Sustainable asthma inhalers: who is offered the option to change, who declines and who successfully switches?

IF 4 3区 医学 Q1 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Laura Piggott, Andrew Cumella, A Francis, S Walker, Brian Kent, Grainne d'Ancona
{"title":"Sustainable asthma inhalers: who is offered the option to change, who declines and who successfully switches?","authors":"Laura Piggott, Andrew Cumella, A Francis, S Walker, Brian Kent, Grainne d'Ancona","doi":"10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002749","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The healthcare community recognises the need for lower emission inhaler options; however, in the UK, most inhalers prescribed are pressurised metered dose inhalers (pMDIs) despite dry powder inhalers (DPIs) having a markedly lower carbon footprint as they do not contain propellants. For this reason, UK clinicians have been encouraged to offer switches from pMDIs to DPIs where feasible.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using data from the Asthma+Lung UK's <i>'Life with a Lung Condition'</i> 2023 online survey, demographic, economic and clinical factors were analysed to determine who had and had not been offered a switch; whose switch had been successful and why some respondents chose not to switch.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>9960 people with asthma responded (77.9% female; age 59.9±13.0) and 7059 (87.7%) were pMDI users. The 3753 (53.2%) who were offered a pMDI to DPI switch had a greater awareness of lower-emission inhaler options (72% vs 53.2%*), uncontrolled asthma (61% vs 54.1%*), and had required unscheduled healthcare (27.4% vs 21.2%*) or >2 courses oral corticosteroids (27.6% vs 21.6%*) in the last year (all *p<0.001). 432 (11.5%) opted not to change inhaler when offered. 3321 (88.5%) accepted the switch and it was successful in 2126 (64%).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>In a large UK survey of people with asthma, over half of those on pMDIs had been offered a switch. It was successful in most who attempted it but unsuccessful switches were associated with subjective and objective markers of poor disease control. Some patients decline the switch because they like their pMDI, but some have ongoing concerns about the efficacy and safety of a DPI and is most feasible when integrated into routine reviews for patients with stable disease, alongside ongoing efforts to optimise asthma outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":9048,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Respiratory Research","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13599930/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Respiratory Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002749","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The healthcare community recognises the need for lower emission inhaler options; however, in the UK, most inhalers prescribed are pressurised metered dose inhalers (pMDIs) despite dry powder inhalers (DPIs) having a markedly lower carbon footprint as they do not contain propellants. For this reason, UK clinicians have been encouraged to offer switches from pMDIs to DPIs where feasible.

Methods: Using data from the Asthma+Lung UK's 'Life with a Lung Condition' 2023 online survey, demographic, economic and clinical factors were analysed to determine who had and had not been offered a switch; whose switch had been successful and why some respondents chose not to switch.

Results: 9960 people with asthma responded (77.9% female; age 59.9±13.0) and 7059 (87.7%) were pMDI users. The 3753 (53.2%) who were offered a pMDI to DPI switch had a greater awareness of lower-emission inhaler options (72% vs 53.2%*), uncontrolled asthma (61% vs 54.1%*), and had required unscheduled healthcare (27.4% vs 21.2%*) or >2 courses oral corticosteroids (27.6% vs 21.6%*) in the last year (all *p<0.001). 432 (11.5%) opted not to change inhaler when offered. 3321 (88.5%) accepted the switch and it was successful in 2126 (64%).

Discussion: In a large UK survey of people with asthma, over half of those on pMDIs had been offered a switch. It was successful in most who attempted it but unsuccessful switches were associated with subjective and objective markers of poor disease control. Some patients decline the switch because they like their pMDI, but some have ongoing concerns about the efficacy and safety of a DPI and is most feasible when integrated into routine reviews for patients with stable disease, alongside ongoing efforts to optimise asthma outcomes.

可持续哮喘吸入器:谁可以选择更换,谁拒绝,谁成功更换?
背景:医疗界认识到需要低排放吸入器的选择;然而,在英国,大多数处方吸入器是加压计量吸入器(pmdi),尽管干粉吸入器(dpi)的碳足迹明显较低,因为它们不含推进剂。出于这个原因,英国的临床医生被鼓励在可行的情况下提供从pmdi到dpi的转换。方法:使用Asthma+Lung UK's 'Life with a Lung Condition' 2023在线调查的数据,分析人口统计学、经济和临床因素,以确定哪些人已经和没有被提供转换;谁的转换是成功的,为什么一些受访者选择不转换。结果:哮喘患者9960例(女性77.9%,年龄59.9±13.0岁),pMDI服用者7059例(87.7%)。接受pMDI到DPI转换的3753名(53.2%)患者对低排放吸入器选项(72%对53.2%*)、未控制哮喘(61%对54.1%*)、去年需要计划外医疗保健(27.4%对21.2%*)或口服皮质类固醇(27.6%对21.6%*)有更高的认识(全部*)。讨论:在英国一项针对哮喘患者的大型调查中,超过一半的pMDI患者接受了转换。大多数尝试的人都成功了,但不成功的转换与疾病控制不良的主观和客观标记有关。一些患者拒绝转换,因为他们喜欢pMDI,但一些患者仍然担心DPI的有效性和安全性,并且当将DPI纳入疾病稳定患者的常规审查时最可行,同时正在努力优化哮喘结果。
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
BMJ Open Respiratory Research
BMJ Open Respiratory Research RESPIRATORY SYSTEM-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
2.40%
发文量
95
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Open Respiratory Research is a peer-reviewed, open access journal publishing respiratory and critical care medicine. It is the sister journal to Thorax and co-owned by the British Thoracic Society and BMJ. The journal focuses on robustness of methodology and scientific rigour with less emphasis on novelty or perceived impact. BMJ Open Respiratory Research operates a rapid review process, with continuous publication online, ensuring timely, up-to-date research is available worldwide. The journal publishes review articles and all research study types: Basic science including laboratory based experiments and animal models, Pilot studies or proof of concept, Observational studies, Study protocols, Registries, Clinical trials from phase I to multicentre randomised clinical trials, Systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
×
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
小红书