Critical inhaler technique errors in Swedish patients with COPD: a cross-sectional study analysing video-recorded demonstrations

[Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): eosinophilia and novel drug therapies]

BACKGROUND

The phenotyping of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has increasingly gained attention in recent years, as it leads to new and individualized therapeutic concepts.

OBJECTIVE

The aim is to provide an overview of the heterogeneity of COPD and to summarize current drug therapy concepts, particularly in the context of eosinophilic airway inflammation.

DATA

Several prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled studies have shown a reduction in exacerbations and overall mortality with inhaled triple therapy using an inhaled corticosteroid and dual bronchodilation. The higher the eosinophils in the blood, the greater the expected effect. In addition, a reduction in exacerbations with biologics in COPD with eosinophilia has been demonstrated for dupilumab. Eosinophil-guided therapy for acute exacerbations is the subject of current research.

CONCLUSION

For COPD without exacerbations, dual bronchodilation forms the basis of inhaled therapy. With exacerbations, inhaled triple therapy is indicated for patients with a blood eosinophil count of ≥ 300/µl. This type of treatment may also be useful when eosinophils are between 100 and 300/µl. Therapy with dupilumab is a possible option for the eosinophilic phenotype in the near future.

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.

Prevalence and Factors Affecting Appropriate Inhaler Use in Elderly Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) mainly affects individuals aged 60 and older. The proper use of inhalers is crucial for managing COPD. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence and factors affecting the appropriate use of inhalers among elderly patients with COPD.

METHODS

We enrolled 91 elderly patients with COPD admitted to the Department of Respiratory, University Medical Center HCMC between October 2020 and May 2021. Patients who were capable of using the inhaler would have their inhaler usage recorded through video footage. Two respiratory experts carefully analyzed 133 video-recorded demonstrations for evaluation purposes.

RESULTS

18.7% of the patients demonstrated the correct inhaler technique. Pressurized metered dose inhaler (pMDI) and Turbuhaler had the lowest documented correct usage rates (11.9% and 10.0%, respectively). Two critical steps, namely "holding breath for about five seconds or as long as comfortable" and "breathing out gently," were commonly performed incorrectly when using pMDI, Respimat, Breezhaler, or Turbuhaler. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that lower mMRC scores (AOR = 5.3, CI 1.1-25.5, p = 0.037) and receiving inhaler instruction within the past three months (AOR = 5.2, CI 1.3-20.1, p = 0.017) were associated with increased odds of using the inhaler correctly.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found that less than 20% of elderly patients with COPD use inhalers correctly. Common errors include inadequate breath-holding and gentle exhalation. mMRC scores and recent inhaler instruction were predictors of proper use. These findings can aid clinicians in improving inhaler management for elderly patients with COPD.

Cost-Effectiveness of Single- versus Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy in a UK COPD Population: The INTREPID Trial

Purpose

The 24-week INTREPID trial demonstrated the clinical benefits of once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) with fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus non-ELLIPTA multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of FF/UMEC/VI versus non-ELLIPTA MITT for the treatment of symptomatic COPD from a United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS) perspective.

Patients and Methods

The analysis was conducted using the validated GALAXY COPD disease progression model. Baseline characteristics, treatment effect parameters (forced expiratory volume in 1 second and St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire score [derived from exploratory COPD Assessment Test score mapping]), and discontinuation data from INTREPID were used to populate the model. UK healthcare resource and drug costs (2020 British pounds) were applied, and costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. Analyses were conducted over a lifetime horizon from a UK NHS perspective. Model outputs included exacerbation rates, total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results by varying parameter values and assumptions.

Results

Over a lifetime horizon, FF/UMEC/VI provided an additional 0.174 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.024, 0.344) LYs (approximately 2 months), and 0.253 (95% CI: 0.167, 0.346) QALYs (approximately 3 months), at a cost saving of £1764 (95% CI: −£2600, −£678) per patient, compared with non-ELLIPTA MITT. FF/UMEC/VI remained the dominant treatment option, meaning greater benefits at lower costs, across all scenario and sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

Based on this analysis, in a UK setting, FF/UMEC/VI would improve health outcomes and reduce costs compared with non-ELLIPTA MITT for the treatment of patients with symptomatic COPD. SITT may help to reduce the clinical and economic burden of COPD and should be considered by physicians as a preferred treatment option.

One additional educational session in inhaler use to patients with COPD in primary health care - A controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether one additional educational session about inhaler use, delivered to patients with COPD in primary healthcare, could affect the patients' skills in inhaler use. Specifically, to study the effects on errors related to handling the device, to inhalation technique, and to both.

METHODS

This nonrandomized controlled clinical trial included 64 patients who used devices and made errors. COPD nurses assessed inhaler use using a checklist and educated patients. Intervention group received one additional educational session after two weeks.

RESULTS

At baseline, patients in the IG had more devices (n = 2,1) compared to patients in the CG (n = 1,6) (p = 0.003). No other statistically significant differences were seen at baseline. At follow-up, intervention group showed a lower proportion of patients who made errors related to handling the device (p = 0.006). No differences were seen in the other categories.

CONCLUSION

One additional educational session in inhaler use for patients with COPD was effective in reducing the proportion of patients making errors related to handling of their devices.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Categorization of errors might help healthcare professionals to assess the suitability of patients' devices, tailor patient education, and thus improve patient health.