Clinical Trials Logo

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

NCT number NCT03114969
Other study ID # 204981
Secondary ID
Status Completed
Phase
First received
Last updated
Start date June 8, 2017
Est. completion date March 9, 2018

Study information

Verified date October 2020
Source GlaxoSmithKline
Contact n/a
Is FDA regulated No
Health authority
Study type Observational

Clinical Trial Summary

For effective drug delivery using inhalation route, it is important to use the inhalers correctly. This open-label study will evaluate the error rates during the use of ELLIPTA DPI, alone or in combination, in comparison with other DPIs. The study aims to provide clinical evidence in subjects with COPD that the reduced number of steps required to use the ELLIPTA DPI could result in fewer errors made by subjects, and therefore a more consistent treatment. Approximately 450 subjects prescribed with either of RELVAR® ELLIPTA, ANORO® ELLIPTA, INCRUSE® ELLIPTA, SYMBICORT® TURBUHALER®, SERETIDE® DISKUS®, SPIRIVA® HANDIHALER®, ULTIBRO® BREEZHALER® or SEEBRI® BREEZHALER will be included in the study and will have 2 clinical visits. At Visit 1, subjects will take their maintenance DPIs and the critical and overall errors made by subjects will be assessed. After the assessment, subjects will be instructed on correct use or informed of their correct use of their DPIs. The total duration of the study is approximately 6 weeks. ELLIPTA, SERETIDE and DISKUS are registered trademarks of the GSK group of companies. SYMBICORT and TURBUHALER are registered trademarks of the AstraZeneca group of companies. SPIRIVA and HANDIHALER are registered trademarks of Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals. ULTIBRO, BREEZHALER and SEEBRI are registered trademarks of the Novartis group of companies.


Recruitment information / eligibility

Status Completed
Enrollment 450
Est. completion date March 9, 2018
Est. primary completion date March 9, 2018
Accepts healthy volunteers No
Gender All
Age group 40 Years and older
Eligibility Inclusion Criteria: - Subjects with documented Physician's diagnosis of COPD, and currently receiving maintenance therapy. - Aged >=40 years of age at inclusion. - Using one of the maintenance therapies of interest for at least 3 months prior to inclusion on the study. - Males or females. - Capable of giving signed informed consent, which includes compliance with the requirements and restrictions listed in the consent form and in the protocol. Exclusion Criteria: - Asthma: Subjects with a current diagnosis of asthma. Subjects with a prior history of asthma are eligible if they have a current diagnosis of COPD. - Drug/alcohol abuse: Subjects with a known or suspected alcohol or drug abuse history at screening (Visit 0) that in the opinion of the investigator could interfere with the subject's proper completion of the protocol requirement. - Investigational product: Subjects who have received an investigational drug and/or medical device within 30 days of entry into this study (Screening/Visit 1), or within five half-lives of the investigational drug, whichever is longer. - Investigational product: Subjects who have been trained during participation in any device study in the 6 months prior to entry into this study.

Study Design


Related Conditions & MeSH terms


Intervention

Device:
Relvar ELLIPTA
ELLIPTA inhaler containing Relvar will be used by subjects as their maintenance treatment to control COPD.
Symbicort TURBUHALER
TURBUHALER inhaler containing Symbicort will be used by subjects as their maintenance treatment to control COPD.
Seretide DISKUS
DISKUS inhaler containing Seretide will be used by subjects as their maintenance treatment to control COPD.
Spiriva HANDIHALER
HANDIHALER inhaler containing Spiriva will be used by subjects as their maintenance treatment to control COPD.
BREEZHALER
BREEZHALER inhaler containing either Seebri or Ultibro will be used by subjects as their maintenance treatment to control COPD.
Incruse ELLIPTA
ELLIPTA inhaler containing Incruse will be used by subjects as their maintenance treatment to control COPD.
Anoro ELLIPTA
ELLIPTA inhaler containing Anoro will be used by subjects as their maintenance treatment to control COPD.

