Telephonic monitoring and optimization of inhaler technique

A systematic review of methods of scoring inhaler technique

Many inhaler devices are currently used in clinical practice to deliver medication, with each inhaler device offering different benefits to overcome technique issues. Inhaler technique remains poor, contributing to reduced airway drug deposition and consequently poor disease control. Scoring inhaler technique has been used within research as an outcome measure of inhaler technique assessment, and this systematic review collates and evaluates these scoring methods. The review protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020218869). A total of 172 articles were screened with 77 included, and the results presented using narrative synthesis due to the heterogeneity of the study design and data. The most frequently used scoring method awarded one point per step in the inhaler technique checklist and was included in 59/77 (77%) of articles; however limited and varied guidance was provided for score interpretation. Other inhaler technique scoring methods included grading the final inhaler technique score, expressing the total score as a percentage/ratio, deducting points from the final score when errors were made, and weighting steps within the checklist depending on how crucial the step was. Vast heterogeneity in the number of steps and content in the inhaler technique checklists was observed across all device types (range 5-19 steps). Only 4/77 (5%) of the inhaler technique measures had undertaken fundamental steps required in the scale development process for use in real world practice. This review demonstrates the demand for a tool that measures inhaler technique and highlights the current unmet need for one that has undergone validation.

The impact of inhaler technique on clinical outcomes in adolescents and adults with asthma: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Many patients with asthma use their inhalers incorrectly, which can lead to sub-optimal asthma control and an increased risk of exacerbations. The Accuhaler/Diskus and Turbuhaler are arguably two of the most commonly used dry powder inhalers worldwide.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to assess the impact of inhalation errors with these dry powder inhalers on clinical outcomes in asthma. Database searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase and proceedings from scientific conferences. Observational studies in adults and adolescents with asthma, reporting data for Accuhaler/Diskus and Turbuhaler devices and at least one outcome of interest, were included. Dual-independent screening and validation of studies was performed.

RESULTS

The search identified 35 studies. A range of inhaler errors was observed across studies and devices. In 8 out of the 9 studies that involved the two devices, the percentage of overall inhaler error rates was numerically (7 studies) or significantly (1 study) higher for Turbuhaler than Diskus, ranging from 3.7% to 71.9% for Diskus and 1.2%-83% for Turbuhaler. Critical errors, reported in three studies using similar definitions, ranged from 20% to 43% for Diskus and 32%-100% for Turbuhaler. Five studies reported a significant association between inhaler errors and worse asthma control, while one showed no difference.

CONCLUSIONS

This SLR identified a large range of inhaler errors with both devices. Across devices, a better inhalation technique was associated with better asthma outcomes. This systematic review confirms the importance of patients using their inhalers correctly as an integral part of achieving optimal asthma outcomes.

Digital Health Technology in Asthma: A Comprehensive Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

A variety of digital intervention approaches have been investigated for asthma therapy during the past decade, with different levels of interactivity and personalization and a range of impacts on different outcome measurements.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of digital interventions in asthma with regard to acceptability and outcomes and evaluate the potential of digital initiatives for monitoring or treating patients with asthma.

METHODS

We evaluated digital interventions using a scoping review methodology through a literature search and review. Of 871 articles identified, 121 were evaluated to explore intervention characteristics, the perception and acceptability of digital interventions to patients and physicians, and effects on asthma outcomes. Interventions were categorized by their level of interactivity with the patient.

RESULTS

Interventions featuring non-individualized content sent to patients appeared capable of promoting improved adherence to inhaled corticosteroids, but with no identified improvement in asthma burden; and data-gathering interventions appeared to have little effect on adherence or asthma burden. Evidence of improvement in both adherence and patients' impairment due to asthma were seen only with interactive interventions involving two-way responsive patient communication. Digital interventions were generally positively perceived by patients and physicians. Implementation was considered feasible, with certain preferences for design and features important to drive use.

CONCLUSIONS

Digital health interventions show substantial promise for asthma disease monitoring and personalization of treatment. To be successful, future interventions will need to include both inhaler device and software elements, combining accurate measurement of clinical parameters with careful consideration of ease of use, personalization, and patient engagement aspects.

Misuse and/or treatment delivery failure of inhalers among patients with asthma or COPD: A review and recommendations for the conduct of future research

BACKGROUND

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are widespread chronic conditions with medication frequently delivered by inhalers. These can be challenging to use correctly, but the scale of misuse and the specific aspects of failure are unclear.

METHODS

We used systematic review methods to search 9 databases in May 2015 to identify and review studies that assessed adults (18 years or older) with asthma or COPD using inhalers of various types including pressurised metered dose inhalers (pMDIs), dry powder inhalers and the Respimat inhaler. Studies must have reported the scale of inhaler misuse, variation by type of inhaler or which steps patients had difficulty completing accurately.

