Search

Background: Inhaled medications are central to treating asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), yet critical inhaler technique errors are made by up to 90% of patients. In the clinical research setting, recruitment of subjects with poor inhaler technique may give a false impression of both the benefits and the necessity of add-on treatments such as biologic therapies.Objective: To assess the frequency with which inhaler technique is assessed and reliably optimized before and during patient enrollment into randomized controlled trials (RCTs) addressing the efficacy of topical therapy, and the escalation of therapy for asthma and COPD.Methods: Systematic searches were conducted of PubMed and Embase for RCTs published in the past 10 years involving patients with a diagnosis of asthma or COPD undergoing escalation of baseline inhaled therapy (stepping up, changing, adding, switching, increasing, etc) or the introduction of biologic agents.Results: Searches highlighted 1,014 studies, 118 of which were eligible after the removal of duplicates as well as screening and full text review. Of these, only 14 (11.9%) included accessible information in the methods section or referred to such information in online supplements or protocols concerning assessment of participants’ inhaler technique. We therefore developed the proposed Best Practice Inhaler Technique Assessment and Reporting Checklist.Conclusions: Our study identifies a concerning lack of checking and correcting inhaler technique, or at least reporting that this was undertaken, before enrollment in asthma and COPD RCTs, which may affect the conclusions drawn. Mandating the use of a standardized checklist in RCT protocols and ensuring all published RCTs report checking and correcting inhaler technique before enrollment are important next steps.

Introduction Dry powder inhalers (DPIs), a commonly prescribed inhaler type for respiratory diseases, require patients to generate sufficient peak inspiratory flow (PIF) to ensure optimal drug delivery to the airways. Effectiveness of therapy also requires a good inhalation technique and adequate medication adherence. For patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), recent studies conducted in tertiary care suggest that DPI users with suboptimal PIF have poorer COPD-related health status and increased exacerbation risk versus those with optimal PIF. The PIFotal study will investigate the impact of PIF, inhalation technique and medication adherence on patient-reported outcomes in patients with COPD in primary care using a DPI for their maintenance therapy. Methods and Analysis This cross-sectional observational study will assess 1200 patients (aged ≥ 40 years, diagnosed with COPD and using a DPI for COPD maintenance therapy for ≥ 3 months) from the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Greece and Australia. Assessments will consist of (1) PIF measurements (usual patient inhalation manoeuvre, maximal PIF against resistance of own inhaler, and maximal PIF against low resistance); (2) Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ), COPD Assessment Test and Test of Adherence to Inhalers scores; and (3) video recordings of patient inhalation technique. Dependent variables include health status (CCQ score), number of self-reported exacerbations in previous 12 months, and healthcare resource utilisation in previous 6 months. Independent variables include PIF values, inhalation technique errors, medication adherence, and demographic and clinical characteristics. In the primary analysis, the mean difference in CCQ score between patients (1) with optimal/suboptimal PIF, (2) exhibiting/not exhibiting inhalation technique errors, and (3) adhering/not adhering to medication will be examined in a multivariable linear mixed model. Ethics The study protocol was approved by ethics committees/institutional review boards of all participating sites prior to enrolment; written informed consent was obtained from all study participants. Trial Registration Number ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04532853. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41030-021-00172-7.

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

Switching inhaler regimens can be driven by poor disease control but also by nonclinical factors, such as cost and environmental impact. The consequences of switching for nonclinical reasons are largely unclear.To systematically review the real-world consequences of switching inhaler regimens for nonclinical reasons in asthma and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients.Embase, MEDLINE, EBM Reviews, and EconLit were searched to November 21, 2020. Conference searches and reference checking were also performed. Real-world studies of asthma and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients undergoing a switch in inhaler regimen for any reason apart from clinical need were included. Two reviewers screened and extracted data. Key outcomes included symptom control, exacerbations, and patient-doctor relationships.A total of 8,958 records were screened and 21 studies included. Higher-quality (matched comparative) studies were prioritized. Five matched studies (6 datasets) reported on symptom control: 5 datasets (n = 7,530) with unclear patient consent reported improved disease control following switching, and 1 dataset (n = 1,648) with non-consented patients reported significantly worsened disease control. Three matched studies (5 datasets, n = 10,084) reported on exacerbation rate ratios; results were heterogeneous depending on the definition used. Two studies (n = 137) reported that switching inhaler regimens could have a negative impact on the doctor-patient relationship, especially when the switches were non-consented. Study quality was generally low.Switching inhaler regimens is a complex issue that can have variable clinical consequences and can harm the patient-doctor relationship. Limited high-quality evidence was identified, and study designs were heterogeneous. A robust framework is needed to guide the personalized switching of inhalers.