Locations

Country Name City State
Netherlands GSK Investigational Site Beek
Netherlands GSK Investigational Site Beek En Donk
Netherlands GSK Investigational Site Eindhoven
Netherlands GSK Investigational Site Hengelo
Netherlands GSK Investigational Site Hoorn
Netherlands GSK Investigational Site Kloosterhaar
Netherlands GSK Investigational Site Nijverdal
Netherlands GSK Investigational Site Rotterdam
Netherlands GSK Investigational Site Zutphen
United Kingdom GSK Investigational Site London
United Kingdom GSK Investigational Site London
United Kingdom GSK Investigational Site Northwood Middlesex
United Kingdom GSK Investigational Site Sidcup, Kent

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor Collaborator
GlaxoSmithKline

Countries where clinical trial is conducted

Netherlands,  United Kingdom, 

References & Publications (1)

Collier DJ, Wielders P, van der Palen J, Heyes L, Midwinter D, Collison K, Preece A, Barnes N, Sharma R. Critical Error Frequency and the Impact of Training with Inhalers Commonly used for Maintenance Treatment in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2020 Jun 9;15:1301-1313. doi: 10.2147/COPD.S224209. eCollection 2020. — View Citation

Outcome

Type Measure Description Time frame Safety issue
Primary Percentage of Participants Making at Least One Critical Error at Visit 1-Primary Device Comparisons Participants were asked to demonstrate use of their prescribed DPI at Visit 1 and any error made by the participant was recorded by the health care practitioner (HCP) in the checklist. Checklist of instructions for correct use were based on the steps for correct use listed in patient instruction leaflets (PILs) for the respective DPI. The errors made during demonstration by participants were defined as "critical", when the participant received a lesser/no dose. The percentage of participants making at least one critical error in the primary DPI is presented. The analysis was performed on the Intent to Treat (ITT) Population which comprised of all enrolled participants who demonstrated use of their primary DPI. Day 1
Primary Percentage of Participants Making at Least One Critical Error at Visit 1 in Primary DPI (Relvar Ellipta DPI Versus All ICS/LABA DPIs With a LAMA Second DPI) Participants were asked to demonstrate use of their prescribed DPI at Visit 1 and any error made by the participant was recorded by the HCP in the checklist. Checklist of instructions for correct use were based on the steps for correct use listed in PILs for the respective DPI. The errors made during demonstration by participants were defined as "critical", when the participant received a lesser/no dose. The percentage of participants making at least one critical error in the primary DPI is presented. The aim of the analysis was to compare percentage of participants making at least one critical error with Ellipta versus all ICS/LABA+LAMA DPIs; hence, the arms were combined as pre-specified in the protocol and reporting and analysis plan (RAP). Day 1
Primary Percentage of Participants Making at Least One Critical Error at Visit 1 in Primary DPI (Relvar Ellipta With or Without a LAMA DPI) Versus Any Other ICS/LABA DPI With or Without a LAMA DPI Participants were asked to demonstrate use of their prescribed DPI at Visit 1 and any error made by the participant was recorded by the HCP in the checklist. Checklist of instructions for correct use were based on the steps for correct use listed in PILs for the respective DPI. The errors made during demonstration by participants were defined as "critical", when the participant received a lesser/no dose. The percentage of participants making at least one critical error in the primary DPI is presented. The aim of the analysis was to compare percentage of participants making at least one critical error with Ellipta and Ellipta+LAMA versus Turbuhaler and Turbuhaler+LAMA and Diskus and Diskus+LAMA; hence, the arms were combined as pre-specified in the protocol and RAP. Day 1
Primary Percentage of Participants Making at Least One Critical Error at Visit 1-Dual Device Comparisons (Relvar Ellipta DPI Versus Relvar Ellipta With Any Other LAMA) Participants were asked to demonstrate use of their prescribed DPI at Visit 1 and any error made by the participant was recorded by the HCP in the checklist. Checklist of instructions for correct use were based on the steps for correct use listed in PILs for the respective DPI. The errors made during demonstration by participants were defined as "critical", when the participant received a lesser/no dose. The percentage of participants making at least one critical error in either one or both devices (where applicable) is presented. Day 1
