SESSION TYPE: COPD Posters I
PRESENTED ON: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 at 01:30 PM - 02:30 PM
PURPOSE: In COPD, patient preference and satisfaction with their inhaler and proper inhaler technique may influence treatment outcomes. Patients often use their inhaler incorrectly, making critical errors that may result in receiving no drug or a suboptimal dose, leading to under-treatment of their disease. This study investigated patient preference, satisfaction and critical errors with Pressair™/Genuair® versus HandiHaler® after 2 weeks of daily use.
METHODS: This was an open-label, randomised, crossover, multicentre study in patients with COPD. Patients inhaled placebo through Pressair™/Genuair® and HandiHaler® daily for 2 weeks in addition to their current medication. Primary endpoint was the percentage of patients who preferred Pressair™/Genuair® after 2 weeks. Additional endpoints for each inhaler were overall patient satisfaction on a scale of 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied), percentage of patients making ≥1 critical errors and willingness to continue using each inhaler rated from 0 (not) to 100 (definitely). Data were analysed using Mainland-Gart’s test or ANOVA.
RESULTS: The ITT population included 105 patients. Significantly more patients indicated a preference for Pressair™/Genuair® versus HandiHaler® (79.1% versus 20.9%, respectively; p<0.0001) at study end. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher with Pressair™/Genuair® after 2 weeks (least squares mean: 4.6 versus 3.8 for HandiHaler®; p<0.0001), as was the percentage of patients ‘very satisfied’ with the inhaler (54.8% versus 19.0%, respectively; p<0.0001). After 2 weeks, 10.5% of patients using Pressair™/Genuair® and 26.7% of patients using HandiHaler® made ≥1 critical error (p<0.0001) and significantly more patients indicated a willingness to continue using Pressair™/Genuair® versus HandiHaler® (least squares mean: 84.0 versus 62.5, respectively; p<0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: More patients using Pressair™/Genuair® were ‘very satisfied’, made fewer critical errors and preferred Pressair™/Genuair® compared with HandiHaler®.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Pressair™/Genuair® was associated with higher patient preference, satisfaction and fewer critical inhaler errors than HandiHaler®, which are important considerations for physicians and patients as they can influence adherence and the effectiveness of treatment. This study was supported by Almirall S.A., Barcelona, Spain, and Forest Laboratories, Inc., New York, USA
DISCLOSURE: Job van der Palen: Other: Research sponsored by Almirall
Laura Padulles: Employee: Almirall SA
Beatriz Seoane: Employee: Almirall SA
Ludmyla Rekeda: Employee: Forest Research Institute
Esther Garcia Gil: Employee: Almirall SA
The following authors have nothing to disclose: Thomas Ginko, Axel Kroker, Paul van der Valk, Martijn Goosens
No Product/Research Disclosure InformationUniversity of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands