5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Device use errors with soft mist inhalers: A global systematic literature review and meta-analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      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

          Inhaled bronchodilators are the cornerstone of treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Soft mist inhalers (SMIs) are devices that deliver bronchodilators. Although correct device use is paramount to successful medication delivery, patient errors are common. This global systematic literature review and meta-analysis examined device use errors with SMIs among patients with obstructive lung diseases. PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were searched to identify studies published between 2010 and 2019 that met the following inclusion criteria: (a) English language; (b) a diagnosis of COPD, bronchitis, or emphysema; and (c) reported device use errors among adults receiving long-acting bronchodilator treatment with Respimat® SMI (i.e. Spiriva®, Stiolto®, Spiolto®, and Striverdi®). Descriptive statistics examined sociodemographics, clinical characteristics, and device use errors. Meta-analysis techniques were employed with random-effects models to generate pooled mean effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for overall and step-by-step errors. The I 2 statistic measured heterogeneity. Twelve studies ( n = 1288 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. Eighty-eight percent of patients had COPD, and most had moderate/very severe airflow limitation (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease spirometric stages II to IV). Aggregate results revealed that 58.9% (95% CI: 42.4–75.5; I 2 = 92.8%) of patients made ≥1 device use errors. Among 11 studies with step-by-step data, the most common errors were failure to (1) exhale completely and away from the device (47.8% (95% CI: 33.6–62.0)); (2) hold breath for up to 10 seconds (30.6% (95% CI: 17.5–43.7)); (3) take a slow, deep breath while pressing the dose release button (27.9% (95% CI: 14.5–41.2)); (4) hold the inhaler upright (22.6% (95% CI: 6.2–39.0)); and (5) turn the base toward the arrows until it clicked (17.6% (95% CI: 3.0–32.2)). Device use errors occurred in about 6 of 10 patients who used SMIs. An individualized approach to inhalation device selection and ongoing training and monitoring of device use are important in optimizing bronchodilator treatment.

          Related collections

          Most cited references51

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found
          Is Open Access

          Economic impact of medication non-adherence by disease groups: a systematic review

          Objective To determine the economic impact of medication non-adherence across multiple disease groups. Design Systematic review. Evidence review A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed and Scopus in September 2017. Studies quantifying the cost of medication non-adherence in relation to economic impact were included. Relevant information was extracted and quality assessed using the Drummond checklist. Results Seventy-nine individual studies assessing the cost of medication non-adherence across 14 disease groups were included. Wide-scoping cost variations were reported, with lower levels of adherence generally associated with higher total costs. The annual adjusted disease-specific economic cost of non-adherence per person ranged from $949 to $44 190 (in 2015 US$). Costs attributed to ‘all causes’ non-adherence ranged from $5271 to $52 341. Medication possession ratio was the metric most used to calculate patient adherence, with varying cut-off points defining non-adherence. The main indicators used to measure the cost of non-adherence were total cost or total healthcare cost (83% of studies), pharmacy costs (70%), inpatient costs (46%), outpatient costs (50%), emergency department visit costs (27%), medical costs (29%) and hospitalisation costs (18%). Drummond quality assessment yielded 10 studies of high quality with all studies performing partial economic evaluations to varying extents. Conclusion Medication non-adherence places a significant cost burden on healthcare systems. Current research assessing the economic impact of medication non-adherence is limited and of varying quality, failing to provide adaptable data to influence health policy. The correlation between increased non-adherence and higher disease prevalence should be used to inform policymakers to help circumvent avoidable costs to the healthcare system. Differences in methods make the comparison among studies challenging and an accurate estimation of true magnitude of the cost impossible. Standardisation of the metric measures used to estimate medication non-adherence and development of a streamlined approach to quantify costs is required. PROSPERO registration number CRD42015027338.
            Bookmark
            • 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: not found

              Device selection and outcomes of aerosol therapy: Evidence-based guidelines: American College of Chest Physicians/American College of Asthma, Allergy, and Immunology.

              The proliferation of inhaler devices has resulted in a confusing number of choices for clinicians who are selecting a delivery device for aerosol therapy. There are advantages and disadvantages associated with each device category. Evidence-based guidelines for the selection of the appropriate aerosol delivery device in specific clinical settings are needed. (1) To compare the efficacy and adverse effects of treatment using nebulizers vs pressurized metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) with or without a spacer/holding chamber vs dry powder inhalers (DPIs) as delivery systems for beta-agonists, anticholinergic agents, and corticosteroids for several commonly encountered clinical settings and patient populations, and (2) to provide recommendations to clinicians to aid them in selecting a particular aerosol delivery device for their patients. A systematic review of pertinent randomized, controlled clinical trials (RCTs) was undertaken using MEDLINE, EmBase, and the Cochrane Library databases. A broad search strategy was chosen, combining terms related to aerosol devices or drugs with the diseases of interest in various patient groups and clinical settings. Only RCTs in which the same drug was administered with different devices were included. RCTs (394 trials) assessing inhaled corticosteroid, beta2-agonist, and anticholinergic agents delivered by an MDI, an MDI with a spacer/holding chamber, a nebulizer, or a DPI were identified for the years 1982 to 2001. A total of 254 outcomes were tabulated. Of the 131 studies that met the eligibility criteria, only 59 (primarily those that tested beta2-agonists) proved to have useable data. None of the pooled metaanalyses showed a significant difference between devices in any efficacy outcome in any patient group for each of the clinical settings that was investigated. The adverse effects that were reported were minimal and were related to the increased drug dose that was delivered. Each of the delivery devices provided similar outcomes in patients using the correct technique for inhalation. Devices used for the delivery of bronchodilators and steroids can be equally efficacious. When selecting an aerosol delivery device for patients with asthma and COPD, the following should be considered: device/drug availability; clinical setting; patient age and the ability to use the selected device correctly; device use with multiple medications; cost and reimbursement; drug administration time; convenience in both outpatient and inpatient settings; and physician and patient preference.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Chron Respir Dis
                Chron Respir Dis
                CRD
                spcrd
                Chronic Respiratory Disease
                SAGE Publications (Sage UK: London, England )
                1479-9723
                1479-9731
                26 January 2020
                Jan-Dec 2020
                : 17
                : 1479973119901234
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Advance Health Solutions, LLC, New York, NY, USA
                [2 ]School of Professional Studies, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
                [3 ]Global Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc., Marlborough, MA, USA
                [4 ]Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Center, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
                Author notes
                [*]Maryam Navaie, Advance Health Solutions, LLC, 5 Penn Plaza, 23rd Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA; School of Professional Studies, Columbia University, 203 Lewisohn Hall, 2970 Broadway, New York, NY 10027, USA. Emails: mnavaie@ 123456advancehealthsolutions.com ; mn2918@ 123456columbia.edu
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9773-3267
                Article
                10.1177_1479973119901234
                10.1177/1479973119901234
                6985977
                31984767
                1c7f63d2-6da1-4dbb-87fd-ac0a2fc96a1d
                © The Author(s) 2020

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                : 23 August 2019
                : 28 December 2019
                Funding
                Funded by: Sunovion, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/100009655;
                Categories
                Review Article
                Custom metadata
                January-December 2020
                ts3

                Respiratory medicine
                meta-analysis,copd,chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,soft mist inhaler,inhaler errors,respimat®,systematic literature review

                Comments

                Comment on this article