Primary Percentage of Participants Making at Least One Critical Error at Visit 1-Dual Device Comparisons (Relvar Ellipta DPI Versus All ICS/LABA DPIs With a LAMA Second DPI) Participants were asked to demonstrate use of their prescribed DPI at Visit 1 and any error made by the participant was recorded by the HCP in the checklist. Checklist of instructions for correct use were based on the steps for correct use listed in PILs for the respective DPI. The errors made during demonstration by participants were defined as "critical", when the participant received a lesser/no dose. The percentage of participants making at least one critical error in either one or both devices (where applicable) is presented. The aim of the analysis was to compare percentage of participants making at least one critical error with Ellipta versus all ICS/LABA+LAMA DPIs; hence, the arms were combined as pre-specified in the protocol and RAP. Day 1
Primary Percentage of Participants Making at Least One Critical Error at Visit 1-Dual Device Comparisons (Relvar Ellipta With or Without a LAMA DPI) Versus Any Other ICS/LABA DPI With or Without a LAMA DPI) Participants were asked to demonstrate use of their prescribed DPI at Visit 1 and any error made by the participant was recorded by the HCP in the checklist. Checklist of instructions for correct use were based on the steps for correct use listed in PILs for the respective DPI. The errors made during demonstration by participants were defined as "critical", when the participant received a lesser/no dose. The percentage of participants making at least one critical error in either one or both devices (where applicable) is presented. The aim of the analysis was to compare percentage of participants making at least one critical error with Ellipta and Ellipta+LAMA versus Turbuhaler and Turbuhaler+LAMA and Diskus and Diskus+LAMA; hence, the arms were combined as pre-specified in the protocol and RAP. Day 1
Secondary Percentage of Participants Making at Least One Overall Error at Visit 1-Primary Device Comparisons Participants were asked to demonstrate use of their prescribed DPI at Visit 1 and any error made by the participant was recorded by the HCP in the checklist. Checklist of instructions for correct use were based on the steps for correct use listed in PILs for the respective DPI. The errors made during demonstration by participants were defined as "critical", when the participant received a lesser/no dose and non-critical when the dose may not be affected, but the participant has demonstrated improper use of their DPI, as per the PIL. Overall errors is the combination of critical and non-critical errors. The percentage of participants with at least one overall error in the primary DPI is presented. Day 1
Secondary Percentage of Participants Making at Least One Overall Error at Visit 1 in Primary DPI (Relvar Ellipta DPI Versus All ICS/LABA DPIs With a LAMA Second DPI) Participants were asked to demonstrate use of their prescribed DPI at Visit 1 and any error made by the participant was recorded by the HCP in the checklist. Checklist of instructions for correct use were based on the steps for correct use listed in PILs for the respective DPI. The errors made during demonstration by participants were defined as "critical", when the participant received a lesser/no dose and non-critical when the dose may not be affected, but the participant has demonstrated improper use of their DPI, as per the PIL. Overall errors is the combination of critical and non-critical errors. The percentage of participants with at least one overall error in primary DPI is presented. The aim of the analysis was to compare percentage of participants making at least one overall error with Ellipta versus all ICS/LABA+LAMA DPIs; hence, the arms were combined as pre-specified in the protocol and RAP. Day 1
Secondary Percentage of Participants Making at Least One Overall Error at Visit 1 in Primary DPI (Relvar Ellipta With or Without a LAMA DPI) Versus Any Other ICS/LABA DPI With or Without a LAMA DPI Participants were asked to demonstrate use of their prescribed DPI at Visit 1 and any error made by the participant was recorded by the HCP in the checklist. Checklist of instructions for correct use were based on the steps for correct use listed in PILs for the respective DPI. The errors made during demonstration by participants were defined as "critical", when the participant received a lesser/no dose and non-critical when the dose may not be affected, but the participant has demonstrated improper use of their DPI, as per the PIL. Overall errors is the combination of critical and non-critical errors. The percentage of participants with at least one overall error in primary DPI is presented. The aim of the analysis was to compare percentage of participants making at least one overall error with Ellipta and Ellipta+LAMA versus Turbuhaler and Turbuhaler+LAMA and Diskus and Diskus+LAMA; hence, the arms were combined as pre-specified in the protocol and RAP. Day 1
