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

The modified patient enablement instrument: a Portuguese cross-cultural adaptation, validity and reliability study

"Article number: 16087"Enabling patients with asthma to obtain the knowledge, confidence and skills they need in order to assume a major role in the management of their disease is cost effective. It should be an integral part of any plan for long-term control of asthma. The modified Patient Enablement Instrument (mPEI) is an easily administered questionnaire that was adapted in the United Kingdom to measure patient enablement in asthma, but its applicability in Portugal is not known. Validity and reliability of questionnaires should be tested before use in settings different from those of the original version. The purpose of this study was to test the applicability of the mPEI to Portuguese asthma patients after translation and cross-cultural adaptation, and to verify the structural validity, internal consistency and reproducibility of the instrument. The mPEI was translated to Portuguese and back translated to English. Its content validity was assessed by a debriefing interview with 10 asthma patients. The translated instrument was then administered to a random sample of 142 patients with persistent asthma. Structural validity and internal consistency were assessed. For reproducibility analysis, 86 patients completed the instrument again 7 days later. Item-scale correlations and exploratory factor analysis were used to assess structural validity. Cronbach's alpha was used to test internal consistency, and the intra-class correlation coefficient was used for the analysis of reproducibility. All items of the Portuguese version of the mPEI were found to be equivalent to the original English version. There were strong item-scale correlations that confirmed construct validity, with a one component structure and good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha >0.8) as well as high test-retest reliability (ICC=0.85). The mPEI showed sound psychometric properties for the evaluation of enablement in patients with asthma making it a reliable instrument for use in research and clinical practice in Portugal. Further studies are needed to confirm its responsiveness.Financial support for this work was provided by FEDER funds through the Operational Programme Competitiveness Factors-COMPETE and National Funds through FCT-Foundation for Science and Technology under the project POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007038, and by the project NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000013, supported by Norte Portugal Regional Operational Programme (NORTE 2020), under the PORTUGAL 2020 Partnership Agreement, through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Cohort profile: The Scottish Research Register SHARE. A register of people interested in research participation linked to NHS datasets

SHARE is a NHS Scotland Research (NRS) infrastructure initiative and is funded by the Chief Scientists Office of the Scottish Government. Additional funding and initiation of the spare blood retention in Tayside was supported by The Wellcome Trust Biomedical Resource Award Number 099177/Z/12/Z.Purpose: Recruitment to trials is often difficult. Many trials fail to meet recruitment targets resulting in underpowered studies which waste resources and the time of those who participated. While there is evidence that many people are willing to take part in research, particularly if it involves a condition from which they suffer, researchers are unable to easily contact such people often relying on busy clinicians to identify them. Many clinicians perceive themselves as too busy to take part in research activities. The Scottish Health Research Register SHARE adopts an approach which asks the public to consent to their data held in National Health Service databases to be used to determine their suitability for research projects. Additionally, participants can consent for spare blood, left after routine venepuncture to be automatically identified in the laboratory and stored for future research studies. Participants: Anyone over the age of 16 years in Scotland can participate. Participants are approached through a range of methods including directly at outpatient clinics and general practitioners practices, leaflets with hospital letters and personal email from employers. Findings to date: SHARE has recruited around 130 000 people. SHARE has demonstrated that it can quickly and efficiently recruit to studies, over 20 until now. In addition, it can be used to administer questionnaire studies by email and recruit to patient and public involvement groups. Future plans: SHARE continues to steadily recruit with the ambition of eventually achieving 1 000 000 people in Scotland. We are steadily increasing the number of data sets we use for identifying participants. We are adding a mobile app which will facilitate dissemination about research and allow the collection of physiological and activity data if desired. We anticipate that SHARE will soon become the main source of health research recruitment in Scotland.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

The role of primary healthcare professionals in oral cancer prevention and detection

AIM: To investigate current knowledge, examination habits and preventive practices of primary healthcare professionals in Scotland, with respect to oral cancer, and to determine any relevant training needs. SETTING: Primary care. METHOD: Questionnaires were sent to a random sample of 357 general medical practitioners (GMPs) and 331 dental practitioners throughout Scotland. Additionally, focus group research and interviews were conducted amongst primary healthcare team members. RESULTS: Whilst 58% of dental respondents reported examining regularly for signs of oral cancer, GMPs examined patients' mouths usually in response to a complaint of soreness. The majority of GMPs (85%) and dentists (63%) indicated that they felt less than confident in detecting oral cancer, with over 70% of GMPs identifying lack of training as an important barrier. Many practitioners were unclear concerning the relative importance of the presence of potentially malignant lesions in the oral cavity. A high proportion of the GMPs indicated that they should have a major role to play in oral cancer detection (66%) but many felt strongly that this should be primarily the remit of the dental team. CONCLUSION: The study revealed a need for continuing education programmes for primary care practitioners in oral cancer-related activities. This should aim to improve diagnostic skills and seek to increase practitioners' participation in preventive activities

