Cargando…
Comparison of serious inhaler technique errors made by device-naïve patients using three different dry powder inhalers: a randomised, crossover, open-label study
BACKGROUND: Serious inhaler technique errors can impair drug delivery to the lungs. This randomised, crossover, open-label study evaluated the proportion of patients making predefined serious errors with Pulmojet compared with Diskus and Turbohaler dry powder inhalers. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years ol...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4712500/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26769482 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12890-016-0169-5 |
_version_ | 1782410075529281536 |
---|---|
author | Chrystyn, Henry Price, David B. Molimard, Mathieu Haughney, John Bosnic-Anticevich, Sinthia Lavorini, Federico Efthimiou, John Shan, Dawn Sims, Erika Burden, Anne Hutton, Catherine Roche, Nicolas |
author_facet | Chrystyn, Henry Price, David B. Molimard, Mathieu Haughney, John Bosnic-Anticevich, Sinthia Lavorini, Federico Efthimiou, John Shan, Dawn Sims, Erika Burden, Anne Hutton, Catherine Roche, Nicolas |
author_sort | Chrystyn, Henry |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Serious inhaler technique errors can impair drug delivery to the lungs. This randomised, crossover, open-label study evaluated the proportion of patients making predefined serious errors with Pulmojet compared with Diskus and Turbohaler dry powder inhalers. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years old with asthma and/or COPD who were current users of an inhaler but naïve to the study devices were assigned to inhaler technique assessment on Pulmojet and either Diskus or Turbohaler in a randomised order. Patients inhaled through empty devices after reading the patient information leaflet. If serious errors potentially affecting dose delivery were recorded, they repeated the inhalations after watching a training video. Inhaler technique was assessed by a trained nurse observer and an electronic inhalation profile recorder. RESULTS: Baseline patient characteristics were similar between randomisation arms for the Pulmojet-Diskus (n = 277) and Pulmojet-Turbohaler (n = 144) comparisons. Non-inferiority in the proportions of patients recording no nurse-observed serious errors was demonstrated for both Pulmojet versus Diskus, and Pulmojet versus Turbohaler; therefore, superiority was tested. Patients were significantly less likely to make ≥1 nurse-observed serious errors using Pulmojet compared with Diskus (odds ratio, 0.31; 95 % CI, 0.19–0.51) or Pulmojet compared with Turbohaler (0.23; 0.12–0.44) after reading the patient information leaflet with additional video instruction, if required. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest Pulmojet is easier to learn to use correctly than the Turbohaler or Diskus for current inhaler users switching to a new dry powder inhaler. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01794390 (February 14, 2013) ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12890-016-0169-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4712500 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-47125002016-01-15 Comparison of serious inhaler technique errors made by device-naïve patients using three different dry powder inhalers: a randomised, crossover, open-label study Chrystyn, Henry Price, David B. Molimard, Mathieu Haughney, John Bosnic-Anticevich, Sinthia Lavorini, Federico Efthimiou, John Shan, Dawn Sims, Erika Burden, Anne Hutton, Catherine Roche, Nicolas BMC Pulm Med Research Article BACKGROUND: Serious inhaler technique errors can impair drug delivery to the lungs. This randomised, crossover, open-label study evaluated the proportion of patients making predefined serious errors with Pulmojet compared with Diskus and Turbohaler dry powder inhalers. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years old with asthma and/or COPD who were current users of an inhaler but naïve to the study devices were assigned to inhaler technique assessment on Pulmojet and either Diskus or Turbohaler in a randomised order. Patients inhaled through empty devices after reading the patient information leaflet. If serious errors potentially affecting dose delivery were recorded, they repeated the inhalations after watching a training video. Inhaler technique was assessed by a trained nurse observer and an electronic inhalation profile recorder. RESULTS: Baseline patient characteristics were similar between randomisation arms for the Pulmojet-Diskus (n = 277) and Pulmojet-Turbohaler (n = 144) comparisons. Non-inferiority in the proportions of patients recording no nurse-observed serious errors was demonstrated for both Pulmojet versus Diskus, and Pulmojet versus Turbohaler; therefore, superiority was tested. Patients were significantly less likely to make ≥1 nurse-observed serious errors using Pulmojet compared with Diskus (odds ratio, 0.31; 95 % CI, 0.19–0.51) or Pulmojet compared with Turbohaler (0.23; 0.12–0.44) after reading the patient information leaflet with additional video instruction, if required. