[Effectiveness of the correct use of inhalation devices in patients with COPD: randomized clinical trial]

Effectiveness of an educational intervention about inhalation technique in healthcare professionals in primary care: a cluster randomized trial

Background: Incorrect inhalation technique (IT) is an important issue for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients and healthcare professionals. Studies in which counseling is carried out with healthcare professionals beforehand so that they can properly educate their patients are required. The objective of the present trial is to assess the improvement in the performance of the IT in subjects with COPD and prescribed inhaled therapy after the implementation of an educational intervention conducted by their general practitioners. Methods: A cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted. A total of 286 COPD patients received scheduled inhalation therapy from 27 general practices in seven primary care centers. A teach-back educational intervention was implemented for both healthcare professionals and patients. The primary outcome of this study was the performance of the correct inhalation technique. It is considered a good technique if all steps in the inhalation data sheet are correctly performed. The secondary outcomes were assessed using forced spirometry, the basal dyspnea index, the Medical Research Council dyspnea scale, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and EuroQoL5D-5L for health-related quality of life. A one-year follow-up was conducted using an intention-to-treat analysis. Results: After the intervention, incorrect IT was observed in 92% of professionals and patients, with rates reaching 50% and 69.2%, respectively. The effectiveness in patients was significant, with a number needed to treat of 2.14 (95% CI 1.79-2.66). Factors related to correct IT in patients included the type of intervention, length of intervention (>25 min), good pulmonary function, age (youngest <=65, oldest >83), and less limitation of activity due to dyspnea. There was no relation with the cluster. Conclusion: This study shows the effectiveness of direct inhaler technique training provided by a trained professional on an appropriate timescale (for example, a specific consultation for medication reviews), aiming to help subjects improve their performance using the teach-back method. This could be an encouraging intervention to improve medication adherence and health promotion in people with COPD. Clinical Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov, identifier ISRCTN93725230.

The importance of reminders and patient preferences to improve inhaler technique in older adults with COPD

Objectives: Medication non-adherence in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is common. The aim is to evaluate the efficacy of two interventions to improve the inhalation technique (IT) in patients with pulmonary disease is common. Also determine optimal IT reminder time and to test the role of preferences in the intervention selection. Method: 726 pulmonary disease in common patients (consecutive sampling) from two trials: 1) TECEPOC-study (patients' preference trial/comprehensive cohort design) 2) TIEPOC-study (randomised controlled trial). Interventions: intervention-A (ad-hoc leaflet with instructions about correct IT according Spanish Respiratory Society), intervention B (intervention A+ individual training by instructors). Four visits were performed (baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months). Data on IT, sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, quality of life and respiratory drugs were recorded. Analysis under intention to treat principle. Multivariate analysis was conducted to measure the potential modifying factors of improvement in the IT along follow-up. Results: 660 patients (90.9%) did not perform a correct IT at baseline 89.75% with Handihaler, 86.95% with Turbuhaler, 84.75% with Accuhaler and 87.35% with pMDI. At 12 months, 221 patients 29.9% performed correctly the IT; a decrease in the slope of the curve (correct IT) was detected at 3 months follow-up. Intervention B was the most effective in both trials compared to control group or intervention A, regardless of preferences: 1) TECEPOC Study (preference trial): Intervention B versus control group, NNT = 3.22 (IC95%, 2.27-5.52); and versus Intervention A, NNT = 3.57 (CI95%, 2.41-6.8). Preferences improved 6.7% in the correct IT without statistical significance. 2) TIEPOC Study (randomized controlled trial): Intervention B versus control group, NNT = 1.74 (IC95%, 1.47-2.17), and versus intervention A, NNT = 3.33 (CI 95%, 2.43-5.55). No differences were measured between Intervention A and control group. Conclusion: Individual training significantly improves IT. Reminders every 3 months are recommended. Preferences do not influence the intervention effectiveness.

