Do patients show the same level of adherence with all dry powder inhalers?

A Bayesian Framework to Assess the Usability of Dry Powder Inhalers in a Cohort of Asthma Adolescents in Italy

The useability of DPIs (dry powder inhalers) depends on several factors that are influenced by the patients’ subjectivity and objectivity. The short-form global usability score (S-GUS), a specific tool for the quick ranking and comparison in real life of an inhaler’s usability, was used to investigate six of the most prescribed DPIs (Breezhaler, Diskus, Ellipta, Nexthaler, Spiromax, and Turbohaler) in consecutive asthma patients aged <18 years. A Bayesian indirect comparison (IC) was carried out to merge all pairwise comparisons between the six DPIs. Thirty-three subjects participated: eighteen tested Breezhaler, Spiromax, Nexthaler, and Ellipta simultaneously, while fifteen tested Breezhaler, Spiromax, Diskus, and Turbohaler. The estimates of the S-GUS, by the IC model, allowed us to rank the DPIs by their degree of usability: Ellipta, Diskus, and Spiromax were classified as “good to pretty good” (S-GUS > 15), while Spiromax, Turbohaler, and Breezhaler were classified as “insufficient” (S-GUS < 15). The multidomain assessment is recommended in asthma adolescents in order to approximate the effective usability of different DPIs as best as possible. The S-GUS proves particularly suitable in current clinical practice because of the short time required for its use in adolescents.

Exploring quality of life and satisfaction with treatment in asthmatic patients receiving dry powder inhalers: a multinational survey

INTRODUCTION

The quality of life (QoL) and device needs have not been characterized in asthmatic patients treated via dry powder inhalers (DPIs). The aim of this study was to assess the impact of asthma on health-related QoL, device satisfaction, and preference in adult asthmatic patients using DPI devices, and to identify any DPI-associated unmet needs.

METHODS

An online survey was conducted between November and December 2019 on eligible patients from the Cint consumer panel across Europe. Newly designed, as well as validated questionnaires were used to collect data on QoL and inhaler satisfaction.

RESULTS

A total of 1063 asthmatic patient took part in the survey; 66% of the patients reported medium or high impact of asthma on the overall QoL. The majority of patients (61%) reported high level of satisfaction with their current device. The patients with medium-to-high impact of asthma on QoL were significantly less likely to be satisfied with their current device (55%) than those who reported low-to-medium impact of asthma on QoL (67%; p-value < 0.001). "Higher number of available doses," "usability," "clear dose counter," and "feedback on correct inhalation" were the attributes mostly requested from a new device. The demand for user-friendly devices that provide feedback on correct drug administration was identified as an unmet need.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

In asthmatic patients with medium to high impact of asthma on the overall QoL, the satisfaction with the device is highly affected.

The Global Usability Score Short-Form for the simplified assessment of dry powder inhalers (DPIs) usability

Background

The choice of the Dry Powder Inhaler (DPI) to prescribe is a critical issue. The estimation of DPIs usability depends on the objective assessment of several indices related to both subjective and objective determinants. The Global Usability Score (GUS) Questionnaire is a comprehensive tool usable for checking, comparing, and ranking inhalers' usability objectively in real life, but it takes some time to fill.

Aim

The aim of this study was to favour the quicker check of DPIs usability in clinical practice by means of a simplified short-form GUS (S-GUS) Questionnaire, while maintaining the high specificity and sensitivity of the original, extended version of the Questionnaire (O-GUS questionnaire).

Methods

The usability of the six most prescribed DPIs was assessed in 222 patients with persistent airway obstruction and needing long-term inhalation treatments. LASSO regression and multicollinearity test were used to select the subset of questions of the O-GUS questionnaire, with the highest information power. Each item was then scored using the corresponding coefficient in the linear regression (normalized at 50 as the O-GUS score). Agreement between the original and the short-form questionnaire was evaluated using the Cohen's kappa statistic (κ). The overall S-GUS values obtained for each DPI were then compared to those from the O-GUS, in the same patients, using a Bayesian indirect comparison (IC) model.

Results

After the statistical selection of the items mostly contributing to the overall score, the novel S-GUS questionnaire consists of twelve items only. Nine items are related to patients' opinion before DPIs handling, and three to the nurse's assessment after DPIs practicality. O-GUS and S-GUS score were strongly correlated (R²=0.9843, p<0.0001) and the usability score calculated for each DPI by means of the O- and of S- GUS overlapped almost completely (κ=84.5%, 95% CI 81.3% to 89.2%). Furthermore, S-GUS was much faster to complete than O-GUS (mean time 6.1 vs 23.4 minutes, p<0.001). Estimates of S-GUS, obtained from the IC model, allowed to propose a simple classification of usability: "good" by GUS values >25; "pretty good" by values ≤25≥15, and "insufficient" by values <15.