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.

Background Inhaler selection is important when managing respiratory conditions; a patient’s inhalation technique should be appropriate for the selected device, and patients should ideally be able to use a device successfully regardless of disease severity. The NEXThaler is a multidose dry-powder inhaler with a breath-actuated mechanism (BAM) and dose counter that activates only following inhalation, so effectively an ‘inhalation counter’. We assessed inspiratory flow through the NEXThaler in two studies and examined whether inhalation triggered the BAM. Methods The two studies were open-label, single-arm, and single visit. One study recruited patients with asthma aged ≥ 18 years; the other recruited patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) aged ≥ 40 years. All patients inhaled twice through a placebo NEXThaler. The inspiratory profile through the device was assessed for each inhalation using acoustic monitoring, with flow at and time to BAM firing, peak inspiratory flow (PIF), and total inhalation time assessed. Results A total of 40 patients were enrolled in the asthma study: 20 with controlled asthma and 20 with partly controlled/uncontrolled asthma. All patients were able to trigger the BAM, as evidenced by the inhalation counter activating on closing the device. Mean flow at BAM firing following first inhalation was 35.0 (range 16.3–52.3) L/min; mean PIF was 64.6 (35.0–123.9) L/min. A total of 72 patients were enrolled in the COPD study, with data analysed for 69 (mean forced expiratory volume in 1 s 48.7% predicted [17–92%]). As with the asthma study, all patients, regardless of airflow limitation, were able to trigger the BAM. Mean flow at BAM firing following first inhalation was 41.9 (26.6–57.1) L/min; mean PIF was 68.0 (31.5–125.4) L/min. Device usability was rated highly in both studies, with 5 min sufficient to train the patients, and a click heard shortly after inhalation in all cases (providing feedback on BAM firing). Conclusions Inhalation flows triggering the BAM in the NEXThaler were similar between patients with controlled and partly controlled/uncontrolled asthma, and were similar across COPD airflow limitation. All enrolled patients were able to activate the device.

Additional file 1. Device usability questionnaire and results.

Chronic respiratory disease 18, (2021). doi:10.1177/1479973120986228, Published by Sage, London

ObjectivesThe large number of available medicines and devices makes it almost impossible to have sufficient knowledge of each individual medicine and device, especially for general practitioners. This may lead to suboptimal treatment, more exacerbations, hospitalisations and higher treatment costs. Reducing the number of medicines and devices, based on rational criteria, allows physicians and pharmacists to build experience with a more limited set of medicines and to standardise the inhalation instructions.MethodsIn this study inhalers are compared by means of the System of Objectified Judgement Analysis (SOJA) method. The following selection criteria were applied: uniformity in device, number of steps per inhalation, risk of errors, hygienic aspects, feedback mechanism, and risk of inhalation with an empty inhaler.ResultsSubstantial differences were seen in the overall scores, with the Ellipta device showing the highest score, followed by Diskus/Accuhaler, Genuair and Nexthaler. Several devices require more or less identical techniques, such Ellipta and Diskus/Accuhaler as well as Genuair and Novolizer. When patients use these devices in combination this increases their uniformity, because additional medicines become available for the devices: starting therapy with Diskus or Novolizer and follow-up with Ellipta or Genuair. The resistance of Respimat and Breezhaler is lower than that of other devices, which makes these devices suitable for patients who cannot generate sufficient inhalation flow.ConclusionsA substantial reduction of inhalers, combined with optimal and standardised instructions, should improve the care of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of benralizumab, an interleukin-5 receptor alpha-directed cytolytic monoclonal antibody, for the prevention of exacerbations in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are not known.METHODS: In the GALATHEA and TERRANOVA trials, we enrolled patients with COPD (at a ratio of approximately 2:1 on the basis of eosinophil count [≥220 per cubic millimeter vs. RESULTS: In GALATHEA, the estimates of the annualized exacerbation rate were 1.19 per year (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04 to 1.36) in the 30-mg benralizumab group, 1.03 per year (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.19) in the 100-mg benralizumab group, and 1.24 per year (95% CI, 1.08 to 1.42) in the placebo group; the rate ratio as compared with placebo was 0.96 for 30 mg of benralizumab (P = 0.65) and 0.83 for 100 mg of benralizumab (P = 0.05). In TERRANOVA, the estimates of the annualized exacerbation rate for 10 mg, 30 mg, and 100 mg of benralizumab and for placebo were 0.99 per year (95% CI, 0.87 to 1.13), 1.21 per year (95% CI, 1.08 to 1.37), 1.09 per year (95% CI, 0.96 to 1.23), and 1.17 per year (95% CI, 1.04 to 1.32), respectively; the corresponding rate ratios were 0.85 (P = 0.06), 1.04 (P = 0.66), and 0.93 (P = 0.40). At 56 weeks, none of the annualized COPD exacerbation rate ratios for any dose of benralizumab as compared with placebo reached significance in either trial. Types and frequencies of adverse events were similar with benralizumab and placebo.CONCLUSIONS: Add-on benralizumab was not associated with a lower annualized rate of COPD exacerbations than placebo among patients with moderate to very severe COPD, a history of frequent moderate or severe exacerbations, and blood eosinophil counts of 220 per cubic millimeter or greater (Funded by AstraZeneca [GALATHEA and TERRANOVA] and Kyowa Hakko Kirin [GALATHEA]; GALATHEA and TERRANOVA ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02138916 and NCT02155660.).

© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), Spacers are pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) accessory devices developed to reduce problems of poor inhaler technique with pMDIs. Spacers that feature a 1-way inspiratory valve are termed valved holding chambers (VHCs); they act as aerosol reservoirs, allowing the user to actuate the pMDI device and then inhale the medication in a 2-step process that helps users overcome challenges in coordinating pMDI actuation with inhalation. Both spacers and VHCs have been shown to increase fine particle delivery to the lungs, decrease oropharyngeal deposition, and reduce corticosteroid-related side effects such as throat irritation, dysphonia, and oral candidiasis commonly seen with the use of pMDIs alone. Spacers and VHCs are not all the same, and also are not interchangeable: the performance may vary according to their size, shape, material of manufacture and propensity to become electrostatically charged, their mode of interface with the patient, and the presence or otherwise of valves and feedback devices. Thus, pairing of a pMDI plus a spacer or a VHC should be considered as a unique delivery system. In this Rostrum we discuss the risk potential for a patient getting switched to a spacer or VHC that delivers a reduced dose medication.

Background Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are widespread chronic conditions with medication frequently delivered by inhalers. These can be challenging to use correctly, but the scale of misuse and the specific aspects of failure are unclear. Methods We used systematic review methods to search 9 databases in May 2015 to identify and review studies that assessed adults (18 years or older) with asthma or COPD using inhalers of various types including pressurised metered dose inhalers (pMDIs), dry powder inhalers and the Respimat inhaler. Studies must have reported the scale of inhaler misuse, variation by type of inhaler or which steps patients had difficulty completing accurately. Results The types of inhalers, inhaler interventions and definitions of failure and misuse varied widely in the 38 studies identified. It was not possible to draw conclusions on the differential failure rates between different types of inhalers or any patient characteristics. Of the studies reporting failure or misuse rates, the majority ranged between 0 and 20%. Studies were inconsistent regarding the number of inhaler steps collected, reported and labelled as critical. Conclusions There is evidence for all identified inhalers that some people may be using them incorrectly, but it is unclear which inhalers have higher rates of misuse or which steps within the inhaler technique are most difficult for patients. The optimal techniques for using inhalers are not standardised. Researchers undertaking future inhaler studies are respectfully directed to our recommendations for future research.

