Search

Marika T Leving,1 Job FM van Boven,2– 4 Sinthia Z Bosnic-Anticevich,5,6 Joyce van Cooten,1 Jaime Correia de Sousa,7 Biljana Cvetkovski,5 Richard Dekhuijzen,8 Lars Dijk,1 Marina García Pardo,9 Asparuh Gardev,10 Rados&lstrok;aw Gawlik,11 Iris van der Ham,1 Elisabeth Sophia Hartgers-Gubbels,10 Ymke Janse,1 Federico Lavorini,12 Tiago Maricoto,13 Jiska Meijer,1 Boyd Metz,1 David B Price,14,15 Miguel Roman-Rodríguez,9 Kirsten Schuttel,1 Nilouq Stoker,1 Ioanna Tsiligianni,16 Omar S Usmani,17 Janwillem H Kocks1,2,15,18 1General Practitioners Research Institute, Groningen, the Netherlands; 2University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen Research Institute for Asthma and COPD (GRIAC), University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 3University Medical Centre Groningen, Department of Clinical Pharmacy & Pharmacology, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 4Medication Adherence Expertise Centre of the Northern Netherlands (MAECON), Groningen, the Netherlands; 5Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; 6Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia; 7Life and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS), PT Government Associate Laboratory, School of Medicine, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal; 8Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands; 9Primary Care Respiratory Research Unit, Instituto De Investigación Sanitaria De Baleares (IdISBa), Palma de Mallorca, Spain; 10Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany; 11Department of Internal Medicine, Allergology, Clinical Immunology, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland; 12Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy; 13Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Beira Interior, Covilha, Portugal; 14Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK; 15Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore; 16Department of Social Medicine, Health Planning Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Crete, Rethymno, Greece; 17Airway Disease, National Heart and Lung Institute (NHLI), Imperial College London and Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK; 18Department of Pulmonology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, the NetherlandsCorrespondence: Janwillem H Kocks, General Practitioners Research Institute, Professor Enno Dirk Wiersmastraat 5, Groningen, 9713 GH, the Netherlands, Tel +31 50 211 3898, Email janwillem@gpri.nlPurpose: To assess the relationship between suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow (sPIF), inhalation technique errors, and non-adherence, with Healthcare Resource Utilisation (HCRU) in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients receiving maintenance therapy via a Dry Powder Inhaler (DPI).Patients and methods: The cross-sectional, multi-country PIFotal study included 1434 COPD patients (≥ 40 years) using a DPI for maintenance therapy. PIF was measured with the In-Check DIAL G16, and sPIF was defined as a typical PIF lower than required for the device. Inhalation technique was assessed by standardised evaluation of video recordings and grouped into 10 steps. Patients completed the “Test of Adherence to Inhalers” questionnaire. HCRU was operationalised as COPD-related costs for primary healthcare, secondary healthcare, medication, and total COPD-related costs in a 1-year period.Results: Participants with sPIF had higher medication costs compared with those with optimal PIF (cost ratio [CR]: 1.07, 95% CI [1.01, 1.14]). Multiple inhalation technique errors were associated with increased HCRU. Specifically, “insufficient inspiratory effort” with higher secondary healthcare costs (CR: 2.20, 95% CI [1.37, 3.54]) and higher total COPD-related costs (CR: 1.16, 95% CI 1.03– 1.31). “no breath-hold following the inhalation manoeuvre (< 6 s)” with higher medication costs (CR: 1.08, 95% CI [1.02, 1.15]) and total COPD-related costs (CR 1.17, 95% CI [1.07, 1.28]), and “not breathing out calmly after inhalation” with higher medication costs (CR: 1.19, 95% CI [1.04, 1.37]). Non-adherence was not significantly associated with HCRU.Conclusion: sPIF and inhalation technique errors were associated with higher COPD-related healthcare utilisation and costs in COPD patients on DPI maintenance therapy.Keywords: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Dry Powder Inhaler, health economics, cost analysis, healthcare resource utilisation

