The economic burden of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and the impact of poor inhalation technique with commonly prescribed dry powder inhalers in three European countries

Contains fulltext : 171713.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are common chronic inflammatory respiratory diseases, which impose a substantial burden on healthcare systems and society. Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting beta2 agonists (LABA), often administered using dry powder inhalers (DPIs), are frequently prescribed to control persistent asthma and COPD. Use of DPIs has been associated with poor inhalation technique, which can lead to increased healthcare resource use and costs. METHODS: A model was developed to estimate the healthcare resource use and costs associated with asthma and COPD management in people using commonly prescribed DPIs (budesonide + formoterol Turbuhaler((R)) or fluticasone + salmeterol Accuhaler((R))) over 1 year in Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom (UK). The model considered direct costs (inhaler acquisition costs and scheduled and unscheduled healthcare costs), indirect costs (productive days lost), and estimated the contribution of poor inhalation technique to the burden of illness. RESULTS: The direct cost burden of managing asthma and COPD for people using budesonide + formoterol Turbuhaler((R)) or fluticasone + salmeterol Accuhaler((R)) in 2015 was estimated at euro813 million, euro560 million, and euro774 million for Spain, Sweden and the UK, respectively. Poor inhalation technique comprised 2.2-7.7 % of direct costs, totalling euro105 million across the three countries. When lost productivity costs were included, total expenditure increased to euro1.4 billion, euro1.7 billion and euro3.3 billion in Spain, Sweden and the UK, respectively, with euro782 million attributable to poor inhalation technique across the three countries. Sensitivity analyses showed that the model results were most sensitive to changes in the proportion of patients prescribed ICS and LABA FDCs, and least sensitive to differences in the number of antimicrobials and oral corticosteroids prescribed. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of managing asthma and COPD using commonly prescribed DPIs is considerable. A substantial, and avoidable, contributor to this burden is poor inhalation technique. Measures that can improve inhalation technique with current DPIs, such as easier-to-use inhalers or better patient training, could offer benefits to patients and healthcare providers through improving disease outcomes and lowering costs

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.</p

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.</p

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.</p

Comparison of serious inhaler technique errors made by device-naïve patients using three different dry powder inhalers: a randomised, crossover, open-label study

Background: Serious inhaler technique errors can impair drug delivery to the lungs. This randomised, crossover, open-label study evaluated the proportion of patients making predefined serious errors with Pulmojet compared with Diskus and Turbohaler dry powder inhalers. Methods: Patients ≥18 years old with asthma and/or COPD who were current users of an inhaler but naïve to the study devices were assigned to inhaler technique assessment on Pulmojet and either Diskus or Turbohaler in a randomised order. Patients inhaled through empty devices after reading the patient information leaflet. If serious errors potentially affecting dose delivery were recorded, they repeated the inhalations after watching a training video. Inhaler technique was assessed by a trained nurse observer and an electronic inhalation profile recorder. Results: Baseline patient characteristics were similar between randomisation arms for the Pulmojet-Diskus (n = 277) and Pulmojet-Turbohaler (n = 144) comparisons. Non-inferiority in the proportions of patients recording no nurse-observed serious errors was demonstrated for both Pulmojet versus Diskus, and Pulmojet versus Turbohaler; therefore, superiority was tested. Patients were significantly less likely to make ≥1 nurse-observed serious errors using Pulmojet compared with Diskus (odds ratio, 0.31; 95 % CI, 0.19–0.51) or Pulmojet compared with Turbohaler (0.23; 0.12–0.44) after reading the patient information leaflet with additional video instruction, if required. Conclusions These results suggest Pulmojet is easier to learn to use correctly than the Turbohaler or Diskus for current inhaler users switching to a new dry powder inhaler

Corticosteroid effects on ventilator-induced diaphragm dysfunction in anesthetized rats depend on the dose administered

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>High dose of corticosteroids has been previously shown to protect against controlled mechanical ventilation (CMV)-induced diaphragmatic dysfunction while inhibiting calpain activation. Because literature suggests that the calpain inhibiting effect of corticosteroid depends on the dose administered, we determined whether lower doses of corticosteroids would also provide protection of the diaphragm during CMV. This may be important for patients undergoing mechanical ventilation and receiving corticosteroids.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Rats were assigned to controls or to 24 hours of CMV while being treated at the start of mechanical ventilation with a single intramuscular administration of either saline, or 5 mg/kg (low MP) or 30 mg/kg (high MP) of methylprednisolone.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Diaphragmatic force was decreased after CMV and this was exacerbated in the low MP group while high MP rescued this diaphragmatic dysfunction. Atrophy was more severe in the low MP group than after CMV while no atrophy was observed in the high MP group. A significant and similar increase in calpain activity was observed in both the low MP and CMV groups whereas the high dose prevented calpain activation. Expression of calpastatin, the endogenous inhibitor of calpain, was decreased in the CMV and low MP groups but its level was preserved to controls in the high MP group. Caspase-3 activity increased in all CMV groups but to a lesser extent in the low and high MP groups. The 20S proteasome activity was increased in CMV only.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Administration of 30 mg/kg methylprednisolone during CMV protected against CMV-induced diaphragm dysfunction while 5 mg/kg was more deleterious. The protective effect is due mainly to an inhibition of the calpain system through preservation of calpastatin levels and to a lesser extent to a caspase-3 inhibition.</p