Interventions to improve adherence to pharmacological therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic lung condition characterised by persistent respiratory symptoms and limited lung airflow, dyspnoea and recurrent exacerbations. Suboptimal therapy or non-adherence may result in limited effectiveness of pharmacological treatments and subsequently poor health outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of interventions intended to improve adherence to single or combined pharmacological treatments compared with usual care or interventions that are not intended to improve adherence in people with COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase (search date 1 May 2020). We also searched web-based clinical trial registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs included adults with COPD diagnosed by established criteria (e.g. Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease). Interventions included change to pharmacological treatment regimens, adherence aids, education, behavioural or psychological interventions (e.g. cognitive behavioural therapy), communication or follow-up by a health professional (e.g. telephone, text message or face-to-face), multi-component interventions, and interventions to improve inhaler technique.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Working in pairs, four review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed confidence in the evidence for each primary outcome using GRADE. Primary outcomes were adherence, quality of life and hospital service utilisation. Adherence measures included the Adherence among Patients with Chronic Disease questionnaire (APCD). Quality of life measures included the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 trials (2191 participants) in the analysis with follow-up ranging from six to 52 weeks. Age ranged from 54 to 75 years, and COPD severity ranged from mild to very severe. Trials were conducted in the USA, Spain, Germany, Japan, Jordan, Northern Ireland, Iran, South Korea, China and Belgium. Risk of bias was high due to lack of blinding. Evidence certainty was downgraded due to imprecision and small participant numbers. Single component interventions Six studies (55 to 212 participants) reported single component interventions including changes to pharmacological treatment (different roflumilast doses or different inhaler types), adherence aids (Bluetooth inhaler reminder device), educational (comprehensive verbal instruction), behavioural or psychological (motivational interview). Change in dose of roflumilast may result in little to no difference in adherence (odds ratio (OR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.99; studies = 1, participants = 55; low certainty). A Bluetooth inhaler reminder device did not improve adherence, but comprehensive verbal instruction from a health professional did improve mean adherence (prescription refills) (mean difference (MD) 1.00, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.54). Motivational interview improved mean adherence scores on the APCD scale (MD 22.22, 95% CI 8.42 to 36.02). Use of a single inhaler compared to two separate inhalers may have little to no impact on quality of life (SGRQ; MD 0.80, 95% CI -3.12 to 4.72; very low certainty). A Bluetooth inhaler monitoring device may provide a small improvement in quality of life on the CCQ (MD 0.40, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.73; very low certainty). Single inhaler use may have little to no impact on the number of people admitted to hospital compared to two separate inhalers (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.90; very low certainty). Single component interventions may have little to no impact on the number of people expereincing adverse events (very low certainty evidence from studies of a change in pharmacotherapy or use of adherence aids). A change in pharmacotherapy may have little to no impact on exacerbations or deaths (very low certainty). Multi-component interventions Eight studies (30 to 734 participants) reported multi-component interventions including tailored care package that included adherence support as a key component or included inhaler technique as a component. A multi-component intervention may result in more people adhering to pharmacotherapy compared to control at 40.5 weeks (risk ratio (RR) 1.37, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.59; studies = 4, participants = 446; I2 = 0%; low certainty). There may be little to no impact on quality of life (SGRQ, Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire, CAT) (studies = 3; low to very low certainty). Multi-component interventions may help to reduce the number of people admitted to hospital for any cause (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.63; studies = 2, participants = 877; low certainty), or COPD-related hospitalisations (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.34; studies = 2, participants = 220; moderate certainty). There may be a small benefit on people experiencing severe exacerbations. There may be little to no effect on adverse events, serious adverse events or deaths, but events were infrequently reported and were rare (low to very certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Single component interventions (e.g. education or motivational interviewing provided by a health professional) can help to improve adherence to pharmacotherapy (low to very low certainty). There were slight improvements in quality of life with a Bluetooth inhaler device, but evidence is from one study and very low certainty. Change to pharmacotherapy (e.g. single inhaler instead of two, or different doses of roflumilast) has little impact on hospitalisations or exacerbations (very low certainty). There is no difference in people experiencing adverse events (all-cause or COPD-related), or deaths (very low certainty). Multi-component interventions may improve adherence with education, motivational or behavioural components delivered by health professionals (low certainty). There is little to no impact on quality of life (low to very low certainty). They may help reduce the number of people admitted to hospital overall (specifically pharmacist-led approaches) (low certainty), and fewer people may have COPD-related hospital admissions (moderately certainty). There may be a small reduction in people experiencing severe exacerbations, but evidence is from one study (low certainty). Limited evidence found no difference in people experiencing adverse events, serious adverse events or deaths (low to very low certainty). The evidence presented should be interpreted with caution. Larger studies with more intervention types, especially single interventions, are needed. It is unclear which specific COPD subgroups would benefit, therefore discussions between health professionals and patients may help to determine whether they will help to improve health outcomes.