Objective: Healthcare professionals (HCPs) are required to assess and train patients in the correct use of inhalers but are often unable to demonstrate correct technique themselves. We sought to assess the level of training required for HCPs to master and maintain device mastery when using two different dry powder inhalers (DPIs). Methods: We conducted a randomized, un-blinded, crossover study in undergraduate HCPs who undertook a six-step training procedure (intuitive use, patient information leaflet, instructional video, individual tuition from expert, then two repeats of individual tuition) for the use of Turbuhaler® (an established device) and Spiromax® (a newer device, reportedly easier to use). Device mastery (absence of errors) was evaluated by expert assessors at each training step. Maintenance of mastery was assessed 4 ± 1 week (visit 2) and 8 ± 2 weeks (visit 3) after initial training (visit 1). Results: Of 516 eligible participants, 113 (22%) demonstrated device mastery prior to training on Spiromax® compared with 20 (4%) on Turbuhaler® (p < 0.001). The median number of training steps required to achieve mastery was 2 (interquartile range [IQR] 2–4) for Spiromax® and 3 (IQR 2–4) for Turbuhaler® (p < 0.001). A higher number of participants maintained mastery with Spiromax® compared with Turbuhaler®, at visits 2 and 3 (64% vs 41% and 79% vs 65%, respectively; p < 0.001). Conclusions: There are significant differences in the nature and extent of training required to achieve and maintain mastery for Spiromax® and Turbuhaler® devices. The implications on clinical practice, device education delivery, and patient outcomes require further evaluation.

PURPOSE: Extrafine-particle inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) have greater small airway deposition than standard fine-particle ICS. We sought to compare asthma-related outcomes after patients initiated extrafine-particle ciclesonide or fine-particle ICS (fluticasone propionate or non-extrafine beclomethasone).METHODS: This historical, matched cohort study included patients aged 12-60 years prescribed their first ICS as ciclesonide or fine-particle ICS. The 2 cohorts were matched 1:1 for key demographic and clinical characteristics over the baseline year. Co-primary endpoints were 1-year severe exacerbation rates, risk-domain asthma control, and overall asthma control; secondary endpoints included therapy change.RESULTS: Each cohort included 1,244 patients (median age 45 years; 65% women). Patients in the ciclesonide cohort were comparable to those in the fine-particle ICS cohort apart from higher baseline prevalence of hospitalization, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and rhinitis. Median (interquartile range) prescribed doses of ciclesonide and fine-particle ICS were 160 (160-160) μg/day and 500 (250-500) μg/day, respectively (PCONCLUSIONS: In this matched cohort analysis, we observed that initiation of ICS with ciclesonide was associated with better 1-year asthma outcomes and fewer changes to therapy, despite data suggesting more difficult-to-control asthma. The median prescribed dose of ciclesonide was one-third that of fine-particle ICS.

Spacers are not exchangable one to one

Background: Physical capacity (PC) and physical activity (PA) represent associated but separate domains of physical function. It remains unknown whether this framework may support a better understanding of the impaired physical function in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The current study had two aims: (1) to determine the distribution of patients with COPD over the PC-PA quadrants, and (2) to explore whether differences exist in clinical characteristics between these quadrants. Methods: In this retrospective study, PC was measured using the six-minute walk distance (6MWD), and PA was assessed with an accelerometer. Moreover, patients&rsquo, clinical characteristics were obtained. Patients were divided into the following quadrants: (I) low PC (6MWD &lt, 70% predicted), low PA, using a step-defined inactivity index (&lt, 5000 steps/day, &rdquo, can&rsquo, t do, don&rsquo, t do&rdquo, quadrant), (II) preserved PC, low PA (&ldquo, can do, don&rsquo, (III) low PC, preserved PA (&ldquo, t do, do do&rdquo, and (IV) preserved PC, preserved PA (&ldquo, can do, do do&rdquo, quadrant). Results: The distribution of the 662 COPD patients over the quadrants was as follows: &ldquo, 34%, &ldquo, 14%, 21%, and &ldquo, 31%. Statistically significant differences between quadrants were found for all clinical characteristics, except for educational levels. Conclusions: This study proves the applicability of the PC-PA quadrant concept in COPD. This concept serves as a pragmatic clinical tool, that may be useful in the understanding of the impaired physical functioning in COPD patients and therefore, may improve the selection of appropriate interventions to improve physical function.

