% CI]: 0.41 [0.21, 0.61], p < .0001). There were no safety concerns associated with either device. CONCLUSION: COPD patients showed greater preference for the Breezhaler over the Ellipta inhaler for confidence of dose delivery and comfort of the mouthpiece. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02551224).

Tags
Data and Resources
To access the resources you must log in

This item has no data

Identity

Description: The Identity category includes attributes that support the identification of the resource.

Field Value
PID https://www.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.6138836.v1
PID https://www.doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2018.1464437
URL https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03007995.2018.1464437
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2018.1464437
URL https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29649916
URL https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29649916/
URL https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2018.1464437
URL https://academic.microsoft.com/#/detail/2797582051
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.6138836.v1
URL https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03007995.2018.1464437
URL http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/29649916
Access Modality

Description: The Access Modality category includes attributes that report the modality of exploitation of the resource.

Field Value
Access Right Restricted
Attribution

Description: Authorships and contributors

Field Value
Author Pablo Altman
Author Miguel A. Bergna
Author Gabriel R. Garcia
Author Tadhg Guerin
Author Andrea V. Pino
Author John L. Whiteford
Publishing

Description: Attributes about the publishing venue (e.g. journal) and deposit location (e.g. repository)

Field Value
Collected From Datacite; Crossref; Microsoft Academic Graph
Hosted By figshare; Current Medical Research and Opinion
Publication Date 2018-05-15
Publisher Taylor & Francis
Additional Info
Field Value
Language UNKNOWN
Resource Type Other literature type; Article
keyword FOS: Biological sciences
system:type publication
Management Info
Field Value
Source https://science-innovation-policy.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=dedup_wf_001::fca6521aa06bc71be634d1b2f4fabebb
Author jsonws_user
Last Updated 27 December 2020, 01:09 (CET)
Created 27 December 2020, 01:09 (CET)