Clinical implications of the Royal College of Physicians three questions in routine asthma care: A real-life validation study

BACKGROUND: Annual recording of the Royal College of Physicians three questions (RCP3Q) morbidity score is rewarded within the UK 'pay-for-performance' Quality and Outcomes Framework. AIMS: To investigate the performance of the RCP3Qs for assessing control in real-life practice compared with the validated Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) administered by self-completed questionnaire. METHODS: We compared the RCP3Q score extracted from a patient's computerised medical record with the ACQ self-completed after the consultation. The anonymous data were paired by practice, age, sex, and dates of completion. We calculated the sensitivity and specificity of the RCP3Q scale compared with the threshold for good/poor asthma control (ACQ greater than 1). RESULTS: Of 291 ACQ questionnaires returned from 12 participating practices, 129 could be paired with complete RCP3Q data. Twenty-five of 27 patients who scored zero on the RCP3Q were well controlled (ACQ less than 1). An RCP3Q score greater than 1 predicted inadequate control (ACQ greater than 1) with a sensitivity of 0.96 and specificity of 0.34. Comparable values for RCP3Q greater than 2 were sensitivity 0.50 and specificity 0.94. The intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.13 indicated substantial variability between practices. Exacerbations and use of reliever inhalers were moderately correlated with ACQ (Spearman's rho 0.3 and 0.35) and may reflect different aspects of control. CONCLUSIONS: In routine practice, an RCP3Q score of zero indicates good asthma control and a score of 2 or 3 indicates poor control. An RCP3Q score of 1 has good sensitivity but poor specificity for suboptimal control and should provoke further enquiry and consideration of other aspects of control such as exacerbations and use of reliever inhalers

Knowledge of actions of inhaled corticosteroids in patients who did not persist drug treatment early

Objective To evaluate, among new users of inhaled corticosteroids that did not persist treatment, knowledge of inhaled corticosteroids' actions and whether they were instructed on the use of their inhaler. Setting Fifteen community pharmacies in The Netherlands. Methods Patients were interviewed by telephone. Their general practitioners provided diagnostic information and automated dispensing records were retrieved. Main outcome measures Knowledge of patients about the actions of inhaled corticosteroids. Results 230 (80.1%) of 287 patients were willing to participate. The majority (79.1%) of 230 patients was not aware of the anti-inflammatory actions of inhaled corticosteroids. Most patients were instructed on the use of their inhaler, predominantly by their physician (53%) or pharmacy (35.2%). Conclusions Although most patients reported inhaler instruction by at least one health care provider, the majority was unaware of inhaled corticosteroids' actions. Physicians and pharmacists should reconsider the instructions they provide especially to patients who should continuously use inhaled corticosteroids

Metabolic Effects Associated with ICS in Patients with COPD and Comorbid Type 2 Diabetes: A Historical Matched Cohort Study

Background Management guidelines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) recommend that inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are prescribed to patients with the most severe symptoms. However, these guidelines have not been widely implemented by physicians, leading to widespread use of ICS in patients with mild-to-moderate COPD. Of particular concern is the potential risk of worsening diabetic control associated with ICS use. Here we investigate whether ICS therapy in patients with COPD and comorbid type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has a negative impact on diabetic control, and whether these negative effects are dose-dependent. Methods and Findings This was a historical matched cohort study utilising primary care medical record data from two large UK databases. We selected patients aged >= 40 years with COPD and T2DM, prescribed ICS (n = 1360) or non-ICS therapy (n = 2642) between 2008 and 2012. The primary endpoint was change in HbA(1c) between the baseline and outcome periods. After 1:1 matching, each cohort consisted of 682 patients. Over the 12-18-month outcome period, patients prescribed ICS had significantly greater increases in HbA1c values compared with those prescribed non-ICS therapies; adjusted difference 0.16% (95% confidence interval [Cl]: 0.05-0.27%) in all COPD patients, and 0.25% (95% Cl: 0.10-0.40%) in mild-to-moderate COPD patients. Patients in the ICS cohort also had significantly more diabetes-related general practice visits per year and received more frequent glucose strip prescriptions, compared with those prescribed non-ICS therapies. Patients prescribed higher cumulative doses of ICS (> 250 mg) had greater odds of increased HbA(1c) and/or receiving additional antidiabetic medication, and increased odds of being above the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) target for HbA1c levels, compared with those prescribed lower cumulative doses ( Conclusion For patients with COPD and comorbid T2DM, ICS therapy may have a negative impact on diabetes control. Patients prescribed higher cumulative doses of ICS may be at greater risk of diabetes progression