The study aimed to determine the associations of Peak Inspiratory Flow (PIF), inhalation technique and adherence with health status and exacerbations in participants with COPD using DPI maintenance therapy. This cross-sectional multi-country observational real-world study included COPD participants aged ≥40 years using a DPI for maintenance therapy. PIF was measured three times with the In-Check DIAL G16: (1) typical PIF at resistance of participant’s inhaler, (2) maximal PIF at resistance of participant’s inhaler, (3) maximal PIF at low resistance. Suboptimal PIF (sPIF) was defined as PIF lower than required for the device. Participants completed questionnaires on health status (Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ)), adherence (Test of Adherence to Inhalers (TAI)) and exacerbations. Inhalation technique was assessed by standardised evaluation of video recordings. Complete data were available from 1434 participants (50.1% female, mean age 69.2 years). GOLD stage was available for 801 participants: GOLD stage I (23.6%), II (54.9%), III (17.4%) and IV (4.1%)). Of all participants, 29% had a sPIF, and 16% were shown able to generate an optimal PIF but failed to do so. sPIF was significantly associated with worse health status (0.226 (95% CI 0.107–0.346), worse units on CCQ; p = 0.001). The errors ‘teeth and lips sealed around mouthpiece’, ‘breathe in’, and ‘breathe out calmly after inhalation’ were related to health status. Adherence was not associated with health status. After correcting for multiple testing, no significant association was found with moderate or severe exacerbations in the last 12 months. To conclude, sPIF is associated with poorer health status. This study demonstrates the importance of PIF assessment in DPI inhalation therapy. Healthcare professionals should consider selecting appropriate inhalers in cases of sPIF.

The Respimat® Soft Mist™ inhaler (SMI) has recently been improved, with a re-usable device replacing the disposable version. Certain countries are currently phasing out the disposable inhaler. This study aimed to assess patient satisfaction with and preference for the re-usable device. This 4–6-week, multicentre, open-label, prospective, real-world, non-interventional study was conducted across six European countries. Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were enrolled between October and December 2019, in three cohorts: (1) currently using the re-usable Respimat SMI; (2) switched from disposable Respimat SMI at study entry; and (3) naïve to any Respimat SMI. Patients were assessed using the Patient Satisfaction and Preference Questionnaire (PASAPQ) and Ease of Handling Questionnaire. In total, 262 patients were enrolled. At follow-up, the mean PASAPQ score was 83.3/100 overall, with similar results across all three patient cohorts. Most patients were ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with the re-usable device. The overall score for willingness to continue using the device was 87.8/100. In total, 13 adverse events were recorded, none of which was classified as serious. This study provides real-world evidence for practitioners to start patients on Respimat re-usable, irrespective of a patient’s prior experience with this inhaler. Plain language summary: Inhalers are often used to treat patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, there are many available, which can lead to confusion and poor inhaler technique. It is important for a patient to be happy with their inhaler. This study looked at how patients liked the re-usable Respimat® Soft Mist™ inhaler vs. their previous inhaler. It also asked whether they would be willing to continue using the device at the end of the study period.After 4–6 weeks of using the re-usable device, patients reported that they were happy with the inhaler and most would be willing to carry on using it.Overall, these results show that doctors can prescribe Respimat re-usable to patients, even if the patient has not used the inhaler before.

