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

      Characteristics of patients making serious inhaler errors with a dry powder inhaler and association with asthma-related events in a primary care setting

      research-article
      , MD a , , BSc b , , MSc, PhD a , c , , MSc a , , PhD a , , MD, FRCGP d , , BM, BCh, FRCGP e , , MD, FRCPE, FRCGP f , , MD, PhD g , , MD, PhD h , , MD i , , MD j , , MD k , , B.Pharm(Hons), PhD l , , MD, PhD m , , MD, PhD m , , MD n , , MD, PhD o , , BA a , , MD, FRCGP a , f , *
      The Journal of Asthma
      Taylor & Francis
      Asthma therapy, cross-sectional, Diskus inhaler, inhalation devices, multinational

      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

          Objective: Correct inhaler technique is central to effective delivery of asthma therapy. The study aim was to identify factors associated with serious inhaler technique errors and their prevalence among primary care patients with asthma using the Diskus dry powder inhaler (DPI). Methods: This was a historical, multinational, cross-sectional study (2011–2013) using the iHARP database, an international initiative that includes patient- and healthcare provider-reported questionnaires from eight countries. Patients with asthma were observed for serious inhaler errors by trained healthcare providers as predefined by the iHARP steering committee. Multivariable logistic regression, stepwise reduced, was used to identify clinical characteristics and asthma-related outcomes associated with ≥1 serious errors. Results: Of 3681 patients with asthma, 623 (17%) were using a Diskus (mean [SD] age, 51 [14]; 61% women). A total of 341 (55%) patients made ≥1 serious errors. The most common errors were the failure to exhale before inhalation, insufficient breath-hold at the end of inhalation, and inhalation that was not forceful from the start. Factors significantly associated with ≥1 serious errors included asthma-related hospitalization the previous year (odds ratio [OR] 2.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26–3.40); obesity (OR 1.75; 1.17–2.63); poor asthma control the previous 4 weeks (OR 1.57; 1.04–2.36); female sex (OR 1.51; 1.08–2.10); and no inhaler technique review during the previous year (OR 1.45; 1.04–2.02). Conclusions: Patients with evidence of poor asthma control should be targeted for a review of their inhaler technique even when using a device thought to have a low error rate.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

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

          What the pulmonary specialist should know about the new inhalation therapies.

          A collaboration of multidisciplinary experts on the delivery of pharmaceutical aerosols was facilitated by the European Respiratory Society (ERS) and the International Society for Aerosols in Medicine (ISAM), in order to draw up a consensus statement with clear, up-to-date recommendations that enable the pulmonary physician to choose the type of aerosol delivery device that is most suitable for their patient. The focus of the consensus statement is the patient-use aspect of the aerosol delivery devices that are currently available. The subject was divided into different topics, which were in turn assigned to at least two experts. The authors searched the literature according to their own strategies, with no central literature review being performed. To achieve consensus, draft reports and recommendations were reviewed and voted on by the entire panel. Specific recommendations for use of the devices can be found throughout the statement. Healthcare providers should ensure that their patients can and will use these devices correctly. This requires that the clinician: is aware of the devices that are currently available to deliver the prescribed drugs; knows the various techniques that are appropriate for each device; is able to evaluate the patient's inhalation technique to be sure they are using the devices properly; and ensures that the inhalation method is appropriate for each patient.
            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
                J Asthma
                J Asthma
                IJAS
                ijas20
                The Journal of Asthma
                Taylor & Francis
                0277-0903
                1532-4303
                15 March 2016
                26 January 2016
                : 53
                : 3
                : 321-329
                Affiliations
                [ a ]Research in Real-Life, Ltd , Cambridge, United Kingdom
                [ b ]Optimum Patient Care Ltd , Cambridge, United Kingdom
                [ c ]Inhalation Consultancy, Ltd , Yeadon, Leeds, United Kingdom
                [ d ]Woodbrook Medical Centre, Loughborough, United Kingdom, Centre for Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh , United Kingdom
                [ e ]Box Surgery , Box, United Kingdom
                [ f ]Academic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen , Aberdeen, United Kingdom
                [ g ]University Paris Descartes (EA2511), Cochin Hospital Group (AP-HP) , Paris, France
                [ h ]Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Careggi University Hospital , Florence, Italy
                [ i ]Department of Medical Sciences, University of Ferrara , Ferrara, Italy
                [ j ]Special Interest Respiratory Area, Società Italiana Interdisciplinare per le Cure Primarie , Bari, Italy
                [ k ]Primary Care Respiratory Research Unit, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Palma IdisPa , Palma de Mallorca, Spain
                [ l ]Sydney Medical School and the Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, University of Sydney , Sydney, Australia
                [ m ]Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Preventive Medicine and Family Medicine, Uppsala University , Uppsala, Sweden
                [ n ]Department of General Medicine, University of Oslo and Langbølgen Legesenter
                [ o ]Department of Primary Care, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen , Groningen, The Netherlands
                Author notes
                Correspondence: David B. Price, Academic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen , Polwarth Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, United KingdomAB25 2ZD. Tel: +44 160 387 1500. E-mail: dprice@ 123456rirl.org

                This is an Open Access article. Non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly attributed, cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way, is permitted. The moral rights of the named author(s) have been asserted.

                Article
                1099160
                10.3109/02770903.2015.1099160
                4819842
                26810934
                a6ce240c-a810-4683-a91b-5dfe96f4c0d2
                © 2016 The Author(s).

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.

                History
                : 4 July 2015
                : 7 September 2015
                : 18 September 2015
                Page count
                Pages: 9
                Categories
                Article
                Education

                Immunology
                asthma therapy,cross-sectional,diskus inhaler,inhalation devices,multinational
                Immunology
                asthma therapy, cross-sectional, diskus inhaler, inhalation devices, multinational

                Comments

                Comment on this article