Item does not contain fulltext To identify patients hospitalized for an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who have a poor prognosis and might benefit from proactive palliative care, a set of indicators had been developed from the literature. A patient is considered eligible for proactive palliative care when meeting >/=2 criteria of the proposed set of 11 indicators. In order to develop a doctor-friendly and patient-convenient tool, our primary objective was to examine whether these indicators are documented consistently in the medical records. Besides, percentage of patients with a poor prognosis and prognostic value were explored. We conducted a retrospective medical record review of 33 patients. Five indicators; non-invasive ventilation (NIV), comorbidity, body mass index (BMI), previous admissions for acute exacerbation COPD and age were always documented. Three indicators; hypoxaemia and/or hypercapnia, professional home care and actual forced expiratory volume1% (FEV1%) were documented in more than half of the records, whereas the clinical COPD questionnaire (CCQ), medical research council dyspnoea (MRC dyspnoea) and the surprise question were never registered. Besides, 78.8% of the patients met >/=2 criteria and there was a significant association between meeting >/=2 criteria and mortality within 1 year (one-sided Fisher's exact test, p = 0.04). The set of indicators for proactive palliative care in patients with COPD appeared to be user-friendly and feasible.

Poor inhaler technique hampers the efficacy of drug therapy in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Not only does this affect individual patient care, but it also impacts on the wider health care economics associated with these conditions. Treatment guidelines recommend a systematic approach to drug class selection; however, standardization of inhaler selection is currently difficult owing to the complexity of the interaction between the inhaler device and the patient. Specifically, individual patient preference can influence how successful a treatment is overall. This article reviews inhaler devices from the patient perspective, with a particular focus on the dry powder inhaler HandiHaler(®) and Respimat(®) Soft Mist™ Inhaler. It discusses factors that influence device preference and treatment compliance and reviews tools that can aid health care professionals to better match inhaler devices to individual patients' needs.

Introduction: Impaired physical performance (PP) and low habitual physical activity (PA) are common features of people with COPD. Recently, a conceptual framework was published in which PP and PA represent associated but separate domains of physical function in the elderly. The question is whether this framework might be applicable as an aid in the understanding of physical functioning impairment in patients with COPD. Aims: The current study had two aims: 1) to determine the distribution of people with COPD over the PP-PA quadrants; and 2) to explore whether differences exist in clinical characteristics between the PP-PA quadrants. Method: PP was measured with a six-minute walk distance (6MWD) and PA was objectively assessed with an accelerometer. In addition, patient- and health status characteristics were systematically acquired. Patients were mapped using a quadrant based on their PP and PA into mutually exclusive categories: I) Low PP (6MWD Results: A total of 662 COPD were included in this study. Distribution over the quadrants was as follow: I=39%, II=19%, III=16%, IV=26%. Statistically significantly differences were found across the quadrants, among others, for age, FEV1, BMI, exacerbation frequency Conclusion: This study shows that COPD patients could be distributed over the PP-PA quadrant and that significant differences were found in clinical characteristics across these quadrants

Eleonore H Koolen,1 Philip J van der Wees,2 Gert P Westert,2 Richard Dekhuijzen,1 Yvonne F Heijdra,1 Alex J van ’t Hul1 1Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; 2Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, IQ Healthcare, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands Background: Projections on the future suggest a further rise in the prevalence of patients with COPD, and in COPD related morbidity, mortality, and health care costs worldwide. Given the substantial impact on the individual and on society, it is important to establish a care process that maximizes outcomes in relation to the costs and efforts made. In an attempt to bridge this gap, we set out to develop an evidence-based model of integrated care for patients with COPD, named the COPDnet integrated care model. Purpose: The current study protocol sets out to 1) evaluate the feasibility of employing the COPDnet model in present real-life care within the context of the Dutch health care system, 2) explore the potential health status benefits, and 3) analyze the costs of care of this model. Patients and methods: In this prospective study, feasibility and health status changes will be evaluated with an experimental before and after study design. The costs of the diagnostic trajectory will be calculated according to a standard economic health care evaluation approach. Furthermore, the feasibility and cost of care studies will comprise both quantitative and qualitative data collection. For the studies on the feasibility and change in health status, all new patients qualifying for shared care by primary and secondary care professionals according to the Dutch Standard of Care for COPD, and patients referred by their general practitioners to one of the COPDnet hospitals will be included. To evaluate the feasibility and costs of care, semi-structured interviews will be held with patients, hospital personnel, health care professionals in the affiliated primary care region, and hospital and primary care group managers. Conclusions: The COPDnet integrated care model for COPD patients has been designed according to the current insights regarding effective care for patients with a chronic condition in general, and for patients with COPD in particular. It will be evaluated for its feasibility, potential health status benefits, and the costs of care of the diagnostic trajectory in secondary care. Keywords: COPD, COPD management, integrated care, chronic care model, health status