Evaluation of inhaler technique and achievement and maintenance of mastery of budesonide/formoterol Spiromax® compared with budesonide/formoterol Turbuhaler® in adult patients with asthma: the Easy Low Instruction Over Time (ELIOT) study

Background: Incorrect inhaler technique is a common cause of poor asthma control. This two-phase pragmatic study evaluated inhaler technique mastery and maintenance of mastery with DuoResp® (budesonide-formoterol [BF]) Spiromax® compared with Symbicort® (BF) Turbuhaler® in patients with asthma who were receiving inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting β2-agonists. Methods: In the initial cross-sectional phase, patients were randomized to a 6-step training protocol with empty Spiromax and Turbuhaler devices. Patients initially demonstrating ≥1 error with their current device, and then achieving mastery with both Spiromax and Turbuhaler (absence of healthcare professional [HCP]-observed errors), were eligible for the longitudinal phase. In the longitudinal phase, patients were randomized to BF Spiromax or BF Turbuhaler. Co-primary endpoints were the proportions of patients achieving device mastery after three training steps and maintaining device mastery (defined as the absence of HCP-observed errors after 12 weeks of use). Secondary endpoints included device preference, handling error frequency, asthma control, and safety. Exploratory endpoints included assessment of device mastery by an independent external expert reviewing video recordings of a subset of patients. Results: Four hundred ninety-three patients participated in the cross-sectional phase, and 395 patients in the longitudinal phase. In the cross-sectional phase, more patients achieved device mastery after three training steps with Spiromax (94%) versus Turbuhaler (87%) (odds ratio [OR] 3.77 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.05–6.95], p < 0.001). Longitudinal phase data indicated that the odds of maintaining inhaler mastery at 12 weeks were not statistically significantly different (OR 1.26 [95% CI 0.80–1.98], p = 0.316). Asthma control improved in both groups with no significant difference between groups (OR 0.11 [95% CI -0.09–0.30]). An exploratory analysis indicated that the odds of maintaining independent expert-verified device mastery were significantly higher for patients using Spiromax versus Turbuhaler (OR 2.11 [95% CI 1.25–3.54]). Conclusions: In the cross-sectional phase, a significantly greater proportion of patients using Spiromax versus Turbuhaler achieved device mastery; in the longitudinal phase, the proportion of patients maintaining device mastery with Spiromax versus Turbuhaler was similar. An exploratory independent expert-verified analysis found Spiromax was associated with higher levels of device mastery after 12 weeks. Asthma control was improved by treatment with both BF Spiromax and BF Turbuhaler

Development of a diagnostic decision tree for obstructive pulmonary diseases based on real-life data

The aim of this study was to develop and explore the diagnostic accuracy of a decision tree derived from a large real-life primary care population. Data from 9297 primary care patients (45% male, mean age 53±17 years) with suspicion of an obstructive pulmonary disease was derived from an asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) service where patients were assessed using spirometry, the Asthma Control Questionnaire, the Clinical COPD Questionnaire, history data and medication use. All patients were diagnosed through the Internet by a pulmonologist. The Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detection method was used to build the decision tree. The tree was externally validated in another real-life primary care population (n=3215). Our tree correctly diagnosed 79% of the asthma patients, 85% of the COPD patients and 32% of the asthma–COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS) patients. External validation showed a comparable pattern (correct: asthma 78%, COPD 83%, ACOS 24%). Our decision tree is considered to be promising because it was based on real-life primary care patients with a specialist's diagnosis. In most patients the diagnosis could be correctly predicted. Predicting ACOS, however, remained a challenge. The total decision tree can be implemented in computer-assisted diagnostic systems for individual patients. A simplified version of this tree can be used in daily clinical practice as a desk tool

Role of N-acetylcysteine in the management of COPD

The importance of the underlying local and systemic oxidative stress and inflammation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has long been established. In view of the lack of therapy that might inhibit the progress of the disease, there is an urgent need for a successful therapeutic approach that, through affecting the pathological processes, will influence the subsequent issues in COPD management such as lung function, airway clearance, dyspnoea, exacerbation, and quality of life. N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is a mucolytic and antioxidant drug that may also influence several inflammatory pathways. It provides the sulfhydryl groups and acts both as a precursor of reduced glutathione and as a direct reactive oxygen species (ROS) scavenger, hence regulating the redox status in the cells. The changed redox status may, in turn, influence the inflammation-controlling pathways. Moreover, as a mucolytic drug, it may, by means of decreasing viscosity of the sputum, clean the bronchi leading to a decrease in dyspnoea and improved lung function. Nevertheless, as successful as it is in the in vitro studies and in vivo studies with high dosage, its actions at the dosages used in COPD management are debatable. It seems to influence exacerbation rate and limit the number of hospitalization days, however, with little or no influence on the lung function parameters. Despite these considerations and in view of the present lack of effective therapies to inhibit disease progression in COPD, NAC and its derivatives with their multiple molecular modes of action remain promising medication once doses and route of administration are optimized