Patient Satisfaction with a Pressurized Metered-Dose Inhaler with an Integrated Dose Counter Containing a Fixed-Dose Mometasone Furoate/Formoterol Combination

Abstract

Introduction. Inhaled delivery devices that are easy to use and facilitate dose tracking may lead to improved patient satisfaction and adherence. Patient satisfaction with a metered-dose inhaler (MDI) with an integrated dose counter containing a fixed-dose mometasone furoate/formoterol combination (MF/F MDI dose counter) was evaluated in subjects with persistent asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Methods. In this multicenter study (N = 272, age range: 12–92 years), subject experience and satisfaction with MDI devices was evaluated using baseline and poststudy surveys. Subjects responded to the baseline survey based on their previous MDI experience, then received MF/F MDI 100/10 μg with the integrated dose counter for 4 weeks before completing the poststudy survey. This evaluation was part of a broader study objective to assess performance of the MF/F MDI dose counter. Results. At baseline, 52% of subjects reported being extremely satisfied with their previous MDI. After using the MF/F MDI dose counter, a relative increase of 43% in overall satisfaction was observed. Approximately 90% of subjects agreed the MF/F dose counter helped them track doses and was easy to use; >80% agreed the inhaler was of good quality and well designed. Subjects agreed the dose counter relieved anxiety about running out of medication (68%) or taking a subtherapeutic dose (65%). Nearly 80% of subjects had no reservations about the MF/F MDI dose counter, and most subjects stated they would request it from their physician (66%) and recommend it to a friend (75%). Conclusions. The MF/F MDI dose counter was found to be easy to use and have overall high patient satisfaction.

• dose counter
• Dulera
• inhaler
• mometasone furoate/formoterol
• satisfaction

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to gratefully acknowledge the programming and statistical support of Matias Morrison and Hanzhe Zheng.

This study was supported by Schering-Plough Corp., now Merck & Co. Editorial assistance was provided by Erin P. Scott, Ph.D., of Complete Publication Solutions, LLC, and funded by Merck & Co. C. LaForce was an investigator for the study. C. Weinstein and H. Staudinger are employees of Merck & Co. R.A. Nathan was an investigator for the study and has received research/grant support from and/or has served as a speaker for Alcon, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Dyax, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, MedImmune, Merck & Co., Novartis, Sepracor, and Teva. S.F. Weinstein was an investigator for the study and has received research/grant support from and/or has served as an advisory board member and/or speaker for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Co., Novartis, and Teva. E.O. Meltzer was an investigator for the study and has received research/grant support from and/or has served as an advisory board member, consultant, and/or speaker for Alcon, Alexza Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Antigen Labs, Apotex, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Capnia, Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma, Dey, GlaxoSmithKline, ISTA, Johnson & Johnson, Kalypsys, MAP, MEDA, Merck & Co., National Jewish Health, Novartis, Procter & Gamble, Rady Children’s Hospital San Diego, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis, Schering-Plough, Sepracor, SRxA, Teva, UCB, VentiRx, Wockhardt, and Wyeth; he has had expert designation in the following legal matters: Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi Aventis USLLC v. Barr Laboratories; Merck Sharp & Dohme Pharmaceuticals SRL v. Teva Pharmaceuticals; Schering v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals; and Sepracor, Inc., v. Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Declaration of Interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article.