Conclusions

The S-GUS proves as much specific and suitable as the extended O-GUS questionnaire in measuring DPIs usability, while maintaining the same high sensitivity. As the time required for its use is quite shorter, S-GUS is also particularly suitable and helpful in current clinical practice.

The Impact of a Forced Non-Medical Switch of Inhaled Respiratory Medication Among Patients with Asthma or Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Patient Survey on Experience with Switch, Therapy Satisfaction, and Disease Control

PURPOSE

Budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) was removed from a Medicare Part D formulary, and patients switched to fluticasone-based dry powder inhaler (DPI) therapies. This study describes the experience, satisfaction, and disease control among patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who switched due to removal from the formulary.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A patient survey was conducted among adults with asthma or COPD who used budesonide/formoterol pMDI for ≥3 months prior to the formulary block and the new medication for ≥3 weeks after switching, recruited by providers in a research panel. Survey comprised both validated instruments (PASAPQ, OEQ, ACQ-6, and CAT) and stand-alone questions. Patient characteristics, switch experience, device and treatment satisfaction, onset of effect, and disease control were compared between disease (asthma and COPD) and medication (once and twice daily) cohorts. Minimal significance for group differences: P≤0.05.

RESULTS

Among 100 patients, 93% received communication from their doctor or nurse about the switch and 73% received training on using the new inhaler. Patients used their new treatment for an average of 7 months prior to completing the survey. Patient satisfaction with the new therapy was high (PASAPQ; mean overall satisfaction: 6.2 for asthma; 6.0 for COPD; P=0.338). However, asthma was not well controlled (ACQ-6) in 62% of patients with asthma, and 56% of patients with COPD reported high/very high impact of their illness on their lives (CAT). Sixty-eight percent and 70% of patients with asthma and COPD, respectively, required reliever medication (≥3 puffs) most days during the week prior to the survey. There were no significant differences in disease control (ACQ-6, CAT) between once-daily and twice-daily treatments (P>0.05 for both asthma and COPD).

CONCLUSION

Even when reporting satisfaction with their new medication, objective measures showed substantial morbidity, regardless of DPI device or dosing regimen.

Patients' usability of seven most used dry-powder inhalers in COPD

Introduction

Inhalation devices affect both the effectiveness and the therapeutic outcomes in persistent airway obstruction, and the effects are largely independent of the drug(s) assumed. Usability is a complex and comprehensive indicator of inhalation devices’ performance. The Global Usability Score (GUS) Questionnaire is an investigational tool designed to assess objectively the patients’-related and unrelated domains of devices’ usability.

Methods

The GUS questionnaire was administered to all consecutive COPD patients referring for three months to the Lung Unit of CEMS Specialist Centre (Verona, Italy). The usability of seven Dry Powder Inhalers (DPIs) indicated as appropriate in COPD was tested and compared: Breezhaler, Diskus, Ellipta, Genuair, Nexthaler, Spiromax, and Turbohaler. Patients were divided in two groups, checked separately, according to their DPIs previous experience. A Bayesian Indirect Comparison (IC) model was built to assess “global usability” ranking.

Results

A total of 103 patients were investigated: 74 patients already instructed in DPI use and 29 naive to DPIs. IC analysis proved Ellipta as the device characterized by the highest usability, while Breezhaler the device with the lowest usability in both groups of COPD patients (both with probability > 90%). Moreover, Turbohaler ranked second according to the Bayesian pooling, followed by Diskus, Spiromax, Nexthaler, and Genuair in patients already instructed in DPI use, while the ranking order was not as much well defined in naïve patients, likely due to their too small sample.

Conclusions

Usability is a multifaceted indicator that contributes to assess the factual DPIs’ convenience in real life. DPIs are characterized by different levels of real-life usability, which can be checked, compared and ranked by means of the GUS score.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40248-019-0192-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Recent advances in aerosolised drug delivery

Pulmonary route is extensively studied for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary and extra pulmonary disease conditions such as asthma, tuberculosis, emphysema, and bronchitis. Formulation design, inhalation device and particle size play key role in determining the aerosol performance. The lack of desired clinical outcome along with the problem regarding efficacy or any adverse drug effect may arise due to improper training and education in use of the device to control the actuation and aerosol inhalation. This review summarizes the difference in the mechanistic features of current marketed aerosol delivery devices with respect to mechanism of aerosol generation with possible advancements in the aerosol design. The delivery options in the pulmonary route and its merits together with the limitations are also discussed. An update is provided regarding the current research and clinical outcome of the use of inhalational technology.

