Blog
About

4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Satisfaction, preference and error occurrence of three dry powder inhalers as assessed by a cohort naïve to inhaler operation

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Inhaled medication is central to the treatment of COPD. Various types of inhaler devices, which directly deliver medication to the lung, have been developed. However, patients often exhibit incorrect techniques of inhaler usage. Effectiveness of therapy may be affected by the ease of device usage, size, convenience of use, durability, clarity of instructions and device preferences of patients. This study compares the satisfaction and preference, as well as error occurrence, with the use of Genuair ®, Ellipta™ and Breezhaler™ by healthy subjects in Hong Kong.

          Subjects and methods

          One hundred and thirty healthy Hong Kong Chinese subjects aged ≥40 years without a previous diagnosis of COPD and asthma and with no experience of using dry powder inhalers (DPIs) were recruited. Subjects learned to use the three DPIs by initially reading the instructions and then observing a demonstration with verbal explanation. The number of errors committed was evaluated. Subjects also completed a questionnaire to indicate their satisfaction and preference.

          Results

          The satisfaction score of comfort for Breezhaler was significantly higher than that for Ellipta ( p≤0.05), while the satisfaction score on confidence to have inhaled the entire dose was highest for Genuair compared with Ellipta ( p≤0.0001) or Breezhaler ( p≤0.05). The overall satisfaction score was significantly higher for Genuair than Ellipta ( p≤0.05) or Breezhaler ( p≤0.01). After reading the instructions, the highest number of subjects committing one or more critical errors was with Breezhaler (97) followed by Genuair (70) and then Ellipta (33). Demonstration reduced the number of critical errors made by subjects for each DPI to one third or lower.

          Conclusion

          Breezhaler seemed to be more comfortable and easy to carry, but users made less critical errors when using Ellipta after reading the instructions only. Genuair provided the clearest indication of correct dose preparation and inhalation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Effect of incorrect use of dry powder inhalers on management of patients with asthma and COPD.

          Incorrect usage of inhaler devices might have a major influence on the clinical effectiveness of the delivered drug. This issue is poorly addressed in management guidelines. This article presents the results of a systematic literature review of studies evaluating incorrect use of established dry powder inhalers (DPIs) by patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Overall, we found that between 4% and 94% of patients, depending on the type of inhaler and method of assessment, do not use their inhalers correctly. The most common errors made included failure to exhale before actuation, failure to breath-hold after inhalation, incorrect positioning of the inhaler, incorrect rotation sequence, and failure to execute a forceful and deep inhalation. Inefficient DPI technique may lead to insufficient drug delivery and hence to insufficient lung deposition. As many as 25% of patients have never received verbal inhaler technique instruction, and for those that do, the quality and duration of instruction is not adequate and not reinforced by follow-up checks. This review demonstrates that incorrect DPI technique with established DPIs is common among patients with asthma and COPD, and suggests that poor inhalation technique has detrimental consequences for clinical efficacy. Regular assessment and reinforcement of correct inhalation technique are considered by health professionals and caregivers to be an essential component of successful asthma management. Improvement of asthma and COPD management could be achieved by new DPIs that are easy to use correctly and are forgiving of poor inhalation technique, thus ensuring more successful drug delivery.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Medication adherence issues in patients treated for COPD

            Although medical treatment of COPD has advanced, nonadherence to medication regimens poses a significant barrier to optimal management. Underuse, overuse, and improper use continue to be the most common causes of poor adherence to therapy. An average of 40%–60% of patients with COPD adheres to the prescribed regimen and only 1 out of 10 patients with a metered dose inhaler performs all essential steps correctly. Adherence to therapy is multifactorial and involves both the patient and the primary care provider. The effect of patient instruction on inhaler adherence and rescue medication utilization in patients with COPD does not seem to parallel the good results reported in patients with asthma. While use of a combined inhaler may facilitate adherence to medications and improve efficacy, pharmacoeconomic factors may influence patient’s selection of both the device and the regimen. Patient’s health beliefs, experiences, and behaviors play a significant role in adherence to pharmacological therapy. This manuscript reviews important aspects associated with medication adherence in patients with COPD and identifies some predictors of poor adherence.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures.

              One can classify ways to establish the interpretability of quality-of-life measures as anchor based or distribution based. Anchor-based measures require an independent standard or anchor that is itself interpretable and at least moderately correlated with the instrument being explored. One can further classify anchor-based approaches into population-focused and individual-focused measures. Population-focused approaches are analogous to construct validation and rely on multiple anchors that frame an individual's response in terms of the entire population (eg, a group of patients with a score of 40 has a mortality of 20%). Anchors for population-based approaches include status on a single item, diagnosis, symptoms, disease severity, and response to treatment. Individual-focused approaches are analogous to criterion validation. These methods, which rely on a single anchor and establish a minimum important difference in change in score, require 2 steps. The first step establishes the smallest change in score that patients consider, on average, to be important (the minimum important difference). The second step estimates the proportion of patients who have achieved that minimum important difference. Anchors for the individual-focused approach include global ratings of change within patients and global ratings of differences between patients. Distribution-based methods rely on expressing an effect in terms of the underlying distribution of results. Investigators may express effects in terms of between-person standard deviation units, within-person standard deviation units, and the standard error of measurement. No single approach to interpretability is perfect. Use of multiple strategies is likely to enhance the interpretability of any particular instrument.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis
                Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis
                International Journal of COPD
                International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
                Dove Medical Press
                1176-9106
                1178-2005
                2018
                15 June 2018
                : 13
                : 1949-1963
                Affiliations
                [1 ]University of Hong Kong, School of Professional and Continuing Education, Hong Kong SAR, China
                [2 ]University of Hong Kong, Department of Medicine, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China
                [3 ]University of Hong Kong, School of Biological Sciences, Hong Kong SAR, China
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Kian Cheng Tan-Un, University of Hong Kong, School of Professional and Continuing Education, 13/F, Fortress Tower, 250 King’s Road, North Point, Hong Kong SAR, China, Tel +852 2 975 5881, Fax +852 2 707 3620, Email kctan@ 123456hkuspace.hku.hk
                [*]

                These authors contributed equally to this work

                Article
                copd-13-1949
                10.2147/COPD.S152285
                6007194
                © 2018 Man et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited

                The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                Categories
                Original Research

                Comments

                Comment on this article