COPD patient satisfaction with ipratropium bromide/albuterol delivered via Respimat: a randomized, controlled study

tient satisfaction with ipratropium bromide/albuterol delivered via Respimat: a randomized, controlled study Original Research (325) Total Article Views Authors: Ferguson GT, Ghafouri M, Dai L, Dunn LJ Published Date March 2013 Volume 2013:8 Pages 139 - 150 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S38577 Received: 27 September 2012 Accepted: 30 November 2012 Published: 19 March 2013 Gary T Ferguson,1 Mo Ghafouri,2 Luyan Dai,2 Leonard J Dunn3 1Pulmonary Research Institute of Southeast Michigan, Livonia, MI, USA; 2Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Ridgefield, CT, USA; 3Clinical Research of West Florida, Inc, Clearwater, FL, USA Background: Ipratropium bromide/albuterol Respimat inhaler (CVT-R) was developed as an environmentally friendly alternative to ipratropium bromide/albuterol metered-dose inhaler (CVT-MDI), which uses a chlorofluorocarbon propellant. Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction, device usage, and long-term safety of CVT-R compared to CVT-MDI, and to the simultaneous administration of ipratropium bromide hydrofluoroalkane (HFA; I) and albuterol HFA (A) metered-dose inhalers as dual monotherapies (I + A). Design: This is a 48-week, open-label, randomized, active-controlled, parallel-group study (n = 470) comparing CVT-R to CVT-MDI and to I + A. Participants: Patients were at least 40 years of age, diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and current or exsmokers. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive: (1) CVT-R, one inhalation four times daily (QID); or (2) CVT-MDI, two inhalations QID; or (3) I + A two inhalations of each inhaler QID. Main measures: Patient Satisfaction and Preference Questionnaire (PASAPQ) performance score (primary endpoint) and adverse events. Key results: PASAPQ performance score was significantly higher (CVT-R versus CVT-MDI, 9.6; and CVT-R versus I + A, 6.2; both P < 0.001) when using CVT-R compared to CVT-MDI or I + A at all visits starting from week 3, while CVT-MDI and I + A treatment groups were similar. Time to first COPD exacerbation was slightly longer in the CVT-R group compared to the other treatment groups, although it did not reach statistical significance (CVT-R versus CVT-MDI, P = 0.57; CVT-R versus I + A, P = 0.22). Rates of withdrawal and patient refusal to continue treatment were lower in CVT-R compared with CVT-MDI and I + A groups (CVT-R versus CVT-MDI, P = 0.09; CVT-R versus I + A, P = 0.005). The percentage of patients reporting adverse events and serious adverse events was similar across all three treatment groups. Conclusion: CVT-R is an effective, environmentally friendly inhaler that provides patients with a high level of user satisfaction and may positively impact clinical outcomes while having no adverse impacts on patients using the device.