Table S1. Training on inhaler technique using a six-step process* during the cross-sectional phase, Supplementary material â study governance, training on inhaler technique using a six-step process during the cross-sectional phase, checklist for inhaler errors, serious adverse events by preferred term. Table S2. Checklist for inhaler errors. Table 3. Serious adverse events by preferred term. (DOCX 20 kb)

Background Incorrect inhaler technique is a common cause of poor asthma control. This two-phase pragmatic study evaluated inhaler technique mastery and maintenance of mastery with DuoResp® (budesonide-formoterol [BF]) Spiromax® compared with Symbicort® (BF) Turbuhaler® in patients with asthma who were receiving inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting β2-agonists. Methods In the initial cross-sectional phase, patients were randomized to a 6-step training protocol with empty Spiromax and Turbuhaler devices. Patients initially demonstrating ≥1 error with their current device, and then achieving mastery with both Spiromax and Turbuhaler (absence of healthcare professional [HCP]-observed errors), were eligible for the longitudinal phase. In the longitudinal phase, patients were randomized to BF Spiromax or BF Turbuhaler. Co-primary endpoints were the proportions of patients achieving device mastery after three training steps and maintaining device mastery (defined as the absence of HCP-observed errors after 12 weeks of use). Secondary endpoints included device preference, handling error frequency, asthma control, and safety. Exploratory endpoints included assessment of device mastery by an independent external expert reviewing video recordings of a subset of patients. Results Four hundred ninety-three patients participated in the cross-sectional phase, and 395 patients in the longitudinal phase. In the cross-sectional phase, more patients achieved device mastery after three training steps with Spiromax (94%) versus Turbuhaler (87%) (odds ratio [OR] 3.77 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.05–6.95], p

COPD and obesity often coexist and there is a complex interaction between them. Our aim was to evaluate the prevalence of obesity in a secondary care COPD population. Furthermore, the presence of comorbidities in obese (COPD

Contains fulltext : 193643.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) We present an extensive review of the literature to date pertaining to the rationale for using a spacer/valved holding chamber (VHC) to deliver inhaled therapy from a pressurised, metered-dose inhaler, a discussion of how the properties of individual devices may vary according to their physical characteristics and materials of manufacture, the potential risks and benefits of ancillaries such as valves, and the evidence that they contribute tangibly to the delivery of therapy. We also reiterate practical recommendations for the correct usage and maintenance of spacers/VHCs, which we trust offer practical help and advice to patients and healthcare professionals alike.

Eleonore H Koolen,1 Philip J van der Wees,2 Gert P Westert,2 Richard Dekhuijzen,1 Yvonne F Heijdra,1 Alex J van ’t Hul1 1Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; 2Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, IQ Healthcare, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands Introduction: This research project sets out to design an integrated disease management model for patients with COPD who were referred to a secondary care setting and who qualified for pharmacological and nonpharmacological intervention options. Theory and methods: The integrated disease management model was designed according to the guidelines of the European Pathway Association and the content founded on the Chronic Care Model, principles of integrated disease management, and knowledge of quality management systems. Results: An integrated disease management model was created, and comprises 1) a diagnostic trajectory in a secondary care setting, 2) a nonmedical intervention program in a primary care setting, and 3) a pulmonary rehabilitation service in a tertiary care setting. The model also includes a quality management system and regional agreements about exacerbation management and palliative care. Discussion: In the next phase of the project, the COPDnet model will be implemented in at least two different regions, in order to assess the added value of the entire model and its components, in terms of feasibility, health status benefits, and costs of care. Conclusion: Based on scientific theories and models, a new integrated disease management model was developed for COPD patients, named COPDnet. Once the model is stable, it will be evaluated for its feasibility, health status benefits, and costs. Keywords: COPD, COPD management, integrated care, Chronic Care Model, health status

