Does mixing inhaler devices lead to unchecked inhaler technique errors in patients with COPD? Findings from the cross-sectional observational MISMATCH study

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may be prescribed multiple inhalers that require different techniques for optimal performance. Mixing devices has been associated with poorer COPD outcomes suggesting that it leads to inappropriate inhaler technique. However, empirical evidence is lacking.

AIMS

Compare the nature and frequency of dry powder inhaler (DPI) technique errors in patients with COPD using (1) a single DPI or (2) mixed-devices (a DPI and pressurised metered dose inhaler (pMDI)).

METHODS

Data from the PIFotal study-a cross-sectional study on Peak Inspiratory Flow in patients with COPD using a DPI as maintenance therapy, capturing data from 1434 patients on demographic characteristics, COPD health status and inhaler technique-were used to select 291 patients using mixed-devices. Frequency matching based on country of residence and DPI device type was used to select 291 patients using a DPI-only for comparison. Predetermined checklists were used for the evaluation of DPI video recordings and complemented with additional errors that were observed in ≥10%. Error proportions were calculated for the (1) individual and total number of errors, (2) number of critical errors and (3) number of pMDI-related errors.

RESULTS

The study sample contained 582 patients (mean (SD) age 69.6 (9.4) years, 47.1% female). DPI technique errors were common, but not significantly different between the groups. The majority of patients made at least one critical error (DPI-only: 90.7% vs mixed-devices: 92.8%). Proportions of total, 'pMDI-related' and critical errors did not significantly differ between the groups.

CONCLUSION

The nature and frequency of inhaler technique errors did not substantially differ between patients prescribed with a single DPI and mixed-devices. Currently, 'pMDI-related errors' in DPI use are not accounted for in existing checklists.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ENCEPP/EUPAS48776.

Development of a tool to detect small airways dysfunction in asthma clinical practice

Background

Small airways dysfunction (SAD) in asthma is difficult to measure and a gold standard is lacking. The aim of this study was to develop a simple tool including items of the small airways dysfunction tool (SADT) questionnaire, basic patient characteristics and respiratory tests available depending on clinical setting, to predict SAD in asthma.

Methods

This study was based on the data of the multinational ATLANTIS (Assessment of Small Airways Involvement in Asthma) study including the earlier developed SADT questionnaire. Key SADT-items together with clinical information was now used to build logistic regression models to predict SAD group (less likely or more likely to have SAD). Diagnostic ability of the models was expressed as area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and positive likelihood ratios (LR+).

Results

SADT-item 8, “I sometimes wheeze when I am sitting or lying quietly”, and the patient characteristics age, age at asthma diagnosis and BMI could reasonably well detect SAD (AUC:0.74, LR+:2.3). The diagnostic ability increased by adding spirometry (FEV1pp; AUC:0.87, LR+:5.0) and oscillometry (R5-R20 and AX; AUC:0.96, LR+:12.8).

Conclusion

If access to respiratory tests is limited (e.g.primary care in many countries), patients with SAD could reasonably well be identified by asking about wheezing at rest and a few patient characteristics. In (advanced) hospital settings patients with SAD could be identified with considerably higher accuracy using spirometry and oscillometry.

Perceptions on Home-Administration of Biologics in the Context of Severe Asthma: An International Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Biologics are an effective therapy for severe asthma. Home administration of biologics by patients is likely to facilitate their accessibility. Yet little is known about patients' and health care providers' (HCPs) perceptions regarding home administration of biologics.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to create more insight into the perceptions and experiences of patients and HCPs regarding home administration of biologics in the context of the treatment of severe asthma.

METHODS

A qualitative international study was performed in the Netherlands, United States, Australia, and United Kingdom. In each country, 2 focus groups were held with potential/recent and long-term users of biologics at home. Prior to the focus groups, patients were prompted with themes on online forums. For triangulation purposes, interviews were held with HCPs to discuss salient findings from forums and focus groups. Data were analyzed with qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 75 patients participated in the forums, of which 40 participated in the focus groups. Furthermore, 12 HCPs were interviewed. The following overarching themes were identified: living with severe asthma; practical aspects of using biologics; the role of HCPs regarding biologics; social support from family, friends, and others; effectiveness of biologics and other treatments; side effects of biologics.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that, for those using biologics for severe asthma, the benefits of home administration of biologics usually outweigh inconvenience and side effects. Guided practice, accessible support contact, and monitoring including social support should be central in the transition from hospital to home administration of asthma biologics.

Impact of PIF, Inhalation Technique and Medication Adherence on Health Status and Exacerbations in COPD: Protocol of a Real-World Observational Study (PIFotal COPD Study)

INTRODUCTION

Dry powder inhalers (DPIs), a commonly prescribed inhaler type for respiratory diseases, require patients to generate sufficient peak inspiratory flow (PIF) to ensure optimal drug delivery to the airways. Effectiveness of therapy also requires a good inhalation technique and adequate medication adherence. For patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), recent studies conducted in tertiary care suggest that DPI users with suboptimal PIF have poorer COPD-related health status and increased exacerbation risk versus those with optimal PIF. The PIFotal study will investigate the impact of PIF, inhalation technique and medication adherence on patient-reported outcomes in patients with COPD in primary care using a DPI for their maintenance therapy.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This cross-sectional observational study will assess 1200 patients (aged ≥ 40 years, diagnosed with COPD and using a DPI for COPD maintenance therapy for ≥ 3 months) from the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Greece and Australia. Assessments will consist of (1) PIF measurements (usual patient inhalation manoeuvre, maximal PIF against resistance of own inhaler, and maximal PIF against low resistance); (2) Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ), COPD Assessment Test and Test of Adherence to Inhalers scores; and (3) video recordings of patient inhalation technique. Dependent variables include health status (CCQ score), number of self-reported exacerbations in previous 12 months, and healthcare resource utilisation in previous 6 months. Independent variables include PIF values, inhalation technique errors, medication adherence, and demographic and clinical characteristics. In the primary analysis, the mean difference in CCQ score between patients (1) with optimal/suboptimal PIF, (2) exhibiting/not exhibiting inhalation technique errors, and (3) adhering/not adhering to medication will be examined in a multivariable linear mixed model.

ETHICS

The study protocol was approved by ethics committees/institutional review boards of all participating sites prior to enrolment; written informed consent was obtained from all study participants.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04532853.