RESULTS

The types of inhalers, inhaler interventions and definitions of failure and misuse varied widely in the 38 studies identified. It was not possible to draw conclusions on the differential failure rates between different types of inhalers or any patient characteristics. Of the studies reporting failure or misuse rates, the majority ranged between 0 and 20%. Studies were inconsistent regarding the number of inhaler steps collected, reported and labelled as critical.

CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence for all identified inhalers that some people may be using them incorrectly, but it is unclear which inhalers have higher rates of misuse or which steps within the inhaler technique are most difficult for patients. The optimal techniques for using inhalers are not standardised. Researchers undertaking future inhaler studies are respectfully directed to our recommendations for future research.

Do Face-to-Face Training and Telephonic Reminder Improve Dry Powder Inhaler Technique in Patients with COPD?

Introduction. Current modes of instruction on inhaler technique are inadequate. We aimed to evaluate the value of face-to-face training and telephonic reminder (FFTTR) for improving Rotahaler technique in experienced patients with COPD. Materials and Methods. A single group pre-/postinterventional study was conducted at Chitwan Medical College Teaching Hospital, Nepal. We assessed the Rotahaler technique of thirty consecutive patients using Rotahaler device for more than one year. Patients with incorrect technique (n = 20) were instructed and trained by a pharmacist. Telephonic reminder was used to reinstruct patients on the correct technique on weekly basis for two weeks and technique was reassessed after 4 weeks of their first training. Descriptive statistics including Wilcoxon Signed Rank test were applied. Results. The mean age was 66.06 ± 10.6. Of 30 patients, 10 (33.3%) performed Rotahaler technique correctly at baseline and were excluded from FFTTR intervention. FFTTR corrected the technique in 18 (90%) patients and the median (IQR) score increased from 6 (5-6) to 8 (8-8) (p < 0.001). The most incorrect steps were “breathe out gently but not towards the inhaler mouthpiece” (16, 80%) and “hold breath for about 10 seconds” (18, 90%) at baseline which improved after intervention. Conclusion. FFTTR approach markedly improved Rotahaler technique in patients with COPD.

Interventions to improve inhaler technique for people with asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a common chronic disease worldwide. Inhalers are often prescribed to help control asthma symptoms, improve quality of life and reduce the risk of exacerbations or flare-ups. However, evidence suggests that many people with asthma do not use their inhaler correctly. It is therefore important to evaluate whether interventions aimed specifically at improving technique are effective and safe, and whether use of these interventions translates into improved clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of interventions to improve inhaler technique on clinical outcomes and safety in adults and children with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, which contains records compiled from multiple electronic and handsearched resources. We also searched trial registries and reference lists of primary studies. We conducted the most recent search on 23 November 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies comparing a group of adults or children with asthma receiving an inhaler technique intervention versus a group receiving a control or alternative intervention. We included parallel and cluster-randomised trials of any duration conducted in any setting, and planned to include only the first phase of any cross-over trials identified. We included studies reported as full-text articles, those published as abstracts only and unpublished data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened the search results for eligible studies. We extracted outcome data, assessed risk of bias in duplicate and resolved discrepancies by involving another review author. We grouped studies making similar comparisons by consensus (e.g. all those comparing enhanced inhaler technique education vs usual care) and conducted meta-analyses only if treatments, participants and the underlying clinical question were similar enough for pooling to make sense. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios, and continuous data as mean differences or standardised mean differences, all with random-effects models. We described skewed data narratively. We graded the results and presented evidence in 'Summary of findings' tables for each comparison. Primary outcomes were inhaler technique, asthma control and exacerbations requiring at least oral corticosteroids (OCS).

