↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

A randomized, open-label, single-visit crossover study simulating triple-drug delivery with Ellipta compared with dual inhaler combinations in patients with COPD

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
Title
A randomized, open-label, single-visit crossover study simulating triple-drug delivery with Ellipta compared with dual inhaler combinations in patients with COPD
Published in
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, August 2018
DOI 10.2147/copd.s169060
Pubmed ID
Authors

Job van der Palen, Wendy Moeskops-van Beurden, Carolyn M Dawson, Wai-Yee James, Andrew Preece, Dawn Midwinter, Neil Barnes, Raj Sharma

Abstract

Administering maintenance COPD therapy with a combination of multiple inhalers may increase inhaler errors. This study evaluated the potential benefits of using a single Ellipta dry powder inhaler (DPI) compared with two combinations of DPIs commonly used to deliver triple maintenance therapy. Patients receiving inhaled COPD medication were enrolled in this multicenter, randomized, open-label, placebo-device, crossover study with a 2×2 complete block design (NCT0298218), which comprised two substudies: Ellipta vs Diskus + HandiHaler (substudy 1) or Turbuhaler + HandiHaler (substudy 2). Patients demonstrated inhaler use after reading the relevant patient information leaflet (PIL). A trained investigator assessed user errors (critical errors [errors likely to result in no or significantly reduced medication being inhaled] and overall errors). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients making ≥1 critical error after reading the PIL. The secondary endpoints included error rates during ≤2 reassessments following investigator instruction (if required), instruction time, and patient preference. After reading the PIL, significantly fewer patients made critical errors with Ellipta compared with Diskus + HandiHaler (9% [7/80] vs 75% [60/80], respectively; P<0.001) or Turbuhaler + HandiHaler (9% [7/79] vs 73% [58/79], respectively; P<0.001). The number of patients making overall errors was also lower with Ellipta vs tested inhaler combinations (P<0.001 for each substudy). The median instruction time needed for error-free use was shorter with Ellipta in substudies 1 and 2 (2.7 and 2.6 minutes, respectively) vs either combination (10.6 [Diskus + HandiHaler] and 11.3 minutes [Turbuhaler + HandiHaler], respectively). Significantly more patients preferred Ellipta over Diskus + HandiHaler or Turbuhaler + HandiHaler overall for taking their COPD medication (81% vs 9% and 84% vs 4%, respectively) and per the number of steps for taking their COPD medication (89% vs 8% and 91% vs 5%, respectively). Fewer patients with COPD made critical errors with the single DPI, and patients required less instruction time, compared with each dual DPI combination.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 13%
Other 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 30 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 35 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 September 2018.
All research outputs
#20,663,600
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#2,079
of 2,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#265,424
of 341,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#56
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,578 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,886 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.