Search

Abstract Background Correct inhaler use depends on a complex interplay of factors, including device preparation and generating sufficient inspiratory flow. It is currently unknown which inhalation technique errors can be considered critical in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients on Dry Powder Inhaler (DPI) maintenance therapy. Objective To investigate the association between inhalation technique errors and health status or exacerbations in patients with COPD. Additionally, the association between the number of errors and COPD outcomes was determined. Methods The PIFotal study is a cross-sectional multi-country observational study in a primary care setting, including 1434 COPD patients aged ≥ 40 years (50.1% female; mean age 69.2 yrs) using a DPI for their maintenance therapy. Inhalation technique was video recorded and scored by two independent researchers using inhaler-specific checklists. Health status was assessed with two questionnaires; the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) and the COPD Assessment Test (CAT). The number of moderate and severe exacerbations in the past 12 months was recorded. Critical errors were identified based on their association with health status or exacerbations through multi-level prediction models adjusted for identified confounding. Results Errors in inhalation technique steps ‘Breathe in’, ‘Hold breath’, and ‘Breathe out calmly after inhalation’ were significantly associated with poorer CCQ and CAT outcomes and thus deemed critical. None of the errors were significantly associated with moderate exacerbations. Patients with errors ‘Preparation’, ‘Hold inhaler in correct position during inhalation’, and ‘Breathe in’ had significantly more severe exacerbations, and therefore these errors were also deemed critical. 81.3% of patients with COPD made at least one critical error. Specific combinations of errors were associated with worse outcomes. The more inhalation technique errors identified, the poorer the health status and the higher the exacerbation rate. Conclusion In this study, we identified multiple critical inhalation technique errors in COPD patients using DPIs each associated with poorer outcomes. Explorative analysis revealed that specific combinations of errors may be of clinical relevance, especially those related to the inhalation manoeuvre. COPD outcomes worsened with increasing error count. These results warrant further prospective longitudinal studies to establish the effect of correcting these errors on COPD control. Trial registration https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04532853 (31/08/2020)

Donald A Mahler,1,2 Henrik Watz,3 Rachel Emerson-Stadler,4 John Ritz,5 Asparuh Gardev,4 Asif Shaikh,6 M Bradley Drummond7 1Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH, USA; 2Valley Regional Hospital, Claremont, NH, USA; 3Pulmonary Research Institute at LungenClinic Grosshansdorf, Grosshansdorf, Germany; 4Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany; 5Syneos Health, Somerset, NJ, USA; 6Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ridgefield, CT, USA; 7Pulmonary Diseases and Critical Care Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USACorrespondence: Donald A Mahler, Tel +1 603 542-6777, Email mahlerdonald@gmail.comBackground: In patients with COPD, inhalation ability should be assessed when considering inhaler choice. To evaluate whether the soft mist inhaler (SMI) is suitable for COPD patients irrespective of inhalation ability, the TRONARTO study investigated the efficacy of dual long-acting bronchodilator therapy delivered via the Respimat® SMI on lung function in patients with COPD stratified by inhalation ability. Tiotropium/olodaterol delivered via the SMI was effective both in patients with peak inspiratory flow (PIF) < 60 L/min and PIF ≥ 60 L/min, measured against medium-low resistance.Methods: This congress compilation summarizes post hoc analyses from the TRONARTO study presented at the annual American Thoracic Society 2022 and European Respiratory Society 2022 meetings. These analyses evaluated PIF in over 200 patients, with PIF measurements taken daily at home for 4 weeks, and in the clinic at baseline, Weeks 2 and 4.Results: Overall, 57.9% of patients had a PIF range (difference between lowest and highest PIF measurements) < 20 L/min (12.4% of patients had PIF range < 10 L/min). At-home PIF range decreased over the study period, suggesting that inhaler training/repeated PIF measurements may help to make patients’ inspiratory effort more consistent. Some patient characteristics correlated with lower PIF (female gender, shorter stature, more severe disease, worse airflow obstruction) and lower PIF range (more severe disease). PIF measurements differed between medium-low and high-resistance settings, highlighting the importance of measuring PIF at the resistance of a patient’s inhaler. PIF correlated poorly with spirometry measurements.Conclusion: As indicated in COPD management guidelines, choice of inhaler is essential to optimize pharmacologic therapies for COPD. Poor inspiratory ability should be viewed as a treatable trait that can help to inform inhaler choice. Inhaler training and consideration of PIF (if patients use a dry powder inhaler) can reduce patient-to-inhaler mismatch, with potential consequences for health status and exacerbation risk.Keywords: COPD, dry powder inhaler, DPI, PIF, suboptimal, congress, variability, characteristics

Abstract Over 1400 patients using dry powder inhalers (DPIs) to deliver COPD maintenance therapies were recruited across Europe and Australia. Their peak inspiratory flow (PIF) was measured, inhaler technique was observed, and adherence to treatment assessed. From relating the findings with patient health status, and thereby identifying critical errors, key clinical recommendations for primary care clinicians were determined, namely – measure PIF before prescribing a DPI to ensure inhalation manoeuvre ability is well-matched with the device. Some patients could benefit from inhalation training whereas others should have their DPI changed for one better suited to their inspiratory ability or alternatively be prescribed an active device (such as a soft mist inhaler or pressurized metered dose inhaler). Observing the inhalation technique was valuable however this misses suboptimal PIF (approaching one fourth of patients with a satisfactory observed manoeuvre had a suboptimal PIF for their DPI). Assess adherence as deliberate non-adherence can point to a mismatch between a patient and their inhaler (deliberate non-adherence was significantly associated with PIFs below the minimum for the DPI). In-person observation of inhalation technique was found to be inferior to video rating based on device-specific checklists. Where video assessments are not possible, observation training for healthcare professionals would therefore be valuable particularly to improve the ability to identify the critical errors associated with health status namely ‘teeth and lips sealed around mouthpiece’, ‘breathe in’ and ‘breathing out calmly after inhalation’. However, it is recommended that observation alone should not replace PIF measurement in the DPI selection process. Trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04532853 .

