Education on Correct Inhaler Technique in Pharmacy Schools: Barriers and Needs

Purpose: To investigate the effectiveness of a standard educational module on pharmacy students’ inhaler technique demonstration skills.Methods: This investigational study was conducted during the Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics tutorial classes in 2011. All fifth-year students were given placebo inhaler devices and information leaflets explaining the use of these devices. Students were then shown, by demonstration, the correct technique for each of the inhalers. All the students were assessed on the use of each of the inhalers two weeks following the tutorial. A validated questionnaire regarding the students’ barriers to demonstrate the correct inhaler technique was completed by all the students. The inhaler techniques  emonstratedwere Accuhaler (ACC), Turbuhaler (TH) and metered-dose inhaler (MDI).Results: Students scored significantly better with ACC with a score of 4.38 ± 1.81 (out of 9.00) than with TH (3.96 ± 1.75 out of 9.00); p = 0.004, and MDI (2.69 ± 1.76 out of 8.00); p < 0.001, based on Friedman test 2 weeks following training. The majority of students (78 %) believed that lack of practice with the devices was the primary barrier to correct inhaler use.Conclusion: Standard educational training may not be the most appropriate method of teaching students the correct use of inhalers. Clearly, there is a practice element missing which needs to be addressed in a feasible way.Keywords: Inhaler technique, Pharmacy education, Hands-on training, Training barrie

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

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

Reducing LPS content in cockroach allergens increases pulmonary cytokine production without increasing inflammation: A randomized laboratory study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Endotoxins are ubiquitously present in the environment and constitute a significant component of ambient air. These substances have been shown to modulate the allergic response, however a consensus has yet to be reached whether they attenuate or exacerbate asthmatic responses. The current investigation examined whether reducing the concentration of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) in a house dust extract (HDE) containing high concentrations of both cockroach allergens <abbrgrp><abbr bid="B1">1</abbr></abbrgrp> and LPS would attenuate asthma-like pulmonary inflammation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Mice were sensitized with CRA and challenged with the intact HDE, containing 182 ng of LPS, or an LPS-reduced HDE containing 3 ng LPS, but an equivalent amount of CRA. Multiple parameters of asthma-like pulmonary inflammation were measured.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Compared to HDE challenged mice, the LPS-reduced HDE challenged mice had significantly reduced TNFα levels in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. Plasma levels of IgE and IgG1 were significantly reduced, however no change in CRA-specific IgE was detected. In HDE mice, plasma IgG2a levels were similar to naïve mice, while LPS-reduced HDE mice had significantly greater concentrations. Reduced levels of LPS in the HDE did not decrease eosinophil or neutrophil recruitment into the alveolar space. Equivalent inflammatory cell recruitment occurred despite having generally higher pulmonary concentrations of eotaxins and CXC chemokines in the LPS-reduced HDE group. LPS-reduced HDE challenge induced significantly higher concentrations of IFNγ, and IL-5 and IL-13 in the BAL fluid, but did not decrease airways hyperresponsiveness or airway resistance to methacholine challenge. <it>Conclusion: </it>These data show that reduction of LPS levels in the HDE does not significantly protect against the severity of asthma-like pulmonary inflammation.</p

Seasonal patterns of oral antihistamine and intranasal corticosteroid purchases from Australian community pharmacies: a retrospective observational study.

PURPOSE: To explore patterns in the purchase of prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) oral antihistamines (OAHs) and intranasal corticosteroids (INCSs) by patients, from pharmacies in different geographical regions of Australia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective observational study using a database containing anonymous pharmacy transaction data from 20.0% of the pharmacies in Australia that link doctor prescriptions and OTC information. Pharmacy purchases of at least one prescription or OTC rhinitis treatment during 2013 and 2014 were assessed. RESULTS: In total, 4,247,193 prescription and OTC rhinitis treatments were purchased from 909 pharmacies over 12 months. Of treatments purchased, 75.9% were OAHs and 16.6% were INCSs. OTC purchases of both treatments exceeded purchases through prescription. OTC OAHs purchasing patterns were seasonal and almost identical in the Australian Capital Territory, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia, and New South Wales, and similar seasonal patterns for OTC INCSs were noted in most regions except for South Australia and Tasmania. Prescription purchasing patterns of both OAHs and INCSs remained unchanged throughout the year in most regions. CONCLUSION: This large-scale retrospective observational study identified seasonal purchasing patterns of OTC and prescription OAHs and INCSs in a real-world setting. It highlighted that seasonality only affects OTC purchasing patterns of OAHs and INCSs across Australia and that practitioner prescribing remains unchanged, suggesting that it is only for persistent disease

Physiological predictors Of peak inspiRatory flow using Observed lung function resultS (POROS): evaluation at discharge among patients hospitalized for a COPD exacerbation

David B Price,1,2 Sen Yang,1 Simon Wan Yau Ming,1 Antony Hardjojo,1 Claudia Cabrera,3,4 Andriana I Papaioannou,5 Stelios Loukides,5 Vicky Kritikos,6 Sinthia Z Bosnic-Anticevich,6 Victoria Carter,7 Paul M Dorinsky8 1Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore; 2Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK; 3Global Medical Affairs, AstraZeneca R and D, M&ouml;lndal, Sweden; 4Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden; 52nd Respiratory Medicine Department, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Attikon General Hospital, Athens, Greece; 6Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, Quality Use of Respiratory Medicines Group, School of Medical Sciences, University of Sydney, Glebe, Australia; 7Optimum Patient Care, Cambridge, UK; 8Pearl &ndash; a member of the AstraZeneca Group, Durham, NC, USABackground: Peak inspiratory flow (PIF) as generated through the resistance of a dry powder inhaler (DPI) device is a critical patient-dependent maneuver impacting the success of DPI medication delivery. Despite its importance, it is not routinely measured in clinical practice. Little is currently known about the relationship, if any, between PIF through DPI devices, routine spirometry and disease outcomes.Aim: The aim of this study was to identify potential predictors of PIF for different DPIs from spirometric parameters and patient characteristics and explore the association between PIF and follow-up events.Patients and methods: A retrospective observational study at discharge among patients hospitalized for a COPD exacerbation at Attikon hospital, Athens, Greece. Spirometry was performed using an Easy on-PC&trade; spirometer. PIF was measured through four DPI resistances using the In-Check&trade; DIAL. Regression analyses were used to investigate the association between PIF through resistances and spirometric parameters obtained at discharge, comorbidities and demographic parameters.Results: Forty-seven COPD patients (mean [&plusmn;SD], age 71&nbsp;[&plusmn;9] years, 72% males, 51% current smokers) were included in this study. Overall, 85% and 15% were classified as GOLD (2017) groups D and C, respectively. Most prevalent comorbidities were hypertension (70%) and cardiovascular disease (53%). In the final regression model, higher PIF was significantly associated with the following: higher FEV1 and&nbsp;% predicted peak expiratory flow (PEF) for Turbohaler&reg; (R-squared value 0.374); higher FEV1 and diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) for Aerolizer&reg; (R-squared value 0.209) and higher FEV1, younger age and diagnosis of ischemic heart disease (IHD) for Diskus&reg; (R-squared value 0.350). However, R-squared values for all three devices were weak (&lt;0.4).Conclusion: The study did not provide evidence to support the use of surrogate measurements for PIF through device resistance, which could assist in determining the appropriateness of inhaler device type. Although PIF measurement is feasible in patients at discharge and could be a valuable addition to the standard of care in COPD management, it needs to be measured directly. Keywords: hospital admission, COPD, dry powder inhaler devices, inhaler technique, resistance, spirometr