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 29 parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 2210), although not all reported relevant or useable data. All participants had asthma, and follow-up ranged from 2 to 26 weeks. Most studies were at low or unclear risk of selection and attrition biases and at high risk for biases associated with blinding. We considered most of the evidence to be of low quality owing to these biases and to imprecision in the estimates of effect.We classified studies into three comparisons: enhanced face-to-face training session(s), multi-media-delivered inhaler training (e.g. DVD, computer app or game) and technique feedback devices. Differences between interventions, populations and outcome measures limited quantitative analyses, particularly for exacerbations, adverse events, unscheduled visits to a healthcare provider and absenteeism from work or school.Enhanced inhaler technique education and multi-media training improved technique in most studies immediately after the intervention and at follow-up, although the variety of checklists used meant that this was difficult to assess reliably. For both adults and children, how and when inhaler technique was assessed appeared to affect whether inhaler technique improved and by how much.Analyses of the numbers of people who demonstrated correct or 'good enough' technique were generally more useful than checklist scores. Adult studies of enhanced education showed benefit when this metric was used at 2 to 26 weeks' follow-up (odds ratio (OR) 5.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.83 to 13.65; 258 participants; three studies; 31 per 100 with correct technique in the control group compared with 69 (95% CI 45 to 86) in the education group; moderate-quality evidence). A similar result was seen in studies looking at feedback devices at four weeks' follow-up (OR 4.80, 95% CI 1.87 to 12.33; 97 participants; one study; 51 per 100 with correct technique in the control group compared with 83 (95% CI 66 to 93) in the feedback group; low-quality evidence). However, the benefit of multi-media training for adults even immediately after the intervention was uncertain (OR 2.15, 95% CI 0.84 to 5.50; 164 participants; two studies; I² = 49%; 30 per 100 in the control group with correct technique compared with 47 (95% CI 26 to 70) in the multi-media group; moderate-quality evidence). Evidence tended to be less clear for children, usually because results were based on fewer and smaller studies.Some studies did not report exacerbations in a way that allowed meta-analysis; others provided inconclusive results. Inhaler technique interventions provided some benefit for asthma control and quality of life but generally did not lead to consistent or important clinical benefits for adults or children. Confidence intervals included no difference or did not reach a threshold that could be considered clinically important. Responder analyses sometimes showed improvement among more people in the intervention groups, even though the mean difference between groups was small. We found no evidence about harms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although interventions to improve inhaler technique may work in some circumstances, the variety of interventions and measurement methods used hampered our ability to perform meta-analyses and led to low to moderate confidence in our findings. Most included studies did not report important improvement in clinical outcomes. Guidelines consistently recommend that clinicians check regularly the inhaler technique of their patients; what is not clear is how clinicians can most effectively intervene if they find a patient's technique to be inadequate, and whether such interventions will have a discernible impact on clinical outcomes.

Systematic Review of Errors in Inhaler Use: Has Patient Technique Improved Over Time?

BACKGROUND

Problems with the use of inhalers by patients were noted shortly after the launch of the metered-dose inhaler (MDI) and persist today. We aimed to assess the most common errors in inhaler use over the past 40 years in patients treated with MDIs or dry powder inhalers (DPIs).

METHODS

A systematic search for articles reporting direct observation of inhaler technique by trained personnel covered the period from 1975 to 2014. Outcomes were the nature and frequencies of the three most common errors; the percentage of patients demonstrating correct, acceptable, or poor technique; and variations in these outcomes over these 40 years and when partitioned into years 1 to 20 and years 21 to 40. Analyses were conducted in accordance with recommendations from Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology.

RESULTS

Data were extracted from 144 articles reporting on a total number of 54,354 subjects performing 59,584 observed tests of technique. The most frequent MDI errors were in coordination (45%; 95% CI, 41%-49%), speed and/or depth of inspiration (44%; 40%-47%), and no postinhalation breath-hold (46%; 42%-49%). Frequent DPI errors were incorrect preparation in 29% (26%-33%), no full expiration before inhalation in 46% (42%-50%), and no postinhalation breath-hold in 37% (33%-40%). The overall prevalence of correct technique was 31% (28%-35%); of acceptable, 41% (36%-47%); and of poor, 31% (27%-36%). There were no significant differences between the first and second 20-year periods of scrutiny.

CONCLUSIONS

Incorrect inhaler technique is unacceptably frequent and has not improved over the past 40 years, pointing to an urgent need for new approaches to education and drug delivery.

Monitoring asthma in childhood: management-related issues

Management-related issues are an important aspect of monitoring asthma in children in clinical practice. This review summarises the literature on practical aspects of monitoring including adherence to treatment, inhalation technique, ongoing exposure to allergens and irritants, comorbid conditions and side-effects of treatment, as agreed by the European Respiratory Society Task Force on Monitoring Asthma in Childhood.

The evidence indicates that it is important to discuss adherence to treatment in a non-confrontational way at every clinic visit, and take into account a patient's illness and medication beliefs. All task force members teach inhalation techniques at least twice when introducing a new inhalation device and then at least annually. Exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke, combustion-derived air pollutants, house dust mites, fungal spores, pollens and pet dander deserve regular attention during follow-up according to most task force members. In addition, allergic rhinitis should be considered as a cause for poor asthma control. Task force members do not screen for gastro-oesophageal reflux and food allergy. Height and weight are generally measured at least annually to identify individuals who are susceptible to adrenal suppression and to calculate body mass index, even though causality between obesity and asthma has not been established.

