Accuracy of Accuhaler, Ellipta, and Turbuhaler Testers in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Q1 Medicine
Narongkorn Saiphoklang, Thiravit Siriyothipun, Sarawut Panichaporn
{"title":"Accuracy of Accuhaler, Ellipta, and Turbuhaler Testers in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.","authors":"Narongkorn Saiphoklang, Thiravit Siriyothipun, Sarawut Panichaporn","doi":"10.3390/medsci13020050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b>: Peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) measurement is an essential tool for assessing the effectiveness of inhaler therapy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of three different inhaler testers compared to the In-Check DIAL<sup>®</sup> device. <b>Methods</b>: A cross-sectional study was conducted in clinically stable COPD patients. Participants performed PIFR measurements using the In-Check DIAL<sup>®</sup> device and three inhaler testers (Accuhaler, Ellipta, and Turbuhaler). Optimal PIFR was defined as ≥60 L/min. Minimum PIFR was defined as ≥30 L/min. <b>Results</b>: A total of 82 COPD patients (93.9% male) were included, with a mean age of 73.3 ± 8.8 years. Post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second was 69.2 ± 21.0%. The prevalence of optimal PIFR was 78%, 74%, and 52% for the Accuhaler, Ellipta, and Turbuhaler testers, respectively. For detecting optimal PIFR, the Accuhaler tester demonstrated an accuracy of 80.5%, sensitivity of 100%, and specificity of 11.1%. The Ellipta tester showed an accuracy of 78.1%, sensitivity of 100%, and specificity of 14.3%, while the Turbuhaler tester achieved an accuracy of 56.1%, sensitivity of 100%, and specificity of 7.7%. All devices showed excellent accuracy (>95%), sensitivity (>98%), and specificity (100% except for the Turbuhaler tester) in detecting minimum PIFR. <b>Conclusions</b>: The majority of COPD patients achieved optimal PIFR across the three different devices, with the highest prevalence observed for the Accuhaler tester. All three inhaler testers demonstrated excellent accuracy in assessing PIFR in COPD patients, suggesting their potential as reliable alternatives to the In-Check DIAL<sup>®</sup> device in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":74152,"journal":{"name":"Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland)","volume":"13 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12101141/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/medsci13020050","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) measurement is an essential tool for assessing the effectiveness of inhaler therapy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of three different inhaler testers compared to the In-Check DIAL® device. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in clinically stable COPD patients. Participants performed PIFR measurements using the In-Check DIAL® device and three inhaler testers (Accuhaler, Ellipta, and Turbuhaler). Optimal PIFR was defined as ≥60 L/min. Minimum PIFR was defined as ≥30 L/min. Results: A total of 82 COPD patients (93.9% male) were included, with a mean age of 73.3 ± 8.8 years. Post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second was 69.2 ± 21.0%. The prevalence of optimal PIFR was 78%, 74%, and 52% for the Accuhaler, Ellipta, and Turbuhaler testers, respectively. For detecting optimal PIFR, the Accuhaler tester demonstrated an accuracy of 80.5%, sensitivity of 100%, and specificity of 11.1%. The Ellipta tester showed an accuracy of 78.1%, sensitivity of 100%, and specificity of 14.3%, while the Turbuhaler tester achieved an accuracy of 56.1%, sensitivity of 100%, and specificity of 7.7%. All devices showed excellent accuracy (>95%), sensitivity (>98%), and specificity (100% except for the Turbuhaler tester) in detecting minimum PIFR. Conclusions: The majority of COPD patients achieved optimal PIFR across the three different devices, with the highest prevalence observed for the Accuhaler tester. All three inhaler testers demonstrated excellent accuracy in assessing PIFR in COPD patients, suggesting their potential as reliable alternatives to the In-Check DIAL® device in clinical practice.

慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者Accuhaler、Ellipta和Turbuhaler测试仪的准确性
背景:峰值吸入流量(PIFR)测量是评估慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)吸入器治疗有效性的重要工具。本研究旨在评估三种不同的吸入器测试仪与In-Check DIAL®设备的准确性。方法:对临床稳定期COPD患者进行横断面研究。参与者使用In-Check DIAL®设备和三个吸入器测试仪(Accuhaler、Ellipta和Turbuhaler)进行PIFR测量。最佳PIFR定义为≥60 L/min。最小PIFR定义为≥30 L/min。结果:共纳入COPD患者82例,其中男性占93.9%,平均年龄73.3±8.8岁。支气管扩张后1秒用力呼气量为69.2±21.0%。Accuhaler、Ellipta和Turbuhaler测试仪的最佳PIFR患病率分别为78%、74%和52%。对于检测最佳PIFR, Accuhaler测试仪的准确率为80.5%,灵敏度为100%,特异性为11.1%。Ellipta检测仪的准确度为78.1%,灵敏度为100%,特异度为14.3%;Turbuhaler检测仪的准确度为56.1%,灵敏度为100%,特异度为7.7%。所有设备在检测最小PIFR时均表现出良好的准确性(>95%)、灵敏度(>98%)和特异性(100%,Turbuhaler测试仪除外)。结论:大多数COPD患者通过三种不同的设备获得最佳PIFR,其中Accuhaler测试仪的患病率最高。在评估COPD患者的PIFR时,这三种吸入器测试仪均表现出极高的准确性,这表明它们在临床实践中有可能成为in - check DIAL®设备的可靠替代品。
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
CiteScore
9.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信