Blog
About

8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Maintenance inhaler preference, attribute importance, and satisfaction in prescribing physicians and patients with asthma, COPD, or asthma–COPD overlap syndrome consulting for routine care

      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

          Background

          In respiratory disorders, patient- and physician-perceived satisfaction with the maintenance inhaler device is an important factor driving treatment compliance and outcomes. We examine inhaler preferences in asthma and COPD from patient and physician perspectives, particularly focusing on the relative importance of individual device attributes and patient characteristics guiding inhaler choice.

          Materials and methods

          Real-world data from >7,300 patients with asthma, COPD, or asthma–COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS) consulting for routine care were derived from respiratory Disease Specific Programs conducted in Europe, USA, Japan, and China. Outcome variables included current pattern of inhaled maintenance therapy and device type, physician preference, patient-reported device attribute importance, and satisfaction.

          Results

          The most commonly prescribed inhalers for maintenance therapy of asthma, COPD, and ACOS were dry powder inhalers (62.8%–88.5% of patients) and pressurized metered dose inhalers (18.9%–35.3% of patients). One-third of physicians stated no preference for maintenance device when prescribing treatment, and less than one-third of patients reported being “extremely satisfied” with any attribute of their device. Instructions being “simple and easy to follow” was the inhaler attribute most commonly selected as important. For approximately one-third of patients across all groups, “ease of use/suitability of inhaler device” was a reason for the prescribing decision, as stated by the physician. Device characteristics were more likely to impact the prescribing decision in older patients (in asthma and COPD; P<0.01) and those with worse disease severity (in COPD; P<0.001).

          Conclusion

          A relatively high proportion of physicians had no preference for inhaler type across asthma, COPD, and ACOS. Simplicity of use was the most important inhaler attribute from a patient’s perspective. Physicians appeared to place most importance on ease of use and device suitability when selecting inhalers for older patients and those with more severe disease, particularly in COPD.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 26

          • 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

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

              Real-world physician and patient behaviour across countries: Disease-Specific Programmes - a means to understand.

              Treatment guidelines and strategies are often based on data from randomized controlled trials and observational clinical studies. These sources drive treatment decisions, yet the data they provide may have limited relevance to the wider population in real-world clinical practice due to the narrow selection criteria applied to patients in trials. Information used to inform clinical practice and improve patient outcomes can, therefore, be unreflective of real-world clinical situations. The purpose of this article is to assess the value of Adelphi Disease Specific Programmes (DSPs) as sources of real world data. DSPs are large, multinational, observational studies of clinical practice for a range of common chronic diseases. Treatment practice data are collected by physicians (n = 700) who are asked to provide information for the next 10 patients consulting for a specific condition. These patients (n = 7000) are also invited to fill out a self-completion form providing their own assessment of symptoms, expectations and quality of life. This article provides examples of the statistical techniques that have been employed to analyse the data in terms of cost/burden of illness, quality of life, disease severity and progression, compliance and adherence to therapy, impact of treatment guidelines and analyses of unmet need. DSPs can support clinical understanding of how diseases are managed including rationale for doctor decision-making and patient attitudes to their condition. Comparisons with other data sources and limitations of the programmes are discussed (including the fact that, unlike claims databases and registries, the DSPs are cross-sectional and not longitudinal).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis
                Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis
                International Journal of COPD
                International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
                Dove Medical Press
                1176-9106
                1178-2005
                2018
                16 March 2018
                : 13
                : 927-936
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Medical Evidence and Observational Research, AstraZeneca Gothenburg, Mölndal, Sweden
                [2 ]Real World Research (Respiratory), Adelphi Real World, Bollington, UK
                [3 ]Global Payer Evidence and Pricing, AstraZeneca Gothenburg, Mölndal, Sweden
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Bo Ding, Medical Evidence and Observational Research, Global Medical Affairs, AstraZeneca Gothenburg, Pepparedsleden 1, SE-431 83 Mölndal, Sweden, Tel +46 31 776 2406, Email bo.ding@ 123456astrazeneca.com
                Article
                copd-13-927
                10.2147/COPD.S154525
                5859902
                © 2018 Ding et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited

                The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                Categories
                Original Research

                Comments

                Comment on this article