Background Inhaled drug delivery is the cornerstone treatment for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, use of inhaler devices can be challenging, potentially leading to critical errors in handling that can significantly reduce drug delivery to the lungs and effectiveness of treatment. Methods A systematic review was conducted to define ‘critical’ errors and their impact on health outcomes and resource use between 2004 and 2016, using key search terms for inhaler errors in asthma and COPD (Search-1) and associated health-economic and patient burden (Search-2). Results Search-1 identified 62 manuscripts, 47 abstracts, and 5 conference proceedings (n = 114 total). Search-2 identified 9 studies. We observed 299 descriptions of critical error. Age, education status, previous inhaler instruction, comorbidities and socioeconomic status were associated with worse handling error frequency. A significant association was found between inhaler errors and poor disease outcomes (exacerbations), and greater health-economic burden. Conclusions We have shown wide variations in how critical errors are defined, and the evidence shows an important association between inhaler errors and worsened health outcomes. Given the negative impact diminished disease outcomes impose on resource use, our findings highlight the importance of achieving optimal inhaler technique, and a need for a consensus on defining critical and non-critical errors. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12931-017-0710-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Nonadherence to treatment, and its associated health and economic burden, is particularly problematic in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease management because of heterogeneous patient populations and the need for an inhaled route of drug administration. Symptom variability, comorbidities, and device switching further add to suboptimal adherence rates. As opposed to controlled clinical trials, real-life studies show consistently low inhaler adherence in daily practice, yet exact adherence rates have long been affected by disagreement on standardized definitions. The recently developed Ascertaining Barriers to Compliance taxonomy helps to address adherence research disparities by identifying 3 phases of adherence (initiation, implementation [including correct inhaler technique], and discontinuation). This review considers the reasons for and impact of suboptimal adherence, together with summaries of key studies that demonstrate how improving adherence can reduce exacerbations, inhaled corticosteroid use (in cases of better inhaler technique), hospitalizations, and treatment costs. Strategies to help ensure optimal adherence are discussed, including the choice of a patient-tailored inhaler, patient empowerment, education and training, and the potential of electronic monitoring and digital technology. It is concluded that a combined effort from payers, health care professionals, and manufacturers could make a real difference to asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease control, as well as to health care budgets.

Introduction: An understanding of the level of activation for self-management, defined as patients’ knowledge, skills and self-efficacy regarding self-management is important. It gives clues how self-management may be improved in the individual patient. In this study, the level of activation for self-management was assessed in patients with asthma or COPD at the time of referral by their General Practitioner to a pulmonologist. Method: Between September 2014-December 2016, the integrated health status was determined in patients with asthma or COPD referred to a pulmonologist using a specifically developed diagnostic pathway. Part of this diagnostic pathway is to examine the level of activation for self-management using the 13-item Patient Activation Measurement (PAM-13). The PAM-13 measures patients’ activation for self-management. Four different levels of activation can be distinguished, from very low (PAM-1) to high (PAM-4). Results: 112 valid PAMs were obtained in patients with asthma and 90 in patients with COPD. The distribution of PAM scores in asthma patients was: 35% of the PAM-1, 21% PAM-2, 38% PAM-3 and 5% PAM-4. In COPD patients the distribution was: 30% PAM-1, 28% PAM-2, 36% PAM-3 and 7% PAM-4. Conclusion: In 56% of the asthma patients and in 58% of the COPD patients there is little or no degree of activation for self-management (PAM-1 and PAM-2) at the time of referral from primary to secondary care.

ABC tool affects HRQoL and quality of primary/secondary COPD care but has not been tested in tertiary settings http://ow.ly/HZYF30cmTsx

Huge impact, but little attention: time to put respiratory non-adherence higher on Europe9s policy agenda!http://ow.ly/vVDj309Yblz

