Genuair®/Pressair® Inhaler in COPD: The Patient Perspective

Magnussen, H; Fyrnys, Beatrix; Greguletz, Roland

doi:10.1080/15412555.2019.1630807

Cited by 3 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…31 In another study, a breath-actuated and easy-to-use DPI had fewer critical errors that impeded delivery of sufficient doses of drugs and higher satisfaction leading to improved adherence and, consequently, more effective therapy. 32 Patients with asthma or COPD tend to change their inhaler if they are offered an inhaler that can be used accurately and easily during episodes of breathing difficulties and has easy preparation and dose counting. 33 In our study, there were no differences in preference in terms of ease, convenience, design, size, or grip because these characteristics did not differ between the two pMDIs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a qualitative study of new DPIs and other devices, participants with asthma and COPD had high levels of satisfaction with new DPIs because of ease of use, simplicity of operation, and the design of the mouthpiece, which may have positive implications for adherence to therapy [ 31 ]. In another study, a breath-actuated and easy-to-use DPI showed fewer critical errors that impeded delivery of sufficient doses of drugs and higher satisfaction leading to improved adherence and, consequently, more effective therapy [ 32 ]. Patients with asthma or COPD tend to switch to an inhaler that can be used accurately and easily during episodes of breathing difficulties and is easy to prepare and track the remaining number of doses [ 33 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Two pMDIs in Adult Asthmatics: A Randomized Double-Blind Double-Dummy Clinical Trial

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Only a few studies directly compared therapeutic efficacies and safety between two pressurized metered dose inhalers (pMDIs) in asthma. Objective: We compared asthma treatment outcomes, safety, and patient preferences between formoterol/beclomethasone (FORM/BDP), a pMDI with extra-fine particles, and formoterol/budesonide (FORM/BUD), another pMDI with non-extra-fine particles. Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, double-dummy parallel group study, 40 adult asthmatics were randomized to the FORM/BDP group (n = 18; active FORM/BDP and placebo FORM/BUD) or the FORM/BUD group (n = 22; active FORM/BUD and placebo FORM/BDP). During two visits (baseline and end of 8-week treatment), subjects were asked to answer questionnaires including asthma control test (ACT), asthma control questionnaires (ACQ), and Quality of Life Questionnaire for Adult Korean Asthmatics (QLQAKA). Lung function, compliance with inhaler, and skills in handling inhalers were also assessed.Results: Ten in the FORM/BDP group and fourteen in the FORM/BUD group completed follow-up visits. ACT, ACQ, QLQAKA (a primary outcome), and adverse events did not differ between two groups. We found that FEV1/FVC and FEF25-75 increased more in the FORM/BDP group than in the FORM/BUD group. Regarding preference, subjects responded that the flume velocity of FORM/BDP was higher, but more adequate than that of FORM/BUD. They also answered that FORM/BDP reached the trachea and bronchus and irritated them significantly more than FORM/BUD. Conclusion: pMDI with extra-fine particles may relieve small airway obstruction more than that with non-extra-fine particles despite no significant differences in overall treatment outcomes. Some asthmatics have a misconception that high flume velocity of pMDIs is adequate.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Two pMDIs in Adult Asthmatics: A Randomized Double-Blind Double-Dummy Clinical Trial

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, high patient satisfaction with the device's usability and high overall patient satisfaction have been previously reported. 11,12 Patients' satisfaction with the treatment translated into an intention to continue with aclidinium after the end of the study by more than 90% of the patients. High ratings of the device features were also reported in the study by Marth et al, 20 wherein about 80% of patients and physicians reported they intended to continue therapy after the study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The features of the device have been linked with fewer inhalation errors and high patient satisfaction. 11,12 The efficacy of aclidinium bromide in reducing exacerbations and improving lung function has been demonstrated in randomized placebo-controlled trials. [13][14][15][16][17] In a phase IIIb trial including moderate-to-severe COPD patients who were randomized to aclidinium, tiotropium, or placebo for 6 weeks, aclidinium demonstrated significant improvements compared to placebo in reducing the presence and severity of early-morning and night-time symptoms, and in improving activity limitation due to COPD symptoms.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Real-World Observational Study Examining the Impact of Aclidinium Bromide Therapy on the Quality of Life, Symptoms, and Activity Impairment of Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: The Greek ON-AIR Study

