Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive Clinical Trial
Official title:
An Open-label, Low Interventional Clinical Study Investigating Error Rates (Critical and Overall) Prior to Any Retraining in Correct Use of the ELLIPTA Dry Powder Inhaler (DPI) Compared to Other DPIs Including; DISKUS, Turbuhaler, HandiHaler and Breezhaler as a Monotherapy or in Combination, in Adult Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)
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 |
Verified date | October 2020 |
Source | GlaxoSmithKline |
Contact | n/a |
Is FDA regulated | No |
Health authority | |
Study type | Observational |
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.
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. |
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 |
Lead Sponsor | Collaborator |
---|---|
GlaxoSmithKline |
Netherlands, United Kingdom,
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
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 |
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
|