Item does not contain fulltext OBJECTIVE: Lung cancer patients report among the highest distress rates of all cancer patients. Partners report similar distress rates. The present study examined the effectiveness of additional mindfulness-based stress reduction (care as usual [CAU] + MBSR) versus solely CAU to reduce psychological distress in lung cancer patients and/or their partners. METHODS: We performed a multicentre, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial. Mindfulness-based stress reduction is an 8-week group-based intervention, including mindfulness practice and teachings on stress. Care as usual included anticancer treatment, medical consultations, and supportive care. The primary outcome was psychological distress. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, caregiver burden, relationship satisfaction, mindfulness skills, self-compassion, rumination, and posttraumatic stress symptoms. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, post-intervention, and 3-month follow-up. Linear mixed modeling was conducted on an intention-to-treat sample. Moderation (gender, disease stage, baseline distress, participation with/without partner) and mediation analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 31 patients and 21 partners were randomized to CAU + MBSR and 32 patients and 23 partners to CAU. After CAU + MBSR patients reported significantly less psychological distress (p = .008, d = .69) than after CAU. Baseline distress moderated outcome: those with more distress benefitted most from MBSR. Additionally, after CAU + MBSR patients showed more improvements in quality of life, mindfulness skills, self-compassion, and rumination than after CAU. In partners, no differences were found between groups. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that psychological distress in lung cancer patients can be effectively treated with MBSR. No effect was found in partners, possibly because they were more focused on patients' well-being rather than their own.

The interactions between obesity and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are being increasingly explored. In part, this is due to the globally increasing prevalence rates of obesity. The prevalence of obesity in COPD patients is variable, and it seems that obesity is more common in COPD patients compared with subjects who do not have COPD. However, further studies are encouraged in this area due to observed inconsistencies in the current data. In this review, we focus on the knowledge of the effects of obesity on dyspnea, pulmonary function, exercise capacity and exacerbation risk. Reduction of dyspnea is one of the main therapy targets in COPD care. There is still no consensus as to whether obesity has a negative or even a positive effect on dyspnea in COPD patients. It is hypothesized that obese COPD patients might benefit from favourable respiratory mechanics (less lung hyperinflation). However, despite less hyperinflation, obesity seems to have a negative influence on exercise capacity measured with weight-bearing tests. This negative influence is not seen with weight-supported exercise such as cycling. With respect to severe exacerbations, obesity seems to be associated with better survival. In summary, it is concluded that due to differences in study methodology and cohort selection, there are still too many knowledge gaps to develop guidelines for clinical practice. Further exploration is needed to get conclusive answers.

ObjectiveTimeliness may influence emotional distress during the diagnostic phase of suspected lung cancer patients. We performed a prospective observational study to compare distress and quality of life (QoL) in two medical centres with a Rapid Outpatient Diagnostic Program (RODP) and two using conventional Stepwise Diagnostic Approach (SDA) on the basis of trained nurse-led care. MethodsOutpatients with radiological suspicion of lung cancer completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 30-item Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and its 13-item Lung Cancer specific module (QLQ-LC13) upon first visit, 2days later, thereafter weekly for 5weeks and after 3months. ResultsThe 72 SDA patients and 121 RODP patients had a mean pre-diagnostic HADS-total score of 13.5 (SD 7.6); 63.4% had a score 10. Baseline QLQ-C30 global QoL was 61.6 (SD 22.7) exceeding reference values for lung cancer patients. Generalized least square models showed a significant centre by time interaction effect: during the first 6weeks, HADS-total scores decreased in RODP patients (13.8-11.9) but sustained in SDA patients (13.1-13.6), whereas QoL showed no relevant changes. Times to diagnosis and discussion of therapy plan for RODP patients were 7 and 11days shorter, respectively. ConclusionsSuspected lung cancer patients had high baseline distress levels. A decrease over time was found in RODP compared with SDA patients. QoL did not change relevantly. Albeit observational, these data indicate that patients experience less distress in rapid diagnostic programs than in stepwise diagnostic evaluation. Copyright (c) 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Item does not contain fulltext BACKGROUND: Inhaled therapy is the cornerstone of pharmacotherapy in patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Appropriate inhalation device selection is as important as drug choice but device-specific guidance appears to be lacking. METHODS: To quantify the level of inhalation-device recommendations in clinical guidelines, a review was conducted by hand-searching national and international asthma and COPD guidelines (Global Initiative for Asthma [GINA] and Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease [GOLD] guidelines) and an international guideline on device selection (the American College of Chest Physicians/American College of Asthma, Allergy, and Immunology [ACCP/ACAAI]). For each guideline, the number of pages, tables/figures and references relating to inhalation devices was identified. RESULTS: GINA and GOLD guidelines contain very little inhalation device-specific guidance beyond recommendations for demonstrating and testing correct inhalation technique