Introduction: Vaccination with formulations containing pneumococcal protein antigens such as pneumolysin toxoid (dPly) and histidine-triad protein D (PhtD) may extend serotype-related protection of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) against Streptococcus pneumoniae. Methods: This phase II, multi-center, observer-blind trial conducted in Europe (NCT01204658) assessed 2 investigational vaccines containing 10 serotype-specific polysaccharide conjugates of PHiD-CV and either 10 or 30 mu g of dPly and PhtD each. Infants randomized 1:1:1:1 received 4 doses of PHiD-CV/dPly/PhtD-10, PHiD-CV/c1Ply/PhtD-30, PHiD-CV, or 13-valent PCV (PCV13), co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV/Flib, at ages 2, 3, 4 and 12-15 months. Occurrences of fever >40.0 degrees C following primary vaccination with PHiD-CV/dPly/PhtD vaccines compared to PHiD-CV (non-inferiority objective), dose superiority, safety and immunogenicity were assessed. Results: 575 children received primary vaccination, and 564 booster vaccination. The non-inferiority objective was met; no fever >40.0 degrees C causally related to vaccination was reported during primary vaccination. Incidence of adverse events appeared similar between the 3 PHiD-CV groups. Serious adverse events were reported in 13, 9, 21 (1 related to vaccination), and 17 children in the PHiD-CV/c1Ply/PhtD-10, PHiD-CV/dPly/PhtD-30, PHiD-CV, and PCV13 groups, respectively. PHiD-CV/dPly/PhtD-30 was superior to PHiD-CV/c1Ply/PhtD-10 in terms of post-dose 3 anti-Ply and Anti-PhtD antibody levels. Anti-Ply and anti-PhtD antibody levels were higher in both PHiD-CV/dPly/PhtD groups than in controls and increased from post-primary to post-booster timepoint. Post-primary and booster vaccination, for each PHiD-CV serotype, >= 98.5% of participants in PHiD-CV/dPly/PhtD groups had antibody concentrations >= 0.2 mu g/mL, except for 6B (>= 72.3%) and 23 F (>= 82.7%) post-primary vaccination. Similar results were observed in the PHiD-CV group. Immune responses to protein D and DTPa-HBV-IPV/Hib were within similar ranges for the 3 PHiD-CV groups. Conclusion: Both PHiD-CV/dPly/PhtD formulations co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV/Hib in infants were well-tolerated and immunogenic for dPly and PhtD antigens, while immune responses to serotype-specific, protein D and co-administered antigens did not appear altered in comparison to PHiD-CV group.

INTRODUCTION: Asthma-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) overlap (ACO) is a heterogenous condition with clinical features shared by both asthma and COPD.OBJECTIVES: This online global survey of respiratory/allergy specialists and primary care practitioners (PCPs) was performed to understand current clinical approaches to the differential diagnosis and management of asthma, COPD and ACO.METHODS: Respondents were recruited through: (a) a global online physician respondent community (49,980 PCPs and 7205 specialists); (b) market research agents; (c) experts; (d) professional societies; (e) colleague invitation. Respondents were presented with a survey including hypothetical clinical scenarios of diagnostic uncertainty to identify management approaches.RESULTS: 891 responses (447 PCPs and 444 specialists) were collected across 13 countries. Reported features used for diagnosis of asthma and COPD were consistent with practice guidelines, but there was variability in those selected for ACO diagnosis. Features typically selected by specialists focused on spirometry/history, while PCPs focused on previous treatment/symptoms. Most respondents could correctly diagnose patients with features of ACO; however, features selected for theoretical diagnosis were often different to those selected in the case scenarios. Additionally, treatment selection was often inconsistent with guidelines, with over half of respondents not recommending inhaled corticosteroids in a patient with ACO and dominant features of asthma.CONCLUSION: While most PCPs and respiratory/allergy specialists can reach a working diagnosis of ACO, there remains uncertainty around which diagnostic features are most important and what constitutes optimal management. It is imperative that clinical studies including patients with ACO are initiated, allowing the generation of evidence-based management strategies.

The complex treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) administered in a sanatorium environment is an effective therapeutic option for this condition as it involves conduction of a combination of climatic, therapeutic and rehabilitation procedures for a longer period of time. We studied the effect of this therapeutic modality on the dyspnea indices of COPD patients and the implication these indices have for the outcome of the treatment. The study was performed in the sanatorium of the State Hospital for Lung Diseases in Raduntzi, Bulgaria. It included 75 patients (65 men, 11 women) with different forms of stable COPD (mean age, 56.8 +/- 1.0 years, mean +/- SEM, FEV1% predicted--37.3 +/- 1.6%, mean duration of sanatorium stay 14 +/- 0.4 days). During the stay the patients received anti-obstructive and anti-inflammatory therapy based on the clinical discretion of the attending physician. All patients attended a rehabilitation programme according to their conditions; oxygen therapy was used in three patients. Of the 75 patients, 50 (66.7%) showed improvement at discharge, 21 (28%) had no improvement, and 4 (5.3%) were discharged in deteriorated condition. The complex treatment resulted in a minimal but statistically significant improvement of the basic spirographic and dyspnea parameters. This improvement depended not so much on the type of therapy administered as on the initial dyspnea and blood gas parameters. The body mass index (BMI) can also be used as a prognostic indicator especially if it is lower than 20 kg/m2. The lower this index is the lower the basic functional parameters are--in spite of using all available treatments, our patients with low body mass index rarely showed any noticeable improvement.