使用吸入给药系统的患者错误对慢性阻塞性肺病临床疗效影响的系统性综述

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q1 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
David M G Halpin, Donald A Mahler
{"title":"使用吸入给药系统的患者错误对慢性阻塞性肺病临床疗效影响的系统性综述","authors":"David M G Halpin, Donald A Mahler","doi":"10.1136/bmjresp-2023-002211","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Errors using inhaled delivery systems for COPD are common and it is assumed that these lead to worse clinical outcomes. Previous systematic reviews have included patients with both asthma and COPD and much of the evidence related to asthma. More studies in COPD have now been published. Through systematic review, the relationship between errors using inhalers and clinical outcomes in COPD, including the importance of specific errors, was assessed.Methods Electronic databases were searched on 27 October 2023 to identify cohort, case–control or randomised controlled studies, which included patients with COPD, an objective assessment of inhaler errors and data on at least one outcome of interest (forced expiratory volume in 1 s, (FEV1), dyspnoea, health status and exacerbations). Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle and Ottawa scales. A narrative synthesis of the results was performed as there was insufficient detail in the publications to allow quantitative synthesis. There was no funding for the review. Results 19 publications were included (7 cohort and 12 case–control) reporting outcomes on 6487 patients. 15 were considered low quality, and most were confounded by the absence of adherence data. There was weak evidence that lower error rates are associated with better FEV1, symptoms and health status and fewer exacerbations. Only one considered the effects of individual errors and found that only some were related to worse outcomes. Conclusion Evidence about the importance of specific errors using inhalers and outcomes would optimise the education and training of patients with COPD. Prospective studies, including objective monitoring of inhalation technique and adherence, are needed. PROSPERO registration number CRD42023393120. No data are available.","PeriodicalId":9048,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Respiratory Research","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic review of the effects of patient errors using inhaled delivery systems on clinical outcomes in COPD\",\"authors\":\"David M G Halpin, Donald A Mahler\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjresp-2023-002211\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Errors using inhaled delivery systems for COPD are common and it is assumed that these lead to worse clinical outcomes. Previous systematic reviews have included patients with both asthma and COPD and much of the evidence related to asthma. More studies in COPD have now been published. Through systematic review, the relationship between errors using inhalers and clinical outcomes in COPD, including the importance of specific errors, was assessed.Methods Electronic databases were searched on 27 October 2023 to identify cohort, case–control or randomised controlled studies, which included patients with COPD, an objective assessment of inhaler errors and data on at least one outcome of interest (forced expiratory volume in 1 s, (FEV1), dyspnoea, health status and exacerbations). Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle and Ottawa scales. A narrative synthesis of the results was performed as there was insufficient detail in the publications to allow quantitative synthesis. There was no funding for the review. Results 19 publications were included (7 cohort and 12 case–control) reporting outcomes on 6487 patients. 15 were considered low quality, and most were confounded by the absence of adherence data. There was weak evidence that lower error rates are associated with better FEV1, symptoms and health status and fewer exacerbations. Only one considered the effects of individual errors and found that only some were related to worse outcomes. Conclusion Evidence about the importance of specific errors using inhalers and outcomes would optimise the education and training of patients with COPD. Prospective studies, including objective monitoring of inhalation technique and adherence, are needed. PROSPERO registration number CRD42023393120. No data are available.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9048,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Open Respiratory Research\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Open Respiratory Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2023-002211\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Respiratory Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2023-002211","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

摘要

背景使用吸入给药系统治疗慢性阻塞性肺病的错误很常见,人们认为这些错误会导致更差的临床结果。以前的系统综述包括哮喘和慢性阻塞性肺病患者,其中大部分证据与哮喘有关。现在,更多有关慢性阻塞性肺病的研究已经发表。方法 2023 年 10 月 27 日对电子数据库进行了检索,以确定队列、病例对照或随机对照研究,这些研究包括慢性阻塞性肺病患者、对吸入器错误的客观评估以及至少一项相关结果(1 秒内用力呼气容积 (FEV1)、呼吸困难、健康状况和病情加重)的数据。研究质量采用纽卡斯尔和渥太华量表进行评估。由于出版物中的细节不足以进行定量综合,因此对结果进行了叙述性综合。本次综述没有得到任何资助。结果 共纳入 19 篇文献(7 篇队列研究和 12 篇病例对照研究),报告了 6487 名患者的治疗结果。其中 15 篇被认为质量较低,大部分因缺乏依从性数据而受到影响。有微弱证据表明,较低的错误率与较好的 FEV1、症状和健康状况以及较少的病情恶化有关。只有一项研究考虑了个别错误的影响,发现只有部分错误与较差的治疗效果有关。结论 有关使用吸入器的特定错误的重要性和结果的证据将优化慢性阻塞性肺病患者的教育和培训。需要进行前瞻性研究,包括对吸入技术和依从性进行客观监测。PROSPERO 注册号为 CRD42023393120。暂无数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Systematic review of the effects of patient errors using inhaled delivery systems on clinical outcomes in COPD
Background Errors using inhaled delivery systems for COPD are common and it is assumed that these lead to worse clinical outcomes. Previous systematic reviews have included patients with both asthma and COPD and much of the evidence related to asthma. More studies in COPD have now been published. Through systematic review, the relationship between errors using inhalers and clinical outcomes in COPD, including the importance of specific errors, was assessed.Methods Electronic databases were searched on 27 October 2023 to identify cohort, case–control or randomised controlled studies, which included patients with COPD, an objective assessment of inhaler errors and data on at least one outcome of interest (forced expiratory volume in 1 s, (FEV1), dyspnoea, health status and exacerbations). Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle and Ottawa scales. A narrative synthesis of the results was performed as there was insufficient detail in the publications to allow quantitative synthesis. There was no funding for the review. Results 19 publications were included (7 cohort and 12 case–control) reporting outcomes on 6487 patients. 15 were considered low quality, and most were confounded by the absence of adherence data. There was weak evidence that lower error rates are associated with better FEV1, symptoms and health status and fewer exacerbations. Only one considered the effects of individual errors and found that only some were related to worse outcomes. Conclusion Evidence about the importance of specific errors using inhalers and outcomes would optimise the education and training of patients with COPD. Prospective studies, including objective monitoring of inhalation technique and adherence, are needed. PROSPERO registration number CRD42023393120. No data are available.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信