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: Older patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are particularly susceptible to exacerbations that may be associated with incorrect use of inhalers. Educational programs with inhaler technique review seem to be effective, but no studies have addressed their cost‐effectiveness in older adult patients. The objective was to perform a cost‐effectiveness analysis of education programs in older patients and estimate the cost benefit of applying such a program in Portugal. DESIGN: We developed a decision tree analysis from a healthcare perspective, according to intervention costs and the exacerbation rates and costs described in a previous meta‐analysis. A sensitivity analysis of worst and best case scenarios was performed to estimate thresholds for intervention affordable limits, as well as cost‐saving estimations and incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for a Portuguese scenario. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We estimated cost‐effectiveness thresholds applicable in all settings and performed a sensitivity analysis of a theoretical intervention model in all patients including an inhaler technique review at an annual appointment with a doctor and a nurse. RESULTS: In the best case scenario, the intervention affordable budget could be up to almost 1800€ (US $1585.24) per patient per year. Mean intervention‐associated savings in Portugal would be 311.88€ (US $274.68) per patient per year, representing annual savings up to €131 million (US $150 million) for the whole health system, already including intervention costs. ICERs for Portugal vary between 93.73€ (US $82.55) and 437.43€ (US $385.25) per exacerbation avoided. CONCLUSION: A model of an intervention program with an inhaler technique review in older adult patients suggests that this intervention is cost‐effective and can generate significant savings. J Am Geriatr Soc 1–7, 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]