Instant velocity and consistency of emitted cloud change by the different levels of canister filling with Metered Dose Inhalers (MDIs), but not with Soft Mist Inhalers (SMIs): a bench study

Background

Inhalation is the preferred route for respiratory drug delivery, but several factors contribute to the variability of the respirable dose fraction. Instant velocity and the dynamic characteristics of the droplet cloud represent crucial factors. Aim was to measure and compare the instant velocity and the consistency of emitted cloud from five different MDIs (A - Salbutamol sulphate 100mcg, GSK; B - Salbutamol sulphate 100mcg, Valeas; C - Salmeterol xinafoate/Fluticasone propionate 25/125mcg, GSK; D - Formoterol fumarate/Bechlomethasone propionate 6/100mcg, Chiesi; E - Formoterol fumarate/Fluticasone dipropionate 5/125mcg, Mundipharma) and one SMI (Tiotropium bromide 5mcg, Boehringer Ingelheim), at different distance from the nozzle and canister filling.

Methods

Measurements were made at 90, 50, and 10% of canister filling, and at 5, 10, and 20 cm from the nozzle, for a total of 972 puffs. A high speed video photography protocol was adopted and high speed cameras (1.200 frames/sec.) were used. Data were acquired by means of specialized softwares. Temperature, humidity, and vibrations occurrence were strictly controlled during measurements. Statistics: Anova and p < 0.05 were accepted as the minimum significance level.

Results

MDIs generated different Instant velocities: MDI B generated the highest, while MDI A the lowest. As expected, velocity decreased in proportion to the distance from the nozzle. Except with MDI C, instant velocity decreased significantly over the first 50% of canister emptying, but dropped by >33% at 90% of emptying with all other MDIs (p < 0–037; p < 0.001; p < 0.005, and p < 0.001, respectively). Instant velocity was extremely lower (p < 0.001) and constant for all levels of canister filling (p = ns) with SMI. All MDIs had a very fast jet phase, ranging 0.01–0.03 s at 10 cm, and 0.03–0.05 s at 20 cm from the nozzle, without any significant difference from each other (p = ns). MDIs generated a cloud similarly tight (p = ns) at 10 and 20 cm from the nozzle, while it was extremely wider and constant with the SMI (p = 0–001). Also the cloud turbulence was minimized during the SMI emission.

Discussion and Conclusions

MDIs are characterized by a substantial variability in both their instant velocity and consistency of the emitted cloud at different levels of canister filling. SMI generates a much slower soft mist cloud which is constantly homogeneous and independent of canister emptying. These peculiarities assessed at bench are suggesting a higher dose consistency and a much more effective therapeutic performance also in real life.

An evidence-based, point-of-care tool to guide completion of asthma action plans in practice

Asthma action plans (AAPs) reduce healthcare utilisation, improve quality of life and are recommended across guidelines. However, fewer than 25% of patients receive an AAP, partly due to prescribers' inability to complete “yellow zone” instructions (how to intensify therapy for acute loss of control). We sought to review best evidence to develop a practical, evidence-based tool to facilitate yellow zone guidance in adults.

We reviewed recent asthma guidelines and adult studies addressing acute loss of asthma control (January 2010 to March 2016). We developed evidence-based rules for yellow zone therapy and operational guidelines to maximise adherence and minimise errors.

We reviewed three guidelines and 11 manuscripts (2486 abstracts screened). Recommendations were comparable but some areas lacked guidance. For 15/43 asthma regimens, the commonly recommended four- to five-fold yellow zone inhaled corticosteroid dose increase was problematic due to regulatory dose limits. We identified evidence-based alternatives for 8/15 regimens. Operational guidance included increasing to a maximum of four inhalations while maintaining baseline inhaler frequency and device in the yellow zone.

We developed a practical implementation tool to facilitate AAP delivery at the point of care, addressing existing gaps and uncertainties. Our tool should be implemented as part of a multifaceted approach to augment AAP usage.

New tool brings complex evidence to the point-of-care, guiding providers on how to create the best #asthmaactionplanhttp://ow.ly/rmFu30a9neW

Dry-powder inhalers in patients with persistent airflow limitation: usability and preference

BACKGROUND

Inhalation devices represent per sé critical factors because they can affect the therapeutic outcomes independently of the drug used. The role of patients' usability and preference (PUP) for Dry Powder Inhalers (DPIs) is high indeed because they can influence the extent of the adherence to treatment and the therapeutic outcomes. Aim of the study was to assess and compare the PUP of three different DPIs in out-patients with persistent airflow limitation due to asthma or COPD.

METHODS

The PUP of three different DPIs (Breezhaler; Genuair; Handihaler) were investigated by means of the Handling Questionnaire in out-patients with persistent airflow limitation needing an inhalation therapy. Patients had to report their preference before and after the nurse's instruction on the handling of each device. The nurse had also to note the critical steps during the patient's procedure for actuation; to count the number of attempts needed for actuating the device properly, and to measure the time (in sec.) required for these procedures. Data were collected up to three attempts per device.

STATISTICS

Welch test was used for normal distributed variables, while the Wilcoxon test for not normal distributed variables. The χ (2) test and the ANOVA test were also used. Univariate and multivariate regressions were also performed in order to investigate the effect of patients' characteristics and of technical differences of each device on their proper use.