Secondary Percentage of Participants Making at Least One Overall Error at Visit 1-Dual Device Comparisons (Relvar Ellipta DPI Versus Relvar Ellipta With Any Other LAMA) Participants were asked to demonstrate use of their prescribed DPI at Visit 1 and any error made by the participant was recorded by the HCP in the checklist. Checklist of instructions for correct use were based on the steps for correct use listed in PILs for the respective DPI. The errors made during demonstration by participants were defined as "critical", when the participant received a lesser/no dose and non-critical when the dose may not be affected, but the participant has demonstrated improper use of their DPI, as per the PIL. Overall errors is the combination of critical and non-critical errors. The percentage of participants making at least one overall error in either one or both devices (where applicable) is presented. Day 1
Secondary Percentage of Participants Making at Least One Overall Error at Visit 1-Dual Device Comparisons (Relvar Ellipta DPI Versus All ICS/LABA DPIs With a LAMA Second DPI) Participants were asked to demonstrate use of their prescribed DPI at Visit 1 and any error made by the participant was recorded by HCP in the checklist. Checklist of instructions for correct use were based on the steps for correct use listed in PILs for the respective DPI. Errors made during demonstration by participants were defined as "critical", when the participant received a lesser/no dose and non-critical when the dose may not be affected, but the participant has demonstrated improper use of their DPI, as per the PIL. Overall errors is the combination of critical and non-critical errors. Percentage of participants making at least one overall error in either one or both devices (where applicable) is presented. The aim of the analysis was to compare percentage of participants making at least one overall error with Ellipta versus all ICS/LABA+LAMA DPIs; hence, the arms were combined as pre-specified in the protocol and RAP. Day 1
Secondary Percentage of Participants Making at Least One Overall Error at Visit 1-Dual Device Comparisons (Relvar Ellipta With or Without a LAMA DPI) Versus Any Other ICS/LABA DPI With or Without a LAMA DPI) Participants were asked to demonstrate use of their prescribed DPI at Visit 1 and any error made by the participant was recorded by the HCP in the checklist. Checklist of instructions for correct use were based on the steps for correct use listed in PILs for the respective DPI. Errors made during demonstration by participants were defined as "critical", when the participant received a lesser/no dose and non-critical when the dose may not be affected, but the participant has demonstrated improper use of their DPI, as per the PIL. Overall errors is the combination of critical and non-critical errors. Percentage of participants making at least one overall error in either one or both devices (where applicable) is presented.The aim of the analysis was to compare percentage of participants making at least one overall error with Ellipta and Ellipta+LAMA versus Turbuhaler and Turbuhaler+LAMA and Diskus and Diskus+LAMA; hence, the arms were combined as pre-specified in the protocol and RAP. Day 1
Secondary Percentage of Participants Making at Least One Critical Error at Visit 2-Primary Device Comparisons Participants were asked to demonstrate use of their prescribed DPI at Visit 2 within 6 weeks after they were retrained on the correct use of inhalers. Any error made by the participant was recorded by the HCP in the checklist. Checklist of instructions for correct use were based on the steps for correct use listed in PILs for the respective DPI. The errors made during demonstration by participants were defined as "critical", when the participant received a lesser/no dose. The percentage of participants making at least one critical error in the primary DPI is presented. Week 6
