Respiratory medicine · 2011
Dose counter performance of mometasone furoate/formoterol inhalers in subjects with asthma or COPD.
Клиническое исследование III фазыСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Weinstein Cindy, Staudinger Heribert, Scott Ian, Amar Niran J, LaForce Craig
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Consistent delivery of medication to treat asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is critical for disease control. Dose tracking may eliminate the possibility of sub-therapeutic dosing. This study evaluated the overall performance, including accuracy and ruggedness, of the mometasone furoate/formoterol (MF/F) metered-dose inhaler (MDI) with an integrated numerical dose-counting mechanism in adolescent and adult subjects (aged ≥ 12 y) with persistent asthma or COPD.
METHODS: In a phase III, open-label, single-arm, multicenter study, subjects demonstrating at least 90% compliance with MF/F during the screening period received twice daily MF/F MDI 100/10 μg with the integrated dose counter for 4 weeks. Accuracy and ruggedness of the dose counter were assessed by the overall discrepancy rate of subject-recorded actuations versus subject-recorded dose counter readings. Discrepancy rates for Counterstrip™, a manual counting method, were evaluated for reference. Compliance and ergonomic safety were also assessed.
RESULTS: The 233 subjects who used ≥ 90% of labeled actuations were included in the primary analysis. Of 26,317 total actuations, 33 dose counter discrepancies occurred (rate = 0.13/100 actuations), of which 13 were due to undercounting. In comparison, the Counterstrip discrepancy rate was 10-fold higher (1.34/100 actuations). Compliance with medication use, Counterstrip use, and e-diary recordings were all high (>98%). No new repetitive strain injuries or exacerbations of preexisting ergonomic injuries of the finger, hand, or arm were reported.
CONCLUSIONS: The MF/F MDI dose counter was accurate and rugged in subjects with asthma or COPD. No new repetitive strain injuries or exacerbations of existing ergonomic injuries were associated with inhaler use.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier = NCT00604500.
METHODS: In a phase III, open-label, single-arm, multicenter study, subjects demonstrating at least 90% compliance with MF/F during the screening period received twice daily MF/F MDI 100/10 μg with the integrated dose counter for 4 weeks. Accuracy and ruggedness of the dose counter were assessed by the overall discrepancy rate of subject-recorded actuations versus subject-recorded dose counter readings. Discrepancy rates for Counterstrip™, a manual counting method, were evaluated for reference. Compliance and ergonomic safety were also assessed.
RESULTS: The 233 subjects who used ≥ 90% of labeled actuations were included in the primary analysis. Of 26,317 total actuations, 33 dose counter discrepancies occurred (rate = 0.13/100 actuations), of which 13 were due to undercounting. In comparison, the Counterstrip discrepancy rate was 10-fold higher (1.34/100 actuations). Compliance with medication use, Counterstrip use, and e-diary recordings were all high (>98%). No new repetitive strain injuries or exacerbations of preexisting ergonomic injuries of the finger, hand, or arm were reported.
CONCLUSIONS: The MF/F MDI dose counter was accurate and rugged in subjects with asthma or COPD. No new repetitive strain injuries or exacerbations of existing ergonomic injuries were associated with inhaler use.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier = NCT00604500.