RESULTS

Three hundred thirty-three consecutive out-patients (age range 55-58 years, and well matched for gender), with persistent airway limitation of different severity were investigated, suffering from bronchial asthma (n = 175) or from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (n = 158). In particular, 127 patients (38 %) tested the three DPIs, while 110 (33 %) tested Breezhaler and Genuair, and 96 (29 %) Breezhaler and Handihaler. More than 50 % of patients who tested all devices preferred the Genuair and perceived this device as the easiest to use. The nurse's judgement confirmed their opinion. When compared to the other two DPIs, Genuair proved the least problematic either according to the patients' judgement and to the nurse's opinion. Mean number of attempts aimed to achieving the first proper actuation was lower with Genuair than with Breezhaler and Handihaler (1.5 vs 2.5-2.6, p < 0.0001). Finally, Genuair also proved the easiest to use and the least problematic according to the nurse judgement (0.0001), the most easily learned (0.0001), and that one with a successful rate of more than 56 % at the first attempt. Breezhaler and Handihaler needed an average of about one additional attempt to be used properly (p < 0.0001), and their usability proved significantly more difficult (OR of successful rate between 0.15 and 0.17, p < 0.001). In general, older patients needed more attempts to perform their first proper inhalation; their successful rate was lower, and they needed more time to learn how to use devices properly: with Genuair these differences were minimized.

CONCLUSIONS

The possibility of grading objectively the performance of different DPIs in terms of their usability and therapeutic convenience in daily life represents a crucial operational opportunity to pursue. To note that a substantial discrepancy exists between the patients' belief "at glance" and the patients' effective usability with can be registered with some devices. From a general point of view, devices requiring less manual actions for their actuation confirmed their better usability and proper handling after less attempts. In particular, Genuair came out as the most preferred DPI also when several different aspects of preference and usability are assessed objectively and compared.

Evaluation of dry powder inhalers with a focus on ease of use and user preference in inhaler-naïve individuals

Inhaler errors are common amongst inhaler users. Therefore, in the development work of new inhalation devices, it is important to characterize the ease of use of the inhalers. In this study four dry powder inhalers, Diskus, Easyhaler, Ellipta and Turbuhaler, were evaluated, focusing on ease of use and patient preference. The study used a triangular methodology. The sample consisted of 31 inhaler naïve individuals. Educational videos for all inhalers were watched, and afterwards, the use of all four inhalers was demonstrated in a random order. The demonstrations were videotaped. Thereafter they were checked against a predefined checklist and all mistakes were recorded. Only 33% of inhaler demonstrations were completed without the participants making any mistakes. The proportions of subjects who used the devices correctly were as follows: Diskus 48%, Easyhaler 19%, Ellipta 55% and Turbuhaler 16%. When comparing correct and incorrect inhaler technique for each inhaler pair the following differences were statistically significant: Diskus vs. Easyhaler (p<0.05), Ellipta vs. Easyhaler (p<0.01), Diskus vs. Turbuhaler (p<0.01), Ellipta vs. Turbuhaler (p<0.01). In the participants' ranking, the inhalers Ellipta, followed by Turbuhaler, were most often ranked as most preferred. Participants' preference of Ellipta over Easyhaler (p<0.01) and over Diskus (p<0.001) were statistically significant.

The economic impact of educational training assessed by the Handling Questionnaire with three inhalation devices in asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients

Background

The usability of inhalation devices depends on several factors, eg, the drug to inhale, device handling, and patients’ training. Usability is then presumed to have economic consequences.

Aim

To assess and compare the cost of patients’ training for proper usability of Breezhaler and Genuair (both dry powder inhalers) and Respimat (a soft mist inhaler) in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) outpatients.

Methods

The acceptance and handling of the three devices were investigated by means of the Handling Questionnaire. The time spent in specific training for ensuring a proper actuation and the corresponding costs were also calculated. Linear and logistic regressions were used in order to investigate the factors influencing proper handling of the devices. A significance level of P<0.05 was accepted.

Results

According to both the patients’ and the nurse’s judgments, Genuair and Respimat were perceived as the easiest devices to use, while Breezhaler required the highest number of attempts for achieving the first proper actuation (2.6 vs 1.6; P<0.0001). The total training cost per patient (including the nurse’s time for demonstration and that for attending the patients’ maneuvers) was €1.38±€1.21. Breezhaler was found to be the most expensive as the cost per patient was €2.35±€1.26, which was three to four times higher than that of Genuair and Respimat (both devices involved a cost of <€1 per patient, with negligible differences between each other). Asthma and COPD patients showed a similar trend, with better outcomes reported for asthma patients probably due to lower age.

Conclusion

Substantial differences were found to exist in patients’ acceptability and handling of the three devices. The economic impact of specific training was also different and strictly related to the comprehension of the procedure for actuation of each device. Respimat as a soft mist inhaler and Genuair as an metered-dose inhaler proved to be the most convenient in economic terms also.

