A randomized crossover study assessing critical errors, preferences, and ease of use of two multidose powder inhalers.

Pjotr Tinke, Wendy van Beurden, Martijn Goosens, Job van der Palen
{"title":"A randomized crossover study assessing critical errors, preferences, and ease of use of two multidose powder inhalers.","authors":"Pjotr Tinke, Wendy van Beurden, Martijn Goosens, Job van der Palen","doi":"10.1080/17425247.2024.2416511","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The effectiveness of inhaled medications in asthma and COPD is significantly impacted by inhalation errors. Feedback mechanisms, built into the design of the inhaler might reduce the number of critical errors. This study compares critical errors, preferences, and ease of use of two dry powder inhalers, the Nexthaler, and the Turbuhaler.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>In this multi-center, prospective, randomized, open-label, cross-over study, the proportions of asthma and COPD patients making critical errors were compared between the Nexthaler and Turbuhaler after 4 weeks of clinical use, after having been trained for the correct use of both inhalers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ninety and 49 patients with asthma and COPD, respectively, were assessed. No significant difference was found in the number of critical errors between the two inhalers (3 with Nexthaler and 5 with Turbuhaler). However, more patients preferred the Nexthaler (57.6%) over the Turbuhaler (34.5%) (<i>p</i> = 0.006), while 7.9% stated no preference.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study found no significant differences in critical error rate between the Nexthaler and Turbuhaler but the Nexthaler was preferred over the Turbuhaler. This study highlights the importance of dedicating sufficient time to instructing patients on the correct inhalation technique, which can lead to long-term retention of the inhalation technique.</p>","PeriodicalId":94004,"journal":{"name":"Expert opinion on drug delivery","volume":" ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert opinion on drug delivery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17425247.2024.2416511","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The effectiveness of inhaled medications in asthma and COPD is significantly impacted by inhalation errors. Feedback mechanisms, built into the design of the inhaler might reduce the number of critical errors. This study compares critical errors, preferences, and ease of use of two dry powder inhalers, the Nexthaler, and the Turbuhaler.

Research design and methods: In this multi-center, prospective, randomized, open-label, cross-over study, the proportions of asthma and COPD patients making critical errors were compared between the Nexthaler and Turbuhaler after 4 weeks of clinical use, after having been trained for the correct use of both inhalers.

Results: Ninety and 49 patients with asthma and COPD, respectively, were assessed. No significant difference was found in the number of critical errors between the two inhalers (3 with Nexthaler and 5 with Turbuhaler). However, more patients preferred the Nexthaler (57.6%) over the Turbuhaler (34.5%) (p = 0.006), while 7.9% stated no preference.

Conclusions: The study found no significant differences in critical error rate between the Nexthaler and Turbuhaler but the Nexthaler was preferred over the Turbuhaler. This study highlights the importance of dedicating sufficient time to instructing patients on the correct inhalation technique, which can lead to long-term retention of the inhalation technique.

一项随机交叉研究对两种多剂量粉末吸入器的关键误差、偏好和易用性进行了评估。
背景:哮喘和慢性阻塞性肺病患者吸入药物的效果受到吸入错误的严重影响。吸入器设计中的反馈机制可能会减少关键错误的数量。本研究比较了 Nexthaler 和 Turbuhaler 这两种干粉吸入器的关键错误、偏好和易用性:在这项多中心、前瞻性、随机、开放标签、交叉研究中,哮喘和慢性阻塞性肺病患者在接受了正确使用 Nexthaler 和 Turbuhaler 两种吸入器的培训后,经过 4 周的临床使用,比较了这两种吸入器出现重大错误的比例:分别对 90 名哮喘患者和 49 名慢性阻塞性肺病患者进行了评估。两种吸入器的关键错误数量无明显差异(Nexthaler 3 次,Turbuhaler 5 次)。不过,更多患者(57.6%)更喜欢 Nexthaler,而不是 Turbuhaler(34.5%)(p = 0.006),而 7.9% 的患者表示没有偏好:研究发现,Nexthaler 和 Turbuhaler 在关键错误率方面没有明显差异,但 Nexthaler 比 Turbuhaler 更受患者青睐。这项研究强调了花足够的时间指导患者掌握正确吸入技术的重要性,这可以使患者长期保持吸入技术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信