Study of the Emitted Dose After Two Separate Inhalations at Different Inhalation Flow Rates and Volumes and an Assessment of Aerodynamic Characteristics of Indacaterol Onbrez Breezhaler® 150 and 300 μg

Onbrez Breezhaler® is a low-resistance capsule-based device that was developed to deliver indacaterol maleate. The study was designed to investigate the effects of both maximum flow rate (MIF) and inhalation volume (Vin) on the dose emission of indacaterol 150 and 300 μg dose strengths after one and two inhalations using dose unit sampling apparatus (DUSA) as well as to study the aerodynamic characteristics of indacaterol Breezhaler® using the Andersen cascade impactor (ACI) at a different set of MIF and Vin. Indacaterol 150 and 300 μg contain equal amounts of lactose per carrier. However, 150 μg has the smallest carrier size. The particle size distribution (PSD) of indacaterol DPI formulations 150 and 300 μg showed that the density of fine particles increased with the increase of the primary pressure. For both strengths (150 μg and 300 μg), ED1 increased and ED2 decreased when the inhalation flow rate and inhaled volume increased. The reduction in ED1 and subsequent increase in ED2 was such that when the Vin is greater than 1 L, then 60 L/min could be regarded as the minimum MIF. The Breezhaler was effective in producing respirable particles with an MMAD ≤5 μm irrespective of the inhalation flow rate, but the mass fraction of particles with an aerodynamic diameter <3 μm is more pronounced between 60 and 90 L/min. The dose emission of indacaterol was comparable for both dose strengths 150 and 300 μg. These in vitro results suggest that a minimum MIF of 60 L/min is required during routine use of Onbrez Breezhaler®, and confirm the good practice to make two separate inhalations from the same dose

Use of 'Low-Dose' Theophylline to Reduce Exacerbations of COPD : A Pragmatic Multicentre Randomised Placebo Controlled Trial

This abstract is funded by: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Presented at mini symposium: B14. LATE BREAKING CLINICAL TRIALS AND FIRST REPORTS IN ASTHMA AND COPD Monday 21st May 2018Peer reviewedPostprin

Asthma control in patients receiving inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta2-agonist fixed combinations. A real-life study comparing dry powder inhalers and a pressurized metered dose inhaler extrafine formulation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although patients have more problems using metered dose inhalers, clinical comparisons suggest they provide similar control to dry powder inhalers. Using real-life situations this study was designed to evaluate asthma control in outpatients with moderate to severe persistent asthma and to compare efficacy of fixed combinations of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long acting beta-agonists (LABA).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This real-life study had a cross-sectional design. Patients using fixed combinations of ICS and LABA had their asthma control and spirometry assessed during regular visits.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>111 patients were analyzed: 53 (47.7%) received maintenance therapy of extrafine beclomethasone-formoterol (BDP/F) pressurized metered dose inhaler (pMDI), 25 (22.5%) fluticasone-salmeterol (FP/S) dry powder inhaler (DPI), and 33 (29.7%) budesonide-formoterol (BUD/F) DPI. Severity of asthma at time of diagnosis, assessed by the treating physician, was comparable among groups. Asthma control was achieved by 45.9% of patients; 38.7% were partially controlled and 15.3% were uncontrolled. In the extrafine BDF/F group, asthma control total score, daytime symptom score and rescue medication use score were significantly better than those using fixed DPI combinations (5.8 ± 6.2 vs. 8.5 ± 6.8; 1.4 ± 1.8 vs. 2.3 ± 2.1; 1.8 ± 2.2 vs. 2.6 ± 2.2; p = 0.0160; p = 0.012 and p = 0.025, respectively) and the mean daily ICS dose were significantly lower.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>pMDI extrafine BDP/F combination demonstrated better asthma control compared to DPIs formulated with larger particles. This could be due to the improved lung deposition of the dose or less reliance on the optimal inhalation technique or both.</p