Secondary Percentage of Participants Making at Least One Critical Error at Visit 2 in Primary DPI (Relvar Ellipta DPI Versus All ICS/LABA DPIs With a LAMA Second DPI) Participants were asked to demonstrate use of their prescribed DPI at Visit 2 within 6 weeks after they were retrained on the correct use of inhalers. Any error made by the participant was recorded by the HCP in the checklist. Checklist of instructions for correct use were based on the steps for correct use listed in PILs for the respective DPI. The errors made during demonstration by participants were defined as "critical", when the participant received a lesser/no dose. The percentage of participants making at least one critical error in the primary DPI is presented. The aim of the analysis was to compare percentage of participants making at least one critical error with Ellipta versus all ICS/LABA+LAMA DPIs; hence, the arms were combined as pre-specified in the protocol and RAP. Week 6
Secondary Percentage of Participants Making at Least One Critical Error at Visit 2 in Primary DPI (Relvar Ellipta With or Without a LAMA DPI) Versus Any Other ICS/LABA DPI With or Without a LAMA DPI Participants were asked to demonstrate use of their prescribed DPI at Visit 2 within 6 weeks after they were retrained on the correct use of inhalers. Any error made by the participant was recorded by the HCP in the checklist. Checklist of instructions for correct use were based on the steps for correct use listed in PILs for the respective DPI. The errors during demonstration by participants were defined as "critical", when the participant received a lesser/no dose. The percentage of participants making at least one critical error in the primary DPI is presented. The aim of the analysis was to compare percentage of participants making at least one critical error with Ellipta and Ellipta+LAMA versus Turbuhaler and Turbuhaler+LAMA and Diskus and Diskus+LAMA; hence, the arms were combined as pre-specified in the protocol and RAP. Week 6
Secondary Percentage of Participants Making at Least One Critical Error at Visit 2-Dual Device Comparisons (Relvar Ellipta DPI Versus Relvar Ellipta With Any Other LAMA) Participants were asked to demonstrate use of their prescribed DPI at Visit 2 within 6 weeks after they were retrained on the correct use of inhalers. Any error made by the participant was recorded by the HCP in the checklist. Checklist of instructions for correct use were based on the steps for correct use listed in PILs for the respective DPI. The errors made during demonstration by participants were defined as "critical", when the participant received a lesser/no dose. The percentage of participants making at least one critical error in either one or both devices (where applicable) is presented. Week 6
Secondary Percentage of Participants Making at Least One Critical Error at Visit 2-Dual Device Comparisons (Relvar Ellipta DPI Versus All ICS/LABA DPIs With a LAMA Second DPI) Participants were asked to demonstrate use of their prescribed DPI at Visit 2 within 6 weeks after they were retrained on the correct use of inhalers. Any error made by the participant was recorded by the HCP in the checklist. Checklist of instructions for correct use were based on the steps for correct use listed in PILs for the respective DPI. The errors made during demonstration by participants were defined as "critical", when the participant received a lesser/no dose. The percentage of participants making at least one critical error in either one or both devices (where applicable) is presented. The aim of the analysis was to compare percentage of participants making at least one critical error with Ellipta versus all ICS/LABA+LAMA DPIs; hence, the arms were combined as pre-specified in the protocol and RAP. Week 6
Secondary Percentage of Participants Making at Least One Critical Error at Visit 2-Dual Device Comparisons (Relvar Ellipta With or Without a LAMA DPI) Versus Any Other ICS/LABA DPI With or Without a LAMA DPI) Participants were asked to demonstrate use of their prescribed DPI at Visit 2 within 6 weeks after they were retrained on the correct use of inhalers. Any error made by the participant was recorded by the HCP in the checklist. Checklist of instructions for correct use were based on the steps for correct use listed in PILs for the respective DPI. The errors made during demonstration by participants were defined as "critical", when the participant received a lesser/no dose. The percentage of participants making at least one critical error in either one or both devices (where applicable) is presented. The aim of the analysis was to compare percentage of participants making at least one critical error with Ellipta and Ellipta+LAMA versus Turbuhaler and Turbuhaler+LAMA and Diskus and Diskus+LAMA; hence, the arms were combined as pre-specified in the protocol and RAP. Week 6