Κostikas

Vassilakopoulos

Tzanakis

et al. 2020

COPD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This multicenter, prospective, observational study aimed to supplement real-world evidence on the effects of aclidinium bromide on the quality of life (QoL), symptoms, and activity impairment of patients with COPD. Patients and Methods: Eligible patients were ≥40 years of age, newly initiated on aclidinium bromide as monotherapy or add-on therapy according to the product's approved label. Patient-reported COPD assessment test (CAT), the severity of symptoms and their impact on daily activities, and the features of the Genuair ® inhaler device were assessed at enrollment and at 12 weeks post-treatment onset. Results: Between 13 March 2015 and 29 January 2016, 285 eligible consenting patients (76.3% males; median age: 69.0 years; 26.0% newly diagnosed with COPD) were enrolled by 15 hospital-based respiratory medicine specialists in Greece. Aclidinium bromide was initiated as add-on therapy to other inhaled maintenance medications in 73.1% of evaluable patients. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) baseline CAT score decreased from 14.0 (9.0-20.0) to 10.0 (6.0-15.0) points (p<0.001) after 12 weeks of treatment, with 76.5% of the patients achieving a ≥2-point decrease. The severity of night-time and early-morning symptoms, assessed using a 5-point Likert-type scale, decreased from a median (IQR) of 1.0 (0.0-2.0) to 0.0 (0.0-1.0), and from 2.0 (1.0-2.0) to 1.0 (1.0-2.0), respectively (p<0.001 for both). In patients with paired data, the prevalence of at least moderate night-time symptoms, early-morning symptoms, and daily activity impairment decreased from 28.2% to 19.1%, from 63.6% to 34.2%, and from 59.5% to 38.7%, respectively (p<0.001 for all). Inhaler device features were assessed as "very good"/"good" by more than 90% of the patients. The adverse drug reaction rate was 1.4%. Conclusion: The study provides real-world evidence on the beneficial effects of aclidinium bromide on the patients' QoL, symptom severity, and daily activity impairment, which are complemented by a favorable safety profile and high patient satisfaction with the inhaler device.

show abstract

“…There are several means (mechanisms) to provide feedback to the patient on the use of the inhaler and the correctness of the inhalation administered. In this respect, 4 levels of technical refinement of currently used multi-dose DPIs can be distinguished (Table 3) [32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39]. Table 4 summarises the feedback systems in multi-dose DPIs [33,35,36,[40][41][42].…”

Section: Feedback Systems In Multi-dose Dry Powder Inhalersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feedback systems in multi-dose dry powder inhalers

Emeryk¹,

Janeczek²

2023

pdia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) are a large, highly diverse group of inhalation devices. DPIs differentiate the process of measuring the dose of the drug and preparing the inhaler for use, but also the way of transmitting and the scope of feedback on the inhalation process that the user receives. The functioning of simple and technologically advanced systems of feedback on the inhalation process in the most commonly used multi-dose DPIs is discussed. All these DPIs have a dose counter. Only three DPIs -Novolizer ® , Genuair ® and NEXThaler ® provide feedback to the patient in the form of auditory and visual signals confirming the correctness of the inhalation performed. This is important for the correct use of the inhaler, and thus for obtaining the expected therapeutic effects.

show abstract

Genuair^®/Pressair^® Inhaler in COPD: The Patient Perspective

Cited by 3 publications

References 35 publications

Comparison of Two pMDIs in Adult Asthmatics: A Randomized Double-Blind Double-Dummy Clinical Trial

Comparison of Two pMDIs in Adult Asthmatics: A Randomized Double-Blind Double-Dummy Clinical Trial

<p>A Real-World Observational Study Examining the Impact of Aclidinium Bromide Therapy on the Quality of Life, Symptoms, and Activity Impairment of Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: The Greek ON-AIR Study</p>

Feedback systems in multi-dose dry powder inhalers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About