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest Pulmojet is easier to learn to use correctly than the Turbohaler or Diskus for current inhaler users switching to a new dry powder inhaler. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01794390 (February 14, 2013) ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12890-016-0169-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-01-14 /pmc/articles/PMC4712500/ /pubmed/26769482 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12890-016-0169-5 Text en © Chrystyn et al. 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Chrystyn, Henry Price, David B. Molimard, Mathieu Haughney, John Bosnic-Anticevich, Sinthia Lavorini, Federico Efthimiou, John Shan, Dawn Sims, Erika Burden, Anne Hutton, Catherine Roche, Nicolas Comparison of serious inhaler technique errors made by device-naïve patients using three different dry powder inhalers: a randomised, crossover, open-label study |
title | Comparison of serious inhaler technique errors made by device-naïve patients using three different dry powder inhalers: a randomised, crossover, open-label study |
title_full | Comparison of serious inhaler technique errors made by device-naïve patients using three different dry powder inhalers: a randomised, crossover, open-label study |
title_fullStr | Comparison of serious inhaler technique errors made by device-naïve patients using three different dry powder inhalers: a randomised, crossover, open-label study |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of serious inhaler technique errors made by device-naïve patients using three different dry powder inhalers: a randomised, crossover, open-label study |
title_short | Comparison of serious inhaler technique errors made by device-naïve patients using three different dry powder inhalers: a randomised, crossover, open-label study |
title_sort | comparison of serious inhaler technique errors made by device-naïve patients using three different dry powder inhalers: a randomised, crossover, open-label study |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4712500/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26769482 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12890-016-0169-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT chrystynhenry comparisonofseriousinhalertechniqueerrorsmadebydevicenaivepatientsusingthreedifferentdrypowderinhalersarandomisedcrossoveropenlabelstudy AT pricedavidb comparisonofseriousinhalertechniqueerrorsmadebydevicenaivepatientsusingthreedifferentdrypowderinhalersarandomisedcrossoveropenlabelstudy AT molimardmathieu comparisonofseriousinhalertechniqueerrorsmadebydevicenaivepatientsusingthreedifferentdrypowderinhalersarandomisedcrossoveropenlabelstudy AT haughneyjohn comparisonofseriousinhalertechniqueerrorsmadebydevicenaivepatientsusingthreedifferentdrypowderinhalersarandomisedcrossoveropenlabelstudy AT bosnicanticevichsinthia comparisonofseriousinhalertechniqueerrorsmadebydevicenaivepatientsusingthreedifferentdrypowderinhalersarandomisedcrossoveropenlabelstudy AT lavorinifederico comparisonofseriousinhalertechniqueerrorsmadebydevicenaivepatientsusingthreedifferentdrypowderinhalersarandomisedcrossoveropenlabelstudy AT efthimioujohn comparisonofseriousinhalertechniqueerrorsmadebydevicenaivepatientsusingthreedifferentdrypowderinhalersarandomisedcrossoveropenlabelstudy AT shandawn comparisonofseriousinhalertechniqueerrorsmadebydevicenaivepatientsusingthreedifferentdrypowderinhalersarandomisedcrossoveropenlabelstudy AT simserika comparisonofseriousinhalertechniqueerrorsmadebydevicenaivepatientsusingthreedifferentdrypowderinhalersarandomisedcrossoveropenlabelstudy AT burdenanne comparisonofseriousinhalertechniqueerrorsmadebydevicenaivepatientsusingthreedifferentdrypowderinhalersarandomisedcrossoveropenlabelstudy AT huttoncatherine comparisonofseriousinhalertechniqueerrorsmadebydevicenaivepatientsusingthreedifferentdrypowderinhalersarandomisedcrossoveropenlabelstudy AT rochenicolas comparisonofseriousinhalertechniqueerrorsmadebydevicenaivepatientsusingthreedifferentdrypowderinhalersarandomisedcrossoveropenlabelstudy |