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

Abstract 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.

Marc Miravitlles,1 Katia Verhamme,2 Peter MA Calverley,3 Michael Dreher,4 Valentina Bayer,5 Asparuh Gardev,6 Alberto de la Hoz,6 Jadwiga Wedzicha,7 David Price8,9 1Pneumology Department, Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron, Vall d’Hebron Research Institute (VHIR), Vall d’Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, CIBER de Enfermedades Respiratorias (CIBERES), Barcelona, Spain; 2Department of Medical Informatics, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; 3Clinical Science Centre, Institute of Ageing and Chronic Disease, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK; 4Department of Pneumology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany; 5Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ridgefield, CT, USA; 6Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany; 7Head Respiratory Division, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK; 8Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore; 9Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UKCorrespondence: Marc Miravitlles, Pneumology Department, Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron, Vall d’Hebron Research Institute (VHIR), Vall d’Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, CIBER de Enfermedades Respiratorias (CIBERES), P° Vall d’Hebron 119-129, Barcelona, 08035, Spain, Email marcm@separ.esBackground: Recent studies report a lower mortality rate during treatment with long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) versus LAMA/LABA in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and a history of exacerbations.Objective: We compared time to all-cause mortality with LAMA/LABA versus LAMA/LABA/ICS in patients with mild-to-very-severe COPD and a predominantly low exacerbation risk.Methods: Data were pooled from six randomized controlled trials (TONADO 1/2, DYNAGITO, WISDOM, UPLIFT and TIOSPIR; LAMA/LABA: n = 3156, LAMA/LABA/ICS: n = 11,891). Analysis was on-treatment and data were censored at 52 weeks. Patients on LAMA/LABA/ICS received ICS prior to study entry, which was not withdrawn at randomization. Patients on LAMA/LABA/ICS were propensity score (PS)-matched to patients on LAMA/LABA who had not previously received ICS; covariates included age, sex, geographical region, smoking status, post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second percent predicted, exacerbation history in previous year, body mass index and time since diagnosis. Time to all-cause mortality was assessed using Cox proportional hazard regression models.Results: After PS matching, 3133 patients on LAMA/LABA and 3133 patients on LAMA/LABA/ICS were analyzed. Fewer than 20% of patients reported ≥ 2 exacerbations in the prior year (LAMA/LABA: 19.1%; LAMA/LABA/ICS: 19.0%). There were 41 (1.3%) deaths on LAMA/LABA and 45 (1.4%) deaths on LAMA/LABA/ICS. No statistically significant difference in time to death was observed between treatment arms (hazard ratio for LAMA/LABA 1.06; 95% confidence intervals 0.68, 1.64; P = 0.806). Sensitivity analyses conducted using different covariates or in an intent-to-treat population showed similar results.Conclusion: This pooled analysis of over 6000 patients with mild-to-very-severe COPD and predominantly low exacerbation risk showed no differences in mortality with LAMA/LABA versus LAMA/LABA/ICS, suggesting that the survival benefit of triple therapy seen in some recent studies may be specific to a high-risk population. This supports current Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease recommendations that triple therapy should be reserved for the subpopulations of patients who need it the most (eg, those with an eosinophilic phenotype and a high risk of exacerbations) to avoid ICS overuse.Graphical Abstract: Keywords: COPD, exacerbation history, inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting β2-agonist, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, mortality

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have overlapping clinical features and share pathobiological mechanisms but are often considered distinct disorders. Prospective, observational studies across asthma, COPD and asthma–COPD overlap are limited. NOVELTY is a global, prospective observational 3-year study enrolling ∼12 000 patients ≥12 years of age from primary and specialist clinical practices in 19 countries (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02760329). NOVELTY's primary objectives are to describe patient characteristics, treatment patterns and disease burden over time, and to identify phenotypes and molecular endotypes associated with differential outcomes over time in patients with a diagnosis/suspected diagnosis of asthma and/or COPD. NOVELTY aims to recruit real-world patients, unlike clinical studies with restrictive inclusion/exclusion criteria. Data collected at yearly intervals include clinical assessments, spirometry, biospecimens, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and healthcare utilisation (HCU). PROs and HCU will also be collected 3-monthly via internet/telephone. Data will be used to identify phenotypes and endotypes associated with different trajectories for symptom burden, clinical progression or remission and HCU. Results may allow patient classification across obstructive lung disease by clinical outcomes and biomarker profile, rather than by conventional diagnostic labels and severity categories. NOVELTY will provide a rich data source on obstructive lung disease, to help improve patient outcomes and aid novel drug development.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]