Pedro Chorão1, Ana M Pereira2, João A Fonseca3. 1. Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal. 2. CIDES - Centro de Investigação em Tecnologias e Sistemas de Informação & CINTESIS, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal; Unidades de Imunoalergologia, CUF Porto, Porto, Portugal; Serviço de Imunoalergologia, Centro Hospitalar São João, Porto, Portugal. 3. CIDES - Centro de Investigação em Tecnologias e Sistemas de Informação & CINTESIS, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal; Unidades de Imunoalergologia, CUF Porto, Porto, Portugal. Electronic address: jfonseca@med.up.pt.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Incorrect use of inhaler devices remains an obstacle for respiratory diseases management. We aimed to evaluate the frequency of inhaler technique errors; to determine the devices perceived as the easiest and favourite to use; to study the association of device type, demographics and patient preferences with inhaler technique (IT). METHODS: Cross-sectional assessment of 301 adults, with asthma (194) or chronic pulmonary obstructive disease, undergoing treatment with Aerolizer®, Autohaler®, Breezehaler®, Diskus®, Handihaler®, MDI without spacer, Miat-haler®, Novolizer®, Respimat® and/or Turbohaler®. Patients completed self-assessment questionnaires and face-to-face interview, with demonstration of inhaler technique. The rate of wrong steps (number of wrong steps ÷ number of total steps; RWS) was the primary outcome. Adjusted odds ratio (aOR) (95% confidence intervals [CI]) for presenting ≥1 IT errors were computed. RESULTS: From the 464 inhaler technique performances, the median RWS was 18%. Turbohaler® (21%) and Diskus® (19%) were chosen as easiest and Novolizer® (18%), Diskus® (18%), Turbohaler® (17%) as favourite for daily use. Females (aOR 2.68 [95% CI 1.55-4.65]; vs. males], patients with >64 yr (aOR 2.73 [95% CI 1.15-6.48]; vs <45 yr) and patients using Aerolizer® or Handihaler® (aOR 3.24 [95% CI 1.13-9.32] and aOR 3.71 [95% CI 1.38-10.2], respectively) were more likely to perform IT errors; otherwise, no association was found, including with using the favourite device (aOR 1.43 [95% CI 0.84-2.42]). CONCLUSION: The frequency of inhaler technique errors was high and no device was clearly preferred over the others. Using the preferred inhaler device was not associated with less errors.
BACKGROUND: Incorrect use of inhaler devices remains an obstacle for respiratory diseases management. We aimed to evaluate the frequency of inhaler technique errors; to determine the devices perceived as the easiest and favourite to use; to study the association of device type, demographics and patient preferences with inhaler technique (IT). METHODS: Cross-sectional assessment of 301 adults, with asthma (194) or chronic pulmonary obstructive disease, undergoing treatment with Aerolizer®, Autohaler®, Breezehaler®, Diskus®, Handihaler®, MDI without spacer, Miat-haler®, Novolizer®, Respimat® and/or Turbohaler®. Patients completed self-assessment questionnaires and face-to-face interview, with demonstration of inhaler technique. The rate of wrong steps (number of wrong steps ÷ number of total steps; RWS) was the primary outcome. Adjusted odds ratio (aOR) (95% confidence intervals [CI]) for presenting ≥1 IT errors were computed. RESULTS: From the 464 inhaler technique performances, the median RWS was 18%. Turbohaler® (21%) and Diskus® (19%) were chosen as easiest and Novolizer® (18%), Diskus® (18%), Turbohaler® (17%) as favourite for daily use. Females (aOR 2.68 [95% CI 1.55-4.65]; vs. males], patients with >64 yr (aOR 2.73 [95% CI 1.15-6.48]; vs <45 yr) and patients using Aerolizer® or Handihaler® (aOR 3.24 [95% CI 1.13-9.32] and aOR 3.71 [95% CI 1.38-10.2], respectively) were more likely to perform IT errors; otherwise, no association was found, including with using the favourite device (aOR 1.43 [95% CI 0.84-2.42]). CONCLUSION: The frequency of inhaler technique errors was high and no device was clearly preferred over the others. Using the preferred inhaler device was not associated with less errors.
Authors: Kyma Schnoor; Anke Versluis; Robbert Bakema; Sanne van Luenen; Marcel J Kooij; J Maurik van den Heuvel; Martina Teichert; Persijn J Honkoop; Job F M van Boven; Niels H Chavannes; Jiska J Aardoom Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-06-08 Impact factor: 7.076
Authors: Sven Schmiedl; Rainald Fischer; Luisa Ibanez; Joan Fortuny; Petra Thürmann; Elena Ballarin; Pili Ferrer; Monica Sabaté; Dominik Rottenkolber; Roman Gerlach; Martin Tauscher; Robert Reynolds; Joerg Hasford; Marietta Rottenkolber Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2015-12-23 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Mark L Levy; P N R Dekhuijzen; P J Barnes; M Broeders; C J Corrigan; B L Chawes; L Corbetta; J C Dubus; Th Hausen; F Lavorini; N Roche; J Sanchis; Omar S Usmani; J Viejo; W Vincken; Th Voshaar; G K Crompton; Soren Pedersen Journal: NPJ Prim Care Respir Med Date: 2016-04-21 Impact factor: 2.871