Inhalation errors due to device switch in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma: critical health and economic issues

BACKGROUND

Different inhalation devices are characterized by different techniques of use. The untrained switching of device in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma patients may be associated with inadequate inhalation technique and, consequently, could lead to a reduction in adherence to treatment and limit control of the disease. The aim of this analysis was to estimate the potential economic impact related to errors in inhalation in patients switching device without adequate training.

METHODS

An Italian real-practice study conducted in patients affected by COPD and asthma has shown an increase in health care resource consumption associated with misuse of inhalers. Particularly, significantly higher rates of hospitalizations, emergency room visits (ER), and pharmacological treatments (steroids and antimicrobials) were observed. In this analysis, those differences in resource consumption were monetized considering the Italian National Health Service (INHS) perspective.

RESULTS

Comparing a hypothetical cohort of 100 COPD patients with at least a critical error in inhalation vs 100 COPD patients without errors in inhalation, a yearly excess of 11.5 hospitalizations, 13 ER visits, 19.5 antimicrobial courses, and 47 corticosteroid courses for the first population were revealed. In the same way, considering 100 asthma patients with at least a critical error in inhalation vs 100 asthma patients without errors in inhalation, the first population is associated with a yearly excess of 19 hospitalizations, 26.5 ER visits, 4.5 antimicrobial courses, and 21.5 corticosteroid courses. These differences in resource consumption could be associated with an increase in health care expenditure for INHS, due to inhalation errors, of €23,444/yr in COPD and €44,104/yr in asthma for the considered cohorts of 100 patients.

CONCLUSION

This evaluation highlights that misuse of inhaler devices, due to inadequate training or nonconsented switch of inhaled medications, is associated with a decrease in disease control and an increase in health care resource consumption and costs.

Acceptability and preference of three inhalation devices assessed by the Handling Questionnaire in asthma and COPD patients

BACKGROUND

The patients' criteria of preference for inhalation devices can affect the extent of their adherence to treatment and outcomes. Aim of this study was to assess and compare the patients' preference and acceptability (PPA) for Breezhaler and Genuair (both Dry Powder Inhalers), and for Respimat (a Soft Mist Inhaler) in asthma and COPD out-patients by means of the Handling Questionnaire.

METHODS

The Handling Questionnaire is a validated instrument which allows the investigation of different domains of PPA; it also takes into account the patients' age and gender, together with their previous experience with the inhalation devices and their previous education approach to them. Differences in terms of preference, acceptance and usability were assessed by linear and logistic regressions in order to evaluate factors influencing the proper actuation.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Data from 333 patients were collected: Genuair and Respimat were the most liked and perceived as the easiest to use at glance by patients, but also as the least problematic according to the patients' and nurse's judgments. Mean number of attempts for achieving the first effective actuation was the highest with Breezhaler (2.6 vs 1.6; p <0.0001). Linear regressions showed that longer the explanation, higher was the number of attempts to the first proper actuation (0.58 additional attempts every 10 s increase in the first explanation, p <0.0001). Devices requiring less manoeuvres for the actuation were used properly after less attempts (0.38 increase in the number of attempts every additional manoeuvres, p <0.0001). Respimat proved to be the most indicated in COPD patients since it was the most liked and its successful rate at first attempt was the highest. Logistic regressions confirmed these data. Previous experience with DPIs and/or MDIs did not affect the patient preference and acceptability, independently whether suffering from asthma or COPD.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial differences are existing in patient's preference and acceptability for inhalation devices, mainly related to the handling and the understanding of the different devices.

Switching treatments in COPD: implications for costs and treatment adherence

Inhaled therapy is key to the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). New drugs and inhalers have recently been launched or will soon become available, and the expiry of patent protection covering several currently used inhaled bronchodilators and corticosteroids will be accompanied by the development of bioequivalent, generic inhaled drugs. Consequently, a broader availability of branded and generic compounds will increase prescription opportunities. Given the time course of COPD, patients are likely to switch drugs and inhalers in daily practice. Switching from one device to another, if not accompanied by appropriate training for the patient, can be associated with poor clinical outcomes and increased use of health care resources. In fact, while it seems reasonable to prescribe generic inhaled drugs to reduce costs, inadequate use of inhaler devices, which is often associated with a poor patient–physician or patient–pharmacist relationship, is one of the most common reasons for failure to achieve COPD treatment outcomes. Further research is needed to quantify, as in asthma, the impact of inappropriate switching of inhalers in patients with COPD and show the outcomes related to the effect of using the same device for delivering inhaled medications.

Budesonide inhaler device switch patterns in an asthma population in Swedish clinical practice (ASSURE)

BACKGROUND

Dry powder inhaler (DPI) device switch in asthma treatment could potentially increase with the entrance of new devices. We examined the switch patterns of budesonide (BUD) DPI analogues available in Sweden.

