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

Author(s): Ferguson GT(1), Ghafouri M, Dai L, Dunn LJ.

Affiliation(s): Author information: (1)Pulmonary Research Institute of Southeast Michigan, Livonia, MI 48152, USA. garytferguson@msn.com

Publication date & source: 2013, Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. , 8:139-50

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.