Search

Objective: Incorrect inhaler usage is frequent, particularly in elderly asthmatic patients. This study aimed at comparing inhaler technique errors and their determinants, as well inhaler technique self-perception versus real performance, between elderly and non-elderly asthmatics. Methods: Cross-sectional assessment of 92 elderly and 100 non-elderly asthmatics followed at specialty clinics. A standardized questionnaire was applied and inhaler technique demonstration was requested. Errors were assessed using checklists based on manufacturers' instructions and inhaler technique was graded as correct, acceptable or incorrect. Chi-Square Test and Fischer's Exact Test were used for comparative analysis of nominal variables. A p value equal to or less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Inhaler technique was correct in a minority of elderly and young patients, without significant differences between study groups. Only 11.1% of the elderly who classified their inhaler as easy and 12.7% who stated their technique was correct had no errors. Previous regular inhaler training was associated with better actual performance in young but not in elderly patients. Conclusion: Our study showed that in spite of regular follow up at specialized outpatient clinics, inhaler devices are associated with a high frequency of errors in elderly and non-elderly asthmatics. In addition, most patients tend to overestimate their technique as correct. Finally, previous, frequent training was associated with a significantly higher percentage of patients showing correct or acceptable technique but only in non-elderly asthmatics, which suggests that elderly asthmatics may need specifically tailored inhaler education programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To evaluate the effect of inhaler education programs on clinical outcomes and exacerbation rates in older adults with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Design: Systematic review and meta‐analysis. Setting and Participants: Older adults with asthma or COPD, either in primary or secondary health care and pharmacy setting. Measurements: We searched the Medline, Embase, and Central databases according to the main eligibility criteria for inclusion: systematic reviews, meta‐analysis, clinical trials and quasi‐experimental studies; participants aged 65 and older; education on inhaler technique and reporting of disease control and exacerbation rates. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations scale for quality assessment and used a random‐effect model with Mantel–Haenszel adjustment to perform a meta‐analysis. Results: We included 8 studies (4 randomized, 4 quasi‐experimental) with a total of 1,812 participants. The most frequent type of intervention was physical demonstration of inhaler technique, training with placebo devices. Five studies showed significant reduction in exacerbation rates (pooled risk ratio=0.71, 95% confidence interval=0.59–0.86; p < .001), although effect on disease control and quality of life showed high discrepancy in the reported results, and all randomized studies revealed uncertainty in their risk of bias assessment. Conclusion: All interventions seemed to improve inhaler performance and clinically relevant outcomes, but a placebo device could be the most effective. There is evidence that interventions reduce exacerbation risk in older adults, although to an overall moderate degree. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:57–66, 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]