METHODS

This observational real-life study linked primary healthcare medical records data from the Västra Götaland region to national Swedish registries, and included asthma patients (ICD-10-CM J45) prescribed BUD in a multidose DPI. Index date: first dispense of BUD DPI. Switch date: prescription of another BUD DPI device. Study outcomes (switch vs. non-switch) were exacerbations and prescription of short-acting β2 -agonists. Study period was 1 July 2005 to 31 October 2013.

RESULTS

Overall, 15,169 asthma patients were on treatment with BUD DPI; 1178 (7.35%) switched to another BUD DPI during the study. Pair-wise 1:1 matching of switchers vs. non-switchers resulted in two groups of 463 patients each (mean age 36 years, 55% female patients). A 25% higher exacerbation rate was seen postswitch (0.40 vs. 0.32; p = 0.047). Switchers were 4.5 year younger and had lower medication possession rate than non-switchers. Switch without primary healthcare visit did not differ between groups regarding consultations and exacerbations (no visit 4.96 and 0.90; visit 4.29 and 0.77, respectively). However, patients without primary healthcare visit at switch had significantly more outpatient hospital visits (2.01 vs. 0.81; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the low switch rate, asthma patients and physicians in Swedish general practice seem reluctant to switch to another BUD DPI device. Switch, especially without primary healthcare visit, was associated with decreased asthma control resulting in higher exacerbation rate and more outpatient hospital visits.

Ease-of-use, preference, confidence, and satisfaction with Revolizer(®), a novel dry powder inhaler, in an Indian population

CONTEXT

While prescribing an inhaler device, it is important to take into account the usability, preference, confidence, and satisfaction of the patients.

AIMS

The present study assessed these parameters with Revolizer(®), a novel dry powder inhaler (DPI), in patients with obstructive airway diseases and in device-naïve healthy participants.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN

In this open-label, prospective, multicentre study with 100 participants [n = 50 healthy participants, n = 45 mild asthma patients, and n = 5 mild chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients], all participants were instructed and trained on the use of Revolizer and then the participants subsequently demonstrated the inhalation technique at two visits.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The average time required to execute three correct consecutive attempts and the number of errors (including critical errors) were recorded. Participants were asked about the ease of use, preference, confidence, and satisfaction by means of a questionnaire at each visit.

RESULTS

The average time required by the participants to achieve three correct consecutive attempts at visit 1 was 3.75 ± 2.10 min, which significantly reduced at visit 2 (3.07 ± 1.32 min, P < 0.01). The number of errors decreased from visit 1 to visit 2. More than 85% participants found the Revolizer easy to use, and it was preferred by more than 75% participants. Revolizer scored high on the confidence and satisfaction of all participants at both visits.

CONCLUSIONS

Revolizer is an easy-to-use and a preferred device in patients with mild asthma and COPD, as well as in healthy participants with no previous experience of using inhalation devices. The participants felt confident and satisfied using the Revolizer.

[The choice of inhalation device: A medical act]

Inhaled treatments are essential for respiratory diseases management, including COPD and asthma. Optimal control of the disease largely depends on patient's compliance and proper use of these treatments. Different types of ready-to-use inhaler devices are available: metered dose inhaler, dry powder inhaler or soft mist inhaler. Each of these devices presents specific characteristics and constraints that have to be evaluated and taken into account before prescription. In order to optimize adherence and treatment efficacy, the choice of inhaler device should depend on the specific needs, abilities and preferences of each patient and a specific education to treatment should be provided. Inhaled treatments, even containing the same drug, have different technical constraints and are thus not easily interchangeable. Their substitution without prior medical consent and without proper training can lead to errors in taking treatment, treatment failures and increased health care consumption. In France, substitution by the pharmacist is not authorized. While patient education must be carried out in collaboration with all health professionals, it is preferable that the choice of inhaler device remains the responsibility of the physician.

Technological and practical challenges of dry powder inhalers and formulations

In the 50 years following the introduction of the first dry powder inhaler to the market, several developments have occurred. Multiple-unit dose and multi-dose devices have been introduced, but first generation capsule inhalers are still widely used for new formulations. Many new particle engineering techniques have been developed and considerable effort has been put in understanding the mechanisms that control particle interaction and powder dispersion during inhalation. Yet, several misconceptions about optimal inhaler performance manage to survive in modern literature. It is, for example still widely believed that a flow rate independent fine particle fraction contributes to an inhalation performance independent therapy, that dry powder inhalers perform best at 4 kPa (or 60 L/min) and that a high resistance device cannot be operated correctly by patients with reduced lung function. Nevertheless, there seems to be a great future for dry powder inhalation. Many new areas of interest for dry powder inhalation are explored and with the assistance of new techniques like computational fluid dynamics and emerging particle engineering technologies, this is likely to result in a new generation of inhaler devices and formulations, that will enable the introduction of new therapies based on inhaled medicines.

