29
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Device errors in asthma and COPD: systematic literature review and meta-analysis

      research-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

          Inhaler device errors are common and may impact the effectiveness of the delivered drug. There is a paucity of up-to-date systematic reviews (SRs) or meta-analyses (MAs) of device errors in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. This SR and MA provides an estimate of overall error rates (both critical and non-critical) by device type and evaluates factors associated with inhaler misuse. The following databases from inception to July 23, 2014 (Embase®, MEDLINE®, MEDLINE® In-Process and CENTRAL) were searched, using predefined search terms. Studies in adult males and females with asthma or COPD, reporting at least one overall or critical error, using metered dose inhalers and dry powder inhalers were included. Random-effect MAs were performed to estimate device error rates and to compare pairs of devices. Overall and critical error rates were high across all devices, ranging from 50–100% and 14–92%, respectively. However, between-study heterogeneity was also generally >90% (I-squared statistic), indicating large variability between studies. A trend towards higher error rates with assessments comprising a larger number of steps was observed; however no consistent pattern was identified. This SR and MA highlights the relatively limited body of evidence assessing device errors and the lack of standardised checklists. There is currently insufficient evidence to determine differences in error rates between different inhaler devices and their impact on clinical outcomes. A key step in improving our knowledge on this topic would be the development of standardised checklists for each device.

          Chronic lung diseases: Call to standardise research into inhaler device errors

          Researchers should adopt a standardised approach to investigate the incorrect use of inhalers and its associated clinical implications. Henry Chrystyn at Plymouth University, together with scientists across the UK and the Netherlands, conducted a review of research related to inhaled medication errors made by patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It is widely acknowledged that many patients with lung conditions don’t use their inhaler devices correctly, which affects drug effectiveness and disease control. While Chrystyn’s team found high critical error rates reported across all devices, their meta-analysis and systematic review highlighted significant gaps in knowledge regarding different inhalers and associated error rates, and how these affect clinical outcomes. The researchers call for in-depth studies into device use, alongside standardised checklists and definitions for such studies to use to ensure consistency.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • 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

            Misuse of corticosteroid metered-dose inhaler is associated with decreased asthma stability.

            This study assessed whether the improper use of pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) is associated with decreased asthma control in asthmatics treated by inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). General practitioners (GPs) included consecutive asthmatic outpatients treated by pMDI-administered ICS and on-demand, short-acting beta2-agonists. They measured an asthma instability score (AIS) based on daytime and nocturnal symptoms, exercise-induced dyspnoea, beta2-agonist usage, emergency-care visits and global perception of asthma control within the preceding month; the inhalation technique of the patient also was assessed. GPs (n=915) included 4,078 adult asthmatics; 3,955 questionnaires were evaluable. pMDI was misused by 71% of patients, of which 47% was due to poor coordination. Asthma was less stable in pMDI misusers than in good users (AIS: 3.93 versus 2.86, p<0.001). Among misusers, asthma was less stable in poor coordinators (AIS: 4.38 versus 3.56 in good coordinators, p<0.001). To conclude, misuse of pressurized metered-dose inhalers, which is mainly due to poor coordination, is frequent and associated with poorer asthma control in inhaled corticosteroid-treated asthmatics. This study highlights the importance of evaluating inhalation technique and providing appropriate education in all patients, especially before increasing inhaled corticosteroid dosage or adding other agents. The use of devices which alleviate coordination problems should be reinforced in pressurized metered-dose inhaler misusers.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Assessment of handling of inhaler devices in real life: an observational study in 3811 patients in primary care.

              The correct use of inhalation devices is an inclusion criterion for all studies comparing inhaled treatments. In real life, however, patients may make many errors with their usual inhalation device, which may negate the benefits observed in clinical trials. Our study was undertaken to compare inhalation device handling in real life. A total of 3811 patients treated for at least 1 month with an inhalation device (Aerolizer, Autohaler, Diskus, pressurized metered dose inhaler (pMDI), or Turbuhaler) were included in this observational study performed in primary care in France between February 1st and July 14th, 2002. General practitioners had to assess patient handling of their usual inhaler device with the help of a checklist established for each inhaler model, from the package leaflet. Seventy-six percent of patients made at least one error with pMDI compared to 49-55% with breath-actuated inhalers. Errors compromising treatment efficacy were made by 11-12% of patients treated with Aerolizer, Autohaler, or Diskus compared to 28% and 32% of patients treated with pMDI and Turbuhaler, respectively. Overestimation of good inhalation by general practitioners was maximal for Turbuhaler (24%), and lowest for Autohaler and pMDI (6%). Ninety percent of general practitioners felt that participation in the study would improve error detection. These results suggest that there are differences in the handling of inhaler devices in real life in primary care that are not taken into account in controlled studies. There is a need for continued education of prescribers and users in the proper use of these devices to improve treatment efficacy.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                h.chrystyn@gmail.com
                Journal
                NPJ Prim Care Respir Med
                NPJ Prim Care Respir Med
                NPJ Primary Care Respiratory Medicine
                Nature Publishing Group UK (London )
                2055-1010
                3 April 2017
                3 April 2017
                2017
                : 27
                : 22
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2219 0747, GRID grid.11201.33, Inhalation Consultancy Ltd, Yeadon, Leeds and Faculty of Human and Health Sciences, , Plymouth University, ; Plymouth, UK
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0399 8953, GRID grid.6214.1, Department of Research Methodology, Measurement, and Data Analysis, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, , University of Twente, ; Enschede, The Netherlands
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0399 8347, GRID grid.415214.7, , Department of Epidemiology, Medisch Spectrum Twente, ; Enschede, The Netherlands
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2162 0389, GRID grid.418236.a, , GSK, ; Brentford, UK
                [5 ]William Harvey Institute, St Bartholomew Hospital and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK
                [6 ]Exploristics Ltd, Belfast, UK
                [7 ]Bridge Medical, Richmond, UK
                [8 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9297, GRID grid.5491.9, Primary Care and Population Sciences, , University of Southampton, ; Southampton, UK
                [9 ]GRID grid.454385.b, , NIHR Southampton Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit, ; Southampton, UK
                [10 ]NIHR Wessex Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC), Southampton, UK
                Article
                16
                10.1038/s41533-017-0016-z
                5434773
                28373682
                25737074-f264-4663-b435-bd9ba05c37b5
                © The Author(s) 2017

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History
                : 31 March 2016
                : 16 December 2016
                : 1 February 2017
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Comments

                Comment on this article