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 the 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 were 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 ratio (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 body mass index could reasonably well detect SAD (AUC 0.74, LR+ 2.3). The diagnostic ability increased by adding spirometry (percentage predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s: AUC 0.87, LR+ 5.0) and oscillometry (resistance difference between 5 and 20 Hz and reactance area: AUC 0.96, LR+ 12.8). CONCLUSIONS: 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

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

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 the 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 were 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 ratio (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 body mass index could reasonably well detect SAD (AUC 0.74, LR+ 2.3). The diagnostic ability increased by adding spirometry (percentage predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s: AUC 0.87, LR+ 5.0) and oscillometry (resistance difference between 5 and 20 Hz and reactance area: AUC 0.96, LR+ 12.8). Conclusions 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.</p

Suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow and Critical Inhalation Errors are Associated with Higher COPD-Related Healthcare Costs

Purpose: To assess the relationship between suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow (sPIF), inhalation technique errors, and non-adherence, with Healthcare Resource Utilisation (HCRU) in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients receiving maintenance therapy via a Dry Powder Inhaler (DPI). Patients and methods: The cross-sectional, multi-country PIFotal study included 1434 COPD patients (≥40 years) using a DPI for maintenance therapy. PIF was measured with the In-Check DIAL G16, and sPIF was defined as a typical PIF lower than required for the device. Inhalation technique was assessed by standardised evaluation of video recordings and grouped into 10 steps. Patients completed the "Test of Adherence to Inhalers" questionnaire. HCRU was operationalised as COPD-related costs for primary healthcare, secondary healthcare, medication, and total COPD-related costs in a 1-year period. Results: Participants with sPIF had higher medication costs compared with those with optimal PIF (cost ratio [CR]: 1.07, 95% CI [1.01, 1.14]). Multiple inhalation technique errors were associated with increased HCRU. Specifically, "insufficient inspiratory effort" with higher secondary healthcare costs (CR: 2.20, 95% CI [1.37, 3.54]) and higher total COPD-related costs (CR: 1.16, 95% CI 1.03-1.31). "no breath-hold following the inhalation manoeuvre (<6 s)" with higher medication costs (CR: 1.08, 95% CI [1.02, 1.15]) and total COPD-related costs (CR 1.17, 95% CI [1.07, 1.28]), and "not breathing out calmly after inhalation" with higher medication costs (CR: 1.19, 95% CI [1.04, 1.37]). Non-adherence was not significantly associated with HCRU. Conclusion: sPIF and inhalation technique errors were associated with higher COPD-related healthcare utilisation and costs in COPD patients on DPI maintenance therapy