The clinical relevance of dry powder inhaler performance for drug delivery

BACKGROUND

Although understanding of the scientific basis of aerosol therapy with dry powder inhalers (DPIs) has increased, some misconceptions still persist. These include the beliefs that high resistance inhalers are unsuitable for some patients, that extra fine (<1.0 μm) particles improve peripheral lung deposition and that inhalers with flow rate-independent fine particle fractions (FPFs) produce a more consistent delivered dose to the lungs.

OBJECTIVES

This article aims to clarify the complex inter-relationships between inhaler design and resistance, inspiratory flow rate (IFR), FPF, lung deposition and clinical outcomes, as a better understanding may result in a better choice of DPI for individual patients.

METHODS

The various factors that determine the delivery of drug particles into the lungs are reviewed. These include aerodynamic particle size distribution, the inspiratory manoeuvre, airway geometry and the three basic principles that determine the site and extent of deposition: inertial impaction, sedimentation and diffusion. DPIs are classed as either dependent or independent of inspiratory flow rate and vary in their internal resistance to inspiration. The effects of these characteristics on drug deposition in the airways are described using data from studies directly comparing currently available inhaler devices.

RESULTS

Clinical experience shows that most patients can use a high resistance DPI effectively, even during exacerbations. Particles in the aerodynamic size range from 1.5-5 μm are shown to be optimal, as particles <1.0 μm are very likely to be exhaled again while those >5 μm may impact on the oropharynx. For DPIs with a constant FPF at all flow rates, less of the delivered dose reaches the central and peripheral lung when the flow rate increases, risking under-dosing of the required medication. In contrast, flow rate-dependent inhalers increase their FPF output at higher flow rates, which compensates for the greater impaction on the upper airways as flow rate increases.

CONCLUSIONS

The technical characteristics of different inhalers and the delivery and deposition of the fine particle dose to the lungs may be important additional considerations to help the physician to select the most appropriate device for the individual patient to optimise their treatment.

Potential negative consequences of non-consented switch of inhaled medications and devices in asthma patients

BACKGROUND

Asthma requires individually tailored and careful management to control and prevent symptoms and exacerbations. Selection of the most appropriate treatment is dependent on both the choice of drugs and inhaler device; however, financial pressures may result in patients being switched to alternative medications and devices in an attempt to reduce costs.

AIM

This review aimed to examine the published literature in order to ascertain whether switching a patient's asthma medications or device negatively impacts clinical and economic outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search of MEDLINE (2001-13 September 2011) was conducted to identify English-language articles focused on the direct impact of switching medications and inhaler devices and switching from fixed-dose combination to monocomponent therapy via separate inhalers in patients with asthma; the indirect impacts of switching were also assessed.

RESULTS

Evidence showed that non-consented switching of medications and inhalers in patients with asthma can be associated with a range of negative outcomes, at both individual and organisational levels. Factors that reduce adherence may lead to compromised symptom control resulting in increased healthcare resource utilisation and poorer patient quality of life.

DISCUSSION

The consequences of a non-consented switch should be weighed carefully against arguments supporting an inhaler switch without the patient's consent for non-medical/budgetary reasons, such as potential reductions in initial acquisition costs, which may be associated with subsequent additional healthcare needs.

CONCLUSION

Given the increasing pressure for reduced costs and efficient allocation of limited healthcare resources, an additional investment in ensuring high medication adherence may lead to greater savings due to a potentially decreased demand for healthcare services. In contrast, savings achieved in acquisition costs may result in a greater net loss due to increased healthcare consumption caused by decreased asthma control.

Use of dry powder inhalers in COPD

INTRODUCTION

This was a study of 30 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients to assess the ease of use and preference of four dry powder inhalers -- accuhaler, aerolizer, handihaler, turbohaler -- the accuhaler and turbohaler are multidose devices, whereas the aerolizer and handihaler are single dose devices.

METHOD

None of the subjects had previous experience of dry powder inhalers. The correct technique for each inhaler was divided into 12 steps including one critical step that if not performed would result in no drug delivery. Subjects were shown the correct technique for each inhaler in a random order and were assessed immediately and 1 h later. Each subject was asked to rank the four devices for preference and ease of use, as well as to assess how comfortable it felt to inhale through the device using a visual analogue scale.

RESULTS

The numbers of perfect scores were not significantly different between devices, but the number of fatal errors that would result in no drug delivery was significantly more common in single dose devices (p < 0.01). There were significant differences in the rankings of each device (Friedman test, p < 0.005) with the turbohaler being ranked first most often and the handihaler last. The turbohaler scored highest for comfort of inhalation and the accuhaler lowest, but differences were small.

CONCLUSIONS

In COPD patients starting on dry powder inhalers, multidose devices appear to be preferred, have fewer problems and are easier to use effectively.

