38
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      The Diskus™: a review of its position among dry powder inhaler devices

      review-article
      International Journal of Clinical Practice
      Blackwell Publishing Ltd

      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

          The use of dry powder inhalers (DPIs) to administer treatments for respiratory diseases has increased significantly in recent years. There is now a wide range of DPIs available that vary considerably in design, required operational techniques, output characteristics and drug delivery across a range of inhalation patterns. Different patient populations may find individual types of DPI easier to use correctly than others and selecting the right DPI for particular patient requirements will improve compliance with therapy. For example, some DPIs offer a greater resistance against inspirational flow rate than others which affects the total emitted dose and also fine particle mass of the aerosol released. An individual patient may therefore receive different amounts of drug when inhaling from different DPIs. Therefore, it is important that the prescriber is fully aware of the characteristics of the different types of DPI, so that he or she can prescribe the device that is most appropriate to an individual patient's needs. This review explores the characteristics of currently available DPIs and evaluates their efficacy and patient acceptability. The differences in output characteristics, ease of use and patient preferences between available devices is shown to affect treatment efficacy and patient compliance with therapy. Changing the DPI prescribed to a patient to a cheaper or generic device may therefore adversely affect disease control and thereby increase the cost of treatment.

          Related collections

          Most cited references100

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

          Universities and tobacco money.

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

              PubMed Central: creating an Aladdin's cave of ideas.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Clin Pract
                ijcp
                International Journal of Clinical Practice
                Blackwell Publishing Ltd
                1368-5031
                1742-1241
                June 2007
                : 61
                : 6
                : 1022-1036
                Affiliations
                Department of Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, University of Bradford Bradford, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: H. Chrystyn, Department of Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, University of Bradford, Bradford BD7 1DP, UK Tel.: + 44 1274 233495 Fax: + 44 1274 236490 Email: h.chrystyn@ 123456brad.ac.uk

                Disclosures The author has been a consultant to and received grants to attend conferences and educational meetings from numerous companies in the Pharmaceutical Industry that market inhaled products including GlaxoSmithKline. The author's research group has also received funds from many of these pharmaceutical companies to carry out research. The author has no personal shares with any pharmaceutical company.

                Article
                10.1111/j.1742-1241.2007.01382.x
                1974824
                17504364
                85c8a2c7-5c65-477f-81e9-e7614ccfe466
                © 2007 The Authors Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
                History
                : November 2007
                : February 2007
                Categories
                Review Articles

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article