In cases of poor asthma control, before stepping up treatment the above aspects of monitoring deserve closer attention.

ERS review summarising and discussing the management-related issues regarding the monitoring of asthma in childhoodhttp://ow.ly/JfjGs

The ability of people with intellectual disability to use inhalers--an exploratory mixed methods study

OBJECTIVE

This aim of this study was to assess inhaler technique of people with intellectual disability (ID), and evaluate the effectiveness of teaching with respect to their individual ability to adopt correct technique.

METHODS

Seventeen people with ID were recruited through existing networks of general practitioners and disability support organisations. Inhaler technique was assessed using validated checklists and placebo devices, followed by provision of individualised training. The educational interaction between participant and researcher was captured via video recording and analysed qualitatively.

RESULTS

Seventeen people with ID participated; females comprised 65%. At baseline, no participants correctly used any device. Pressurised metered dose inhalers, with or without accessory devices, were the most poorly used devices. Inhalation steps were poorly performed across all devices. Following training, the proportions of assessed participants that were able to master inhaler technique were 100% of Accuhaler users, 40% of Turbuhaler users, 25% of pressurised metered dose inhaler users and 0% of Handihaler users. Barriers identified included poor comprehension of breathing processes, the lack of attentiveness and poor dexterity. Facilitators for educator delivery of inhaler technique education included the use of analogies and being patient.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to examine inhaler technique mastery in people with ID. Results show that with education that addresses the unique patient barriers inherent in this group, some individuals can be trained to mastery. Structured modules of inhaler technique training tailored for people with ID, but which can be individualised, are recommended.

Rural patients' access to mobile phones and willingness to receive mobile phone-based pharmacy and other health technology services: a pilot study

OBJECTIVE

This pilot study explores the patient-centered demand for mobile phone-based health (mobile health [m-health]) services in the rural United States by documenting rural patients' access to mobile phones and patients' willingness to receive m-health services.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

An anonymous institutional review board-approved survey was completed by patients visiting two rural pharmacies in Nebraska from August to October 2011. Patients who volunteered to complete the survey provided their demographic data, disease state information, health status, mobile phone access, and willingness to receive (in terms of using and giving time to) m-health services.

RESULTS

The majority of the 24 survey respondents were 19-40 years old (52%), female (88%), married (63%), with excellent to very good health status (63%), with no comorbidities (83%), with ≤$100 monthly medication expenses (80%), with private insurance (78%), living within 5 miles of their pharmacy (71%), and reporting that m-health services are important to them (75%; 12/16). Approximately 95%, 81%, 73%, and 55% of respondents reported access to a mobile phone, voice mails, text messaging, and mobile phone applications, respectively. Of the respondents, 65%, 57%, 52%, and 48% were willing to receive prerecorded messages for appointment reminders from the doctor, disease information, medication use/self-care information, and symptom monitoring information, respectively. In total, 70%, 63%, 61%, 54%, and 50% were willing to receive prerecorded messages from the pharmacist containing contact requests, new/refill prescription reminders, information on medication problems, reviewing/monitoring of medication use, and medication self-management/preventive screenings/immunizations, respectively. Of 44% (7/16) respondents willing to give time for m-health services, 83% were willing to give 15 min, and 17% were willing to give 30 min every month.

CONCLUSIONS

By demonstrating rural patients' demand for m-health (including pharmacy) services, this is one of the first pilot studies showing rural patients have access to mobile phones and may be willing to use and give time to m-health services. Further research is needed on delivery and coordination of transitions in patient-centered care in the United States with m-health services.

Patient and phaRmacist telephonic encounters (PARTE) in an underserved rural patient population with asthma: results of a pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary impact of a telepharmacy intervention in an underserved, rural asthma patient population.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Patients with asthma were randomized to receive either standard care or telephone consultations from pharmacists regarding asthma self-management over a 3-month period. Qualitative interviews were conducted to identify participants' attitudes/opinions regarding the intervention. Baseline and follow-up surveys assessed asthma control, patient activation, and medication utilization.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight adults were recruited (78% accrual); 83 completed the study (15% dropout). Participants reported positive opinions and believed the intervention improved their asthma self-management. The intervention group had significantly higher patient activation compared with the control (p<0.05). There were no significant between-group differences regarding asthma control. However, within-group analyses of the intervention group showed an improvement in asthma control (p<0.01) and medication adherence (p<0.01). No within-group differences were found for the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

This telepharmacy intervention is feasible and showed indicators of effectiveness, suggesting the design is well suited for a robust study to evaluate its impact in uncontrolled asthma patients. Pharmacists helping patients manage asthma through telecommunications may resolve access barriers and improve care.