Secondary Percentage of Participants Making at Least One Overall Error at Visit 2-Primary Device Comparisons Participants were asked to demonstrate use of their prescribed DPI at Visit 2 within 6 weeks after they were retrained on the correct use of inhalers. Any error made by the participant was recorded by the HCP in the checklist. Checklist of instructions for correct use were based on the steps for correct use listed in PILs for the respective DPI. The errors made during demonstration by participants were defined as "critical", when the participant received a lesser/no dose and non-critical when the dose may not be affected, but the participant has demonstrated improper use of their DPI, as per the PIL. Overall errors is the combination of critical and non-critical errors. The percentage of participants making at least one overall error in the primary DPI is presented. Week 6
Secondary Percentage of Participants Making at Least One Overall Error at Visit 2 in Primary DPI (Relvar Ellipta DPI Versus All ICS/LABA DPIs With a LAMA Second DPI) Participants were asked to demonstrate use of their prescribed DPI at Visit 2 within 6 weeks after they were retrained on the correct use of inhalers. Any error made by the participant was recorded by the HCP in the checklist. Checklist of instructions for correct use were based on the steps listed in PILs for the respective DPI. The errors were defined as "critical", when the participant received a lesser/no dose and non-critical when the dose may not be affected, but the participant has demonstrated improper use of their DPI, as per PIL. Overall errors is the combination of critical and non-critical errors. The percentage of participants making at least one overall error in primary DPI is presented. The aim of the analysis was to compare percentage of participants making at least one overall error with Ellipta versus all ICS/LABA+LAMA DPIs; hence, the arms were combined as pre-specified in the protocol and RAP. Week 6
Secondary Percentage of Participants Making at Least One Overall Error at Visit 2 in Primary DPI (Relvar Ellipta With or Without a LAMA DPI) Versus Any Other ICS/LABA DPI With or Without a LAMA DPI Participants were asked to demonstrate use of their prescribed DPI at Visit 2 within 6 weeks after they were retrained on the correct use of inhalers. Any error made by the participant was recorded by the HCP in the checklist. Checklist of instructions for correct use were based on the steps listed in PILs for the respective DPI. The errors were defined as "critical", when the participant received a lesser/no dose and non-critical when the dose may not be affected, but the participant has demonstrated improper use of their DPI, as per PIL. Overall errors is the combination of critical and non-critical errors. The percentage of participants making at least one overall error in primary DPI is presented. The aim of the analysis was to compare percentage of participants making at least one overall error with Ellipta and Ellipta+LAMA versus Turbuhaler and Turbuhaler+LAMA and Diskus and Diskus+LAMA; hence, the arms were combined as pre-specified in the protocol and RAP.
.
Week 6
Secondary Percentage of Participants Making at Least One Overall Error at Visit 2-Dual Device Comparisons (Relvar Ellipta DPI Versus Relvar Ellipta With Any Other LAMA) Participants were asked to demonstrate use of their prescribed DPI at Visit 2 within 6 weeks after they were retrained on the correct use of inhalers. Any error made by the participant was recorded by the HCP in the checklist. Checklist of instructions for correct use were based on the steps for correct use listed in PILs for the respective DPI. The errors made during demonstration by participants were defined as "critical", when the participant received a lesser/no dose and non-critical when the dose may not be affected, but the participant has demonstrated improper use of their DPI, as per the PIL. Overall errors is the combination of critical and non-critical errors. The percentage of participants making at least one overall error in either one or both devices (where applicable) is presented. Week 6
Secondary Percentage of Participants Making at Least One Overall Error at Visit 2-Dual Device Comparisons (Relvar Ellipta DPI Versus All ICS/LABA DPIs With a LAMA Second DPI) Participants were asked to demonstrate use of their prescribed DPI at Visit 2 within 6 weeks after they were retrained on correct use of inhalers. Any error made by the participant was recorded by HCP in the checklist. Checklist of instructions for correct use were based on steps for correct use listed in PILs for the respective DPI. Errors made during demonstration by participants were defined as critical, when the participant received a lesser/no dose and non-critical when the dose may not be affected, but the participant has demonstrated improper use of their DPI, as per PIL. Overall errors is the combination of critical and non-critical errors. Percentage of participants making at least one overall error in either one or both devices (where applicable) is presented. The aim of the analysis was to compare percentage of participants making at least one overall error with Ellipta versus all ICS/LABA+LAMA DPIs; hence, the arms were combined as pre-specified in the protocol and RAP. Week 6