[Effectiveness of a brief educational intervention relating to the correct use of inhalers on the prevention of exacerbation in patients suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease]

OBJECTIVE

To predict the effect of a brief educational intervention aimed at improving the inhaler technique on the reduction of exacerbations in patients with COPD over a year.

MATHERIAL AND METHODS

A triple blind, randomised controlled clinical trial with parallel design.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

to be between 40-75 years, having been diagnosed with COPD, and being on treatment with inhalers. A total of 97 patients were randomly selected. They were randomly assigned into 2groups according to their functional severity measured with spirometry. Intervention group: evaluation of the inhalation technique. Their mistakes were corrected using a brief educational intervention. Reinforcement visits were made in the second and seventh month.

CONTROL GROUP

evaluation of the inhalation technique. No educational intervention was made. After 1 year of follow-up, the number of exacerbations in each group was checked.

VARIABLES MEASURED

social and demographic, study, dyspnoea level, body-mass index, tobacco use, FEV₁, FEV₁/FVC, COPD stage, BODEX index, number, type, and inhaler technique, number of previous exacerbations. Bayesian inference analysis was performed using logistic regression models.

RESULTS

A total of 56 patients were assigned to de intervention group and 41 to the control one. There were 16 and 14 lost to follow-up, respectively. In the intervention group, 44.6% of the patients had an exacerbation, compared to the control group, with 56.1%. OR adjusted = 0.57 (95% CI: 0.22-1.22). Posterior probability OR < 1 = 93%. Exacerbations which required hospital admission had an OR = 0.21 (95% CI: 0.02-0.75) with posterior probability OR < 1= 99%.

CONCLUSIONS

A brief educational technique is an effective method for reducing the number of exacerbations in patients with COPD.

