Imran Sulaiman1,2, Jansen Seheult3, Elaine MacHale2, Fiona Boland4, Susan M O'Dwyer5, Viliam Rapcan2, Shona D'Arcy2, Breda Cushen1, Matshediso Mokoka1, Isabelle Killane2, Sheila A Ryder5, Richard B Reilly6,7,8, Richard W Costello1,2,9. 1. 1 Department of Respiratory Medicine. 2. 2 Clinical Research Centre. 3. 3 Special Chemistry Division, Department of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA. 4. 4 Population Health Sciences, and. 5. 5 School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences. 6. 6 Trinity Centre of Bioengineering. 7. 7 School of Medicine, and. 8. 8 School of Engineering, Trinity College, The University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. 9. 9 Department of Medicine, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Currently, studies on adherence to inhaled medications report average adherence over time. This measure does not account for variations in the interval between doses, nor for errors in inhaler use. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether adherence calculated as a single area under the (concentration-time) curve (AUC) measure, incorporating the interval between doses and inhaler technique, was more reflective of patient outcomes than were current methods of assessing adherence. METHODS: We attached a digital audio device (INhaler Compliance Assessment) to a dry powder inhaler. This recorded when the inhaler was used, and analysis of the audio data indicated if the inhaler had been used correctly. These aspects of inhaler use were combined to calculate adherence over time, as an AUC measure. Over a 3-month period, a cohort of patients with asthma was studied. Adherence to a twice-daily inhaler preventer therapy using this device and clinical measures were assessed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Recordings from 239 patients with severe asthma were analyzed. Average adherence that was based on the dose counter was 84.4%, whereas the ratio of expected to observed accumulated AUC, actual adherence, was 61.8% (P < 0.01). Of all the adherence measures, only adherence calculated as AUC reflected changes in asthma quality of life, β-agonist reliever use, and peak expiratory flow over the 3 months (P < 0.05 compared with other measures of adherence). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence that incorporates the interval between doses and inhaler technique, and calculated as AUC, is more reflective of changes in quality of life and lung function than are the currently used measures of adherence. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01529697).
RCT Entities:
RATIONALE: Currently, studies on adherence to inhaled medications report average adherence over time. This measure does not account for variations in the interval between doses, nor for errors in inhaler use. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether adherence calculated as a single area under the (concentration-time) curve (AUC) measure, incorporating the interval between doses and inhaler technique, was more reflective of patient outcomes than were current methods of assessing adherence. METHODS: We attached a digital audio device (INhaler Compliance Assessment) to a dry powder inhaler. This recorded when the inhaler was used, and analysis of the audio data indicated if the inhaler had been used correctly. These aspects of inhaler use were combined to calculate adherence over time, as an AUC measure. Over a 3-month period, a cohort of patients with asthma was studied. Adherence to a twice-daily inhaler preventer therapy using this device and clinical measures were assessed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Recordings from 239 patients with severe asthma were analyzed. Average adherence that was based on the dose counter was 84.4%, whereas the ratio of expected to observed accumulated AUC, actual adherence, was 61.8% (P < 0.01). Of all the adherence measures, only adherence calculated as AUC reflected changes in asthma quality of life, β-agonist reliever use, and peak expiratory flow over the 3 months (P < 0.05 compared with other measures of adherence). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence that incorporates the interval between doses and inhaler technique, and calculated as AUC, is more reflective of changes in quality of life and lung function than are the currently used measures of adherence. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01529697).
Authors: Kimberly J Arcoleo; Colleen McGovern; Karenjot Kaur; Jill S Halterman; Jennifer Mammen; Hugh Crean; Deepa Rastogi; Jonathan M Feldman Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2019-06
Authors: Garrett Greene; Richard W Costello; Breda Cushen; Imran Sulaiman; Elaine Mac Hale; Ronan M Conroy; Frank Doyle Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-04-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Alison Moore; Andrew Preece; Raj Sharma; Liam G Heaney; Richard W Costello; Robert A Wise; Andrea Ludwig-Sengpiel; Giselle Mosnaim; Jamie Rees; Ryan Tomlinson; Ruth Tal-Singer; David A Stempel; Neil Barnes Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2021-06-04 Impact factor: 33.795
Authors: Cindy Thamrin; Mark Hew; Joy Lee; Jacqueline Huvanandana; Juliet M Foster; Helen K Reddel; Michael J Abramson Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-07-19 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Terence E Taylor; Yaniv Zigel; Clarice Egan; Fintan Hughes; Richard W Costello; Richard B Reilly Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Matshediso C Mokoka; Lorna Lombard; Elaine M MacHale; Joanne Walsh; Breda Cushen; Imran Sulaiman; Damien Mc Carthy; Fiona Boland; Frank Doyle; Eoin Hunt; Desmond M Murphy; John Faul; Marcus Butler; Kathy Hetherington; J Mark FitzGerald; Job Fm van Boven; Liam G Heaney; Richard B Reilly; Richard W Costello Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 3.006