Secondary Percentage of Participants Making at Least One Overall Error at Visit 2-Dual Device Comparisons (Relvar Ellipta With or Without a LAMA DPI) Versus Any Other ICS/LABA DPI With or Without a LAMA DPI) Participants were asked to demonstrate use of their prescribed DPI at Visit 2 within 6 weeks after they were retrained on the correct use of inhalers. Any error made by the participant was recorded by the HCP in the checklist. Checklist of instructions for correct use were based on the steps for correct use listed in PILs for the respective DPI. The errors made during demonstration by participants were defined as "critical", when the participant received a lesser/no dose and non-critical when the dose may not be affected, but the participant has demonstrated improper use of their DPI, as per the PIL. Overall errors is the combination of critical and non-critical errors. The aim of the analysis was to compare percentage of participants making at least one overall error with Ellipta and Ellipta+LAMA versus Turbuhaler and Turbuhaler+LAMA and Diskus and Diskus+LAMA; hence, the arms were combined as pre-specified in the protocol and RAP. Week 6
See also
  Status Clinical Trial Phase
Completed NCT05043428 - The Roles of Peers and Functional Tasks in Enhancing Exercise Training for Adults With COPD N/A
Completed NCT00528996 - An Efficacy and Safety Study to Compare Three Doses of BEA 2180 BR to Tiotropium and Placebo in the Respimat Inhaler. Phase 2
Completed NCT03740373 - A Study to Assess the Pulmonary Distribution of Budesonide, Glycopyrronium and Formoterol Fumarate Phase 1
Completed NCT05393245 - Safety of Tiotropium + Olodaterol in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Patients in Taiwan: a Non-interventional Study Based on the Taiwan National Health Insurance (NHI) Data
Completed NCT05402020 - Effectiveness of Tiotropium + Olodaterol Versus Inhaled Corticosteroids (ICS) + Long-acting β2-agonists (LABA) Among COPD Patients in Taiwan
Completed NCT04011735 - Re-usable Respimat® Soft MistTM Inhaler Study
Enrolling by invitation NCT03075709 - The Development, Implementation and Evaluation of Clinical Pathways for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) in Saskatchewan
Completed NCT03764163 - Image and Model Based Analysis of Lung Disease Early Phase 1
Completed NCT00515268 - Endotoxin Challenge Study For Healthy Men and Women Phase 1
Completed NCT04085302 - TARA Working Prototype Engagement Evaluation: Feasibility Study N/A
Completed NCT03691324 - Training of Inhalation Technique in Hospitalized Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Patients - a Pilot Study N/A
Completed NCT02236611 - A 12-week Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Umeclidinium 62.5 Microgram (mcg) Compared With Glycopyrronium 44 mcg in Subjects With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Phase 4
Completed NCT00153075 - Flow Rate Effect Respimat Inhaler Versus a Metered Dose Inhaler Using Berodual in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Phase 4
Completed NCT01009463 - A Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Fluticasone Furoate (FF)/GW642444 Inhalation Powder in Subjects With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Phase 3
Completed NCT01017952 - A Study to Evaluate Annual Rate of Exacerbations and Safety of 3 Dosage Strengths of Fluticasone Furoate (FF)/GW642444 Inhalation Powder in Subjects With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Phase 3
Completed NCT04882124 - Study of Effect of CSJ117 on Symptoms, Pharmacodynamics and Safety in Patients With COPD Phase 2
Completed NCT02853123 - Effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol on Breathlessness in COPD Patients Phase 4
Completed NCT02619357 - Method Validation Study to Explore the Sensitivity of SenseWear Armband Gecko for Measuring Physical Activity in Subjects With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) & Asthma Phase 1
Recruiting NCT05858463 - High Intensity Interval Training and Muscle Adaptations During PR N/A
Not yet recruiting NCT05032898 - Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Inpatient Registry Study Stage II