The Diskus: a review of its position among dry powder inhaler devices

The use of dry powder inhalers (DPIs) to administer treatments for respiratory diseases has increased significantly in recent years. There is now a wide range of DPIs available that vary considerably in design, required operational techniques, output characteristics and drug delivery across a range of inhalation patterns. Different patient populations may find individual types of DPI easier to use correctly than others and selecting the right DPI for particular patient requirements will improve compliance with therapy. For example, some DPIs offer a greater resistance against inspirational flow rate than others which affects the total emitted dose and also fine particle mass of the aerosol released. An individual patient may therefore receive different amounts of drug when inhaling from different DPIs. Therefore, it is important that the prescriber is fully aware of the characteristics of the different types of DPI, so that he or she can prescribe the device that is most appropriate to an individual patient's needs. This review explores the characteristics of currently available DPIs and evaluates their efficacy and patient acceptability. The differences in output characteristics, ease of use and patient preferences between available devices is shown to affect treatment efficacy and patient compliance with therapy. Changing the DPI prescribed to a patient to a cheaper or generic device may therefore adversely affect disease control and thereby increase the cost of treatment.

Survey of pharmacists' attitudes towards interchangeable use of dry powder inhalers

BACKGROUND

It is a common cost-containment practice in some countries to dispense a cheaper, generic version of a prescribed medication. This presents few problems for most medications. However, dry powder inhalers used in asthma and COPD vary markedly in design and method of operation, so generic substitution may not be acceptable to patients or healthcare professionals. Patients dispensed an unfamiliar device in which they have received no training, risk poor inhalation technique with the potential for inadequate dosing and loss of disease control.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the views of pharmacists towards interchangeable use of dry powder inhalers.

SETTING

Community pharmacists in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, and the UK.

METHOD

Following exploration of the key issues with international opinion leaders in respiratory management, a structured web questionnaire was developed for use in computer assisted web interviews. Fieldwork was carried out in March and April 2005.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Responses to the web questionnaire were analysed by percentage of respondents or by mean or median score, as appropriate to the question.

RESULTS

A total of 254 pharmacists were included in the study. Just 6% of pharmacists considered that dry powder inhalers are interchangeable, with a high level of concern shown about interchangeable use (median score of 6 on a scale of 1, not at all concerned, to 7, extremely concerned). Patient confusion was the main concern, expressed by 77% of respondents. Pharmacists also envisaged substitution having an adverse impact on pharmacy stock levels (72%), patient device handling (70%), pharmacist workload (63%), patient compliance (56%) and outcomes for the patient (51%), with pharmacists in Germany having a particularly negative view and those in France generally the most positive. Despite the generally negative view of pharmacists about interchangeable use of dry powder inhalers, overall only 22% would contact the prescribing physician often/very often for approval of the substitution.

CONCLUSION

The study showed that only a small minority of pharmacists believe that dry powder inhalers can be used interchangeably, with the majority concerned about generic substitution of these products. Pharmacists in Germany were particularly negative about the interchangeable use of dry powder inhalers.

Do healthcare professionals think that dry powder inhalers can be used interchangeably?

It is important to assess the attitudes of healthcare professionals to the interchangeable use of dry powder inhalers, as there is the potential for this to occur more frequently in the future. A survey of healthcare professionals in the UK found that 87% were concerned about potential problems arising from prescriptions that do not specify the device to be dispensed, and 46% were aware of actual incidents in which patients received an unfamiliar inhaler, including patient confusion, ineffective inhaler technique and the need to reissue prescriptions. In another survey conducted among 427 primary and secondary care physicians in Germany, Netherlands, UK and USA, one third of the physicians considered the device before considering the chemical entity within a class of treatments and over half the respondents reported problems with the device as one of the main reasons for switching inhaled therapy. In a survey conducted in Australia, Canada, France, Germany and UK, over 90% of the 726 physicians interviewed thought that interchangeable use of dry powder inhalers would have a negative impact on patient compliance and device handling and on willingness to use the inhaler if the patient was not involved in the choice. In total, 79% of physicians thought that substitution of a patient's regular dry powder inhaler with another could have a negative impact on asthma control. The majority of physicians (95%) were opposed to substitution of one dry powder inhaler for another if the pharmacist does not consult the patient or physician. A majority (86%) were concerned that switching between dry powder inhalers would have an adverse impact on workload. Only 9% of physicians thought that dry powder inhalers were interchangeable, with almost eight out of 10 (79%) considering that there should be official recognition that they are not interchangeable. In conclusion, a number of surveys among healthcare professionals have shown that they believe patient involvement in treatment choice to be essential for adherence to therapy. Dry powder inhalers were perceived as different and not interchangeable, with physicians opposed to substitution of one dry powder inhaler by another without consultation with the patient or physician. Consequently, physicians are in favour of official recognition that dry powder inhalers are not interchangeable, with any cost benefits likely to be outweighed by the need for additional consultations and prescriptions.

The way forward: dry powder inhalers should only be switched with physician agreement and patient training

Assessment of pharmaceutical performance, patient behaviour and clinical outcomes shows that dry powder inhalers cannot be used interchangeably, even if they contain the same active chemical entity. Consequently, there should be no switching of device without the involvement of the physician and appropriate training for the patient.