Self-management interventions including action plans for exacerbations versus usual care in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) self-management interventions should be structured but personalised and often multi-component, with goals of motivating, engaging and supporting the patients to positively adapt their behaviour(s) and develop skills to better manage disease. Exacerbation action plans are considered to be a key component of COPD self-management interventions. Studies assessing these interventions show contradictory results. In this Cochrane Review, we compared the effectiveness of COPD self-management interventions that include action plans for acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) with usual care.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of COPD-specific self-management interventions that include an action plan for exacerbations of COPD compared with usual care in terms of health-related quality of life, respiratory-related hospital admissions and other health outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials, trials registries, and the reference lists of included studies to May 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials evaluating a self-management intervention for people with COPD published since 1995. To be eligible for inclusion, the self-management intervention included a written action plan for AECOPD and an iterative process between participant and healthcare provider(s) in which feedback was provided. We excluded disease management programmes classified as pulmonary rehabilitation or exercise classes offered in a hospital, at a rehabilitation centre, or in a community-based setting to avoid overlap with pulmonary rehabilitation as much as possible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We resolved disagreements by reaching consensus or by involving a third review author. Study authors were contacted to obtain additional information and missing outcome data where possible. When appropriate, study results were pooled using a random-effects modelling meta-analysis. The primary outcomes of the review were health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and number of respiratory-related hospital admissions.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 studies that involved 3,854 participants with COPD. The studies compared the effectiveness of COPD self-management interventions that included an action plan for AECOPD with usual care. The follow-up time ranged from two to 24 months and the content of the interventions was diverse.Over 12 months, there was a statistically significant beneficial effect of self-management interventions with action plans on HRQoL, as measured by the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, where a lower score represents better HRQoL. We found a mean difference from usual care of -2.69 points (95% CI -4.49 to -0.90; 1,582 participants; 10 studies; high-quality evidence). Intervention participants were at a statistically significant lower risk for at least one respiratory-related hospital admission compared with participants who received usual care (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.94; 3,157 participants; 14 studies; moderate-quality evidence). The number needed to treat to prevent one respiratory-related hospital admission over one year was 12 (95% CI 7 to 69) for participants with high baseline risk and 17 (95% CI 11 to 93) for participants with low baseline risk (based on the seven studies with the highest and lowest baseline risk respectively).There was no statistically significant difference in the probability of at least one all-cause hospital admission in the self-management intervention group compared to the usual care group (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.03; 2467 participants; 14 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Furthermore, we observed no statistically significant difference in the number of all-cause hospitalisation days, emergency department visits, General Practitioner visits, and dyspnoea scores as measured by the (modified) Medical Research Council questionnaire for self-management intervention participants compared to usual care participants. There was no statistically significant effect observed from self-management on the number of COPD exacerbations and no difference in all-cause mortality observed (RD 0.0019, 95% CI -0.0225 to 0.0263; 3296 participants; 16 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Exploratory analysis showed a very small, but significantly higher respiratory-related mortality rate in the self-management intervention group compared to the usual care group (RD 0.028, 95% CI 0.0049 to 0.0511; 1219 participants; 7 studies; very low-quality evidence).Subgroup analyses showed significant improvements in HRQoL in self-management interventions with a smoking cessation programme (MD -4.98, 95% CI -7.17 to -2.78) compared to studies without a smoking cessation programme (MD -1.33, 95% CI -2.94 to 0.27, test for subgroup differences: Chi² = 6.89, df = 1, P = 0.009, I² = 85.5%). The number of behavioural change techniques clusters integrated in the self-management intervention, the duration of the intervention and adaptation of maintenance medication as part of the action plan did not affect HRQoL. Subgroup analyses did not detect any potential variables to explain differences in respiratory-related hospital admissions among studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Self-management interventions that include a COPD exacerbation action plan are associated with improvements in HRQoL, as measured with the SGRQ, and lower probability of respiratory-related hospital admissions. No excess all-cause mortality risk was observed, but exploratory analysis showed a small, but significantly higher respiratory-related mortality rate for self-management compared to usual care.For future studies, we would like to urge only using action plans together with self-management interventions that meet the requirements of the most recent COPD self-management intervention definition. To increase transparency, future study authors should provide more detailed information regarding interventions provided. This would help inform further subgroup analyses and increase the ability to provide stronger recommendations regarding effective self-management interventions that include action plans for AECOPD. For safety reasons, COPD self-management action plans should take into account comorbidities when used in the wider population of people with COPD who have comorbidities. Although we were unable to evaluate this strategy in this review, it can be expected to further increase the safety of self-management interventions. We also advise to involve Data and Safety Monitoring Boards for future COPD self-management studies.

Supported self-management for patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): an evidence synthesis and economic analysis

BACKGROUND

Self-management (SM) support for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is variable in its coverage, content, method and timing of delivery. There is insufficient evidence for which SM interventions are the most effective and cost-effective.

OBJECTIVES

To undertake (1) a systematic review of the evidence for the effectiveness of SM interventions commencing within 6 weeks of hospital discharge for an exacerbation for COPD (review 1); (2) a systematic review of the qualitative evidence about patient satisfaction, acceptance and barriers to SM interventions (review 2); (3) a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of SM support interventions within 6 weeks of hospital discharge for an exacerbation of COPD (review 3); (4) a cost-effectiveness analysis and economic model of post-exacerbation SM support compared with usual care (UC) (economic model); and (5) a wider systematic review of the evidence of the effectiveness of SM support, including interventions (such as pulmonary rehabilitation) in which there are significant components of SM, to identify which components are the most important in reducing exacerbations, hospital admissions/readmissions and improving quality of life (review 4).

METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched from inception to May 2012: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Science Citation Index [Institute of Scientific Information (ISI)]. Subject-specific databases were also searched: PEDro physiotherapy evidence database, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials. Ongoing studies were sourced through the metaRegister of Current Controlled Trials, International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number database, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. Specialist abstract and conference proceedings were sourced through ISI's Conference Proceedings Citation Index and British Library's Electronic Table of Contents (Zetoc). Hand-searching through European Respiratory Society, the American Thoracic Society and British Thoracic Society conference proceedings from 2010 to 2012 was also undertaken, and selected websites were also examined. Title, abstracts and full texts of potentially relevant studies were scanned by two independent reviewers. Primary studies were included if ≈90% of the population had COPD, the majority were of at least moderate severity and reported on any intervention that included a SM component or package. Accepted study designs and outcomes differed between the reviews. Risk of bias for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using the Cochrane tool. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to combine studies where appropriate. A Markov model, taking a 30-year time horizon, compared a SM intervention immediately following a hospital admission for an acute exacerbation with UC. Incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years were calculated, with sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

From 13,355 abstracts, 10 RCTs were included for review 1, one study each for reviews 2 and 3, and 174 RCTs for review 4. Available studies were heterogeneous and many were of poor quality. Meta-analysis identified no evidence of benefit of post-discharge SM support on admissions [hazard ratio (HR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 1.17], mortality (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.54) and most other health outcomes. A modest improvement in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was identified but this was possibly biased due to high loss to follow-up. The economic model was speculative due to uncertainty in impact on readmissions. Compared with UC, post-discharge SM support (delivered within 6 weeks of discharge) was more costly and resulted in better outcomes (£683 cost difference and 0.0831 QALY gain). Studies assessing the effect of individual components were few but only exercise significantly improved HRQoL (3-month St George's Respiratory Questionnaire 4.87, 95% CI 3.96 to 5.79). Multicomponent interventions produced an improved HRQoL compared with UC (mean difference 6.50, 95% CI 3.62 to 9.39, at 3 months). Results were consistent with a potential reduction in admissions. Interventions with more enhanced care from health-care professionals improved HRQoL and reduced admissions at 1-year follow-up. Interventions that included supervised or unsupervised structured exercise resulted in significant and clinically important improvements in HRQoL up to 6 months.

LIMITATIONS

This review was based on a comprehensive search strategy that should have identified most of the relevant studies. The main limitations result from the heterogeneity of studies available and widespread problems with their design and reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

There was little evidence of benefit of providing SM support to patients shortly after discharge from hospital, although effects observed were consistent with possible improvement in HRQoL and reduction in hospital admissions. It was not easy to tease out the most effective components of SM support packages, although interventions containing exercise seemed the most effective. Future work should include qualitative studies to explore barriers and facilitators to SM post exacerbation and novel approaches to affect behaviour change, tailored to the individual and their circumstances. Any new trials should be properly designed and conducted, with special attention to reducing loss to follow-up. Individual participant data meta-analysis may help to identify the most effective components of SM interventions.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42011001588.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

[Validation of the Spanish version of the Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease-Population Screener (COPD-PS). Its usefulness and that of FEV₁/FEV₆ for the diagnosis of COPD]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a highly undiagnosed disease. The use of short screening questionnaires designed to detect chronic airflow obstruction may help to the early diagnosis of COPD.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

This was an observational, cross-sectional epidemiological study aimed to validate the translated into Spanish version of the COPD-PS questionnaire. Socio-demographic and clinical data of participants were collected, as well as their answers to the COPD-PS and EQ-5D questionnaires. The ratio FEV(1)/FEV(6) was measured with the COPD-6 device. The psychometric properties of the questionnaire and the diagnostic yield of the FEV(1)/FEV(6) ratio were analysed, both referred to the gold standard of post-bronchodilator FEV(1)/FVC < 0.7.

RESULTS

Ten primary care centers participated in the study and included 94 controls and 79 cases with chronic airflow obstruction. Questionnaire characteristics were: feasibility, 2.3% of participants did not answer at least one item; mean time to fill the questionnaire was 47.7 seconds; 4.7% of individuals had a 0 score. Validity, moderate correlation with EQ-5D scores and moderate-high with FEV(1); the scores of COPD-PS were related to all parameters associated with COPD. A cut off of 4 units had the best sensitivity/specificity ratio and correctly classified 78% of participants. For the FEV(1)/FEV(6) ratio, a cut off of 0.75 correctly classified 85% of individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

The COPD-PS questionnaire demonstrated good psychometric properties. A cut off score of 4 has excellent predictive value. A ratio of 0.75 in the FEV(1)/FEV(6) provides an excellent correlation with the ratio FEV(1)/FVC and is useful for the identification of individuals with chronic airflow obstruction.