9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Acceptability and preference of three inhalation devices assessed by the Handling Questionnaire in asthma and COPD patients

      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

          Background

          The patients’ criteria of preference for inhalation devices can affect the extent of their adherence to treatment and outcomes.

          Aim of this study was to assess and compare the patients’ preference and acceptability (PPA) for Breezhaler and Genuair (both Dry Powder Inhalers), and for Respimat (a Soft Mist Inhaler) in asthma and COPD out-patients by means of the Handling Questionnaire.

          Methods

          The Handling Questionnaire is a validated instrument which allows the investigation of different domains of PPA; it also takes into account the patients’ age and gender, together with their previous experience with the inhalation devices and their previous education approach to them. Differences in terms of preference, acceptance and usability were assessed by linear and logistic regressions in order to evaluate factors influencing the proper actuation.

          Results and Discussion

          Data from 333 patients were collected: Genuair and Respimat were the most liked and perceived as the easiest to use at glance by patients, but also as the least problematic according to the patients’ and nurse’s judgments. Mean number of attempts for achieving the first effective actuation was the highest with Breezhaler (2.6 vs 1.6; p <0.0001). Linear regressions showed that longer the explanation, higher was the number of attempts to the first proper actuation (0.58 additional attempts every 10 s increase in the first explanation, p <0.0001). Devices requiring less manoeuvres for the actuation were used properly after less attempts (0.38 increase in the number of attempts every additional manoeuvres, p <0.0001). Respimat proved to be the most indicated in COPD patients since it was the most liked and its successful rate at first attempt was the highest. Logistic regressions confirmed these data. Previous experience with DPIs and/or MDIs did not affect the patient preference and acceptability, independently whether suffering from asthma or COPD.

          Conclusions

          Substantial differences are existing in patient’s preference and acceptability for inhalation devices, mainly related to the handling and the understanding of the different devices.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

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

          R: A language and environmental for statistical computing

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

            Importance of inhaler devices in the management of airway disease.

            The delivery of drugs by inhalation is an integral component of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management. However, even with effective inhaled pharmacological therapies, asthma, particularly, remains poorly controlled around the world. The reasons for this are manifold, but limitations of treatment guidelines in terms of content, implementation and relevance to everyday clinical life, including insufficient patient education, access to health care and cost of medication as well as poor inhaler technique are likely to contribute. Considering that inhalation therapy is a cornerstone in asthma and COPD management, little advice is provided in the guidelines regarding inhaler selection. The pressurised metered dose inhaler (pMDI) is still the most frequently prescribed device worldwide, but even after repeated tuition many patients fail to use it correctly. In addition, the correct technique can be lost over time. Although several improvements in pMDIs such as a change in the propellant and actuation have resulted in improvements in lung deposition, many dry powder inhalers (DPIs) are easier to use. However, these devices also have limitations such as dependency of drug particle size on flow rate and loss of the metered dose if the patient exhales through the device before inhaling. Improvements in using inhalation devices more efficiently, in inhaler design for supporting patient compliance, and advances in inhaler technology to assure drug delivery to the lungs, have the potential to improve asthma and COPD management and control. New and advanced devices are considered being helpful to minimise the most important problems patients have with current DPIs.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Dry powder inhalers: which factors determine the frequency of handling errors?

              Dry powder inhalers are often used ineffectively, resulting in a poor level of disease control. To determine how often essential mistakes are made in the use of Aerolizer, Discus, HandiHaler and Turbuhaler and to study the effects of age, severity of airflow obstruction and previous training in inhalational technique by medical personnel on the error rate. Two hundred and twenty-four newly referred outpatients (age 55.1 +/- 20 years) were asked how they had been acquainted with the inhaler and to demonstrate their inhalational technique. The inhaler-specific error rates were as follows: Aerolizer 9.1%, Discus 26.7%, HandiHaler 53.1% and Turbuhaler 34.9%. Compared to Aerolizer, the odds ratio of an ineffective inhalation was higher for HandiHaler (9.82, p < 0.01) and Turbuhaler (4.84, p < 0.05). The error rate increased with age and with the severity of airway obstruction (p < 0.01). When training had been given as opposed to no training, the odds ratio of ineffective inhalation was 0.22 (p < 0.01). If Turbuhaler is used, the estimated risks range from 9.8% in an 18-year-old patient with normal lung function and previous training to 83.2% in an 80-year-old patient with moderate or severe obstruction who had not received any training. Dry powder inhalers are useful in the management of younger patients with normal lung function or mild airway obstruction. In older patients with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, the risk of ineffective inhalation remains high despite training in inhalational technique. A metered-dose inhaler with a spacer might be a valuable treatment alternative in a substantial proportion of these patients. (c) 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                robertodalnegro@gmail.com
                m.povero@adreshe.com
                Journal
                Multidiscip Respir Med
                Multidiscip Respir Med
                Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine
                BioMed Central (London )
                1828-695X
                2049-6958
                10 February 2016
                10 February 2016
                2015
                : 11
                : 7
                Affiliations
                [ ]National Centre for Respiratory Phamacoeconomics & Pharmacoepidemiology, CESFAR, Verona, Italy
                [ ]AdRes Health Economics and Outcome Recourses, Torino, Italy
                Article
                44
                10.1186/s40248-016-0044-5
                4748681
                26865979
                acdeb1f7-4fa9-4f36-b44e-1f0ed47e5bc3
                © Dal Negro and Povero. 2016

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 20 November 2015
                : 12 January 2016
                Categories
                Original Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2016

                Respiratory medicine
                breezhaler,bronchial asthma,copd,handling questionnaire,genuair,patient preference,respimat

                Comments

                Comment on this article