Assessment of inhalation errors, training time and patient preference for DuoResp® Spiromax® and Symbicort® Turbuhaler® in patients with asthma and COPD.

IF 1.8 Q3 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Jordi Giner, Marta Villarnovo Cerrillo, Jaime Aboín Sierra, Laura Casas Herrero, Oliver Patino, Vicente Plaza
{"title":"Assessment of inhalation errors, training time and patient preference for DuoResp® Spiromax® and Symbicort® Turbuhaler® in patients with asthma and COPD.","authors":"Jordi Giner, Marta Villarnovo Cerrillo, Jaime Aboín Sierra, Laura Casas Herrero, Oliver Patino, Vicente Plaza","doi":"10.1080/20018525.2020.1833411","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>While poor inhaler technique in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can compromise the effectiveness of inhaled medications, identifying and quantifying these errors may suggest ways to improve inhalation technique and patient outcomes. The objective of this international, multicentre care improvement programme was to investigate errors in inhaler use (handling errors and inhalation errors) made by patients in handling two dry powder inhalers; DuoResp® Spiromax® and Symbicort® Turbuhaler®. Patients with asthma or COPD aged between 18 and 80 years attending the allergology/pneumology departments of 14 hospitals in Spain and Portugal were included. All assessments were performed during one regular scheduled visit to the study clinic. Among 161 eligible patients (138 with asthma; 23 with COPD), inhalation errors were the most common type of error, with no significant difference between devices in overall total error rate, handling error rate or inhalation error rate. Significantly fewer total errors per patient (1.4 vs. 1.9; <i>p</i> < 0.001) and handling errors per patient (0.5 vs. 0.8; <i>p</i> < 0.001) were observed with DuoResp® Spiromax® compared with Symbicort® Turbuhaler®. The mean number of attempts for patients using DuoResp® Spiromax® to perform two correct procedures was 1.9 (0.6) compared with 2.1 (0.9) attempts for patients using Symbicort® Turbuhaler® (<i>p</i> = 0.016). Compared with Symbicort® Turbuhaler®, DuoResp® Spiromax® was found to be easy to learn how to use (<i>p</i> < 0.001), easy to prepare (<i>p</i> < 0.001), easy to use (<i>p</i> < 0.001), comfortable in terms of weight and size (<i>p</i> = 0.001), and patients felt that they were using the device correctly (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Overall, 79.5% of patients stated that they preferred DuoResp® Spiromax® as their first option over Symbicort® Turbuhaler®. The findings of this study may be useful in developing effective inhaler training programmes and thus improve outcomes in asthma and COPD.</p>","PeriodicalId":11872,"journal":{"name":"European Clinical Respiratory Journal","volume":"8 1","pages":"1833411"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20018525.2020.1833411","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Clinical Respiratory Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20018525.2020.1833411","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

While poor inhaler technique in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can compromise the effectiveness of inhaled medications, identifying and quantifying these errors may suggest ways to improve inhalation technique and patient outcomes. The objective of this international, multicentre care improvement programme was to investigate errors in inhaler use (handling errors and inhalation errors) made by patients in handling two dry powder inhalers; DuoResp® Spiromax® and Symbicort® Turbuhaler®. Patients with asthma or COPD aged between 18 and 80 years attending the allergology/pneumology departments of 14 hospitals in Spain and Portugal were included. All assessments were performed during one regular scheduled visit to the study clinic. Among 161 eligible patients (138 with asthma; 23 with COPD), inhalation errors were the most common type of error, with no significant difference between devices in overall total error rate, handling error rate or inhalation error rate. Significantly fewer total errors per patient (1.4 vs. 1.9; p < 0.001) and handling errors per patient (0.5 vs. 0.8; p < 0.001) were observed with DuoResp® Spiromax® compared with Symbicort® Turbuhaler®. The mean number of attempts for patients using DuoResp® Spiromax® to perform two correct procedures was 1.9 (0.6) compared with 2.1 (0.9) attempts for patients using Symbicort® Turbuhaler® (p = 0.016). Compared with Symbicort® Turbuhaler®, DuoResp® Spiromax® was found to be easy to learn how to use (p < 0.001), easy to prepare (p < 0.001), easy to use (p < 0.001), comfortable in terms of weight and size (p = 0.001), and patients felt that they were using the device correctly (p < 0.001). Overall, 79.5% of patients stated that they preferred DuoResp® Spiromax® as their first option over Symbicort® Turbuhaler®. The findings of this study may be useful in developing effective inhaler training programmes and thus improve outcomes in asthma and COPD.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

评估哮喘和慢性阻塞性肺病患者吸入错误、训练时间和患者对DuoResp®Spiromax®和Symbicort®Turbuhaler®的偏好
虽然在哮喘和慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)中,不良的吸入器技术可能会影响吸入药物的有效性,但识别和量化这些错误可能会为改善吸入技术和患者预后提供方法。这项国际、多中心护理改进计划的目的是调查患者在处理两个干粉吸入器时发生的吸入器使用错误(处理错误和吸入错误);DuoResp®Spiromax®和Symbicort®Turbuhaler®。在西班牙和葡萄牙的14家医院的过敏症/肺炎科就诊的年龄在18至80岁之间的哮喘或COPD患者被纳入研究。所有的评估都是在一次定期访问研究诊所期间进行的。在161例符合条件的患者中(138例哮喘患者;23例COPD患者),吸入错误是最常见的错误类型,不同设备在总体总错误率、处理错误率或吸入错误率方面无显著差异。每位患者的总错误显著减少(1.4 vs 1.9;P P P = 0.016)。与Symbicort®Turbuhaler®相比,DuoResp®Spiromax®易于学习如何使用(p p p p = 0.001),患者认为他们正确使用了该设备(p
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
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
16 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:481959085
Book学术官方微信