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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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