Trial Outcomes & Findings for A Study on Whether Patients Prefer the Spiriva® Respimat® or the Spiriva® Handihaler® for Treating Their Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) (NCT NCT03964207)

This was a randomised, open-label, 2 -way cross-over design, to compare patient acceptability/preference of Tiotropium Respimat® (T1),with Tiotropium Handihaler® (T2) in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

All subjects were screened for eligibility prior to participation in the trial. Subjects attended a specialist site which ensured that they (the subjects) strictly met all inclusion and none of the exclusion criteria. Subjects were not to be allocated to a treatment group if any of the entry criteria were violated.

A Study on Whether Patients Prefer the Spiriva® Respimat® or the Spiriva® Handihaler® for Treating Their Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)

The score on the performance domain of the Patient satisfaction and preference questionnaire (PASAPQ) after 4 weeks of treatment is reported. The performance domain score is the sum of 7 questions (Q) within the domain (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q10 and Q11), the range for each question went from 1 to 7 the higher the better. The score was then transformed to a 0 (least) to 100 (most) point scale following ((Q1+Q2+Q3+Q4+Q5+Q10+Q11)/49)\*100, the higher the better performance. The performance domain of PASAPQ) was analysed using Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with treatment and period as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect. Compound symmetry was used as a covariance structure for within-patient variation.

The total score on the Patient satisfaction and preference questionnaire (PASAPQ) after 4 weeks of treatment is reported. The Total score is the sum of 13 questions (Q1-Q13) and then transformed to a 0 (least) to 100 (most) point scale. This continuous secondary endpoint was analyzed using a similar MMRM model as for the primary endpoint.

The percentage of patients indicating preference in the Patient satisfaction and preference questionnaire (PASAPQ) at week 8 is reported. The questionnaire PASAPQ is a two part questionnaire, in Part II of the PASAPQ the stand-alone question 15 (Q15) was asked for a response to indicate the preference for the trial device, it had three possible answers: "I prefer Respimat", "I prefer Handihaler", "No answer to this question " and "no preference". Chi-squared test was used to analyze proportion of patients indicating preference in the Patient satisfaction and preference questionnaire (PASAPQ) at week 8.

The overall satisfaction question score in the Patient satisfaction and preference questionnaire (PASAPQ) at week 4 and 8 is reported (after 4 weeks of treatment). In Part I of the questionnaire PASAPQ: the Question 14 (Q14) asked for the overall satisfaction with the device used in the study. Q14 had Likert-type response options of 1 (very dissatisfied) to 7 (very satisfied) and was then transformed to a 0 (least) to 100 (most) point scale (if a patient scored "x", the transfer to 0-100 scale was x/7\*100). Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the overall satisfaction question score, with treatment and period as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.

The score on willingness to continue in the Patient satisfaction and preference questionnaire (PASAPQ) at week 8 is reported. The PASAPQ is a two part questionnaire, in Part I of the questionnaire PASAPQ the Question 16 (Q16) asked for a response between 0 and 100 with 0 indicating not willing to continue using the trial device and 100 indicating definitely willingness to continue. Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the score on willingness to continue, with treatment and period as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.