			Home About us Contact

Inhaler Technique (inhaler + technique)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Medical Sciences	50%

Selected Abstracts

Could interchangeable use of dry powder inhalers affect patients?

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PRACTICE, Issue 2005
D. Price
Summary The aim of asthma treatment is optimal disease control. Poor asthma control results in considerable patient morbidity, as well as contributing to the considerable burden placed by the disease on healthcare budgets. There is a need for costs to be carefully scrutinised, with the switching of patients to inhaler devices with lower acquisition costs likely to be increasingly considered. However, before such practice becomes widespread, it is important to establish whether or not this could adversely impact on patients and the level of disease control. For approval to have been given, all marketed inhalers must have satisfied current regulatory requirements for devices. Full preclinical and clinical development programmes are not required when application is made for authorisation to market a new inhaler containing an existing chemical entity, although clinical equivalence testing must be used. Both beneficial and adverse effects should be tested, and the limits of equivalence must be clearly defined, based on therapeutic relevance. It should be noted that equivalence studies are invalid when the end point is not responding (i.e. at the top of the dose,response curve) and when equivalence limits approach or are equal to the magnitude of the drug effect. Approval on the basis of regulations designed to safeguard quality of dry powder inhalers does not mean that devices are interchangeable. When using an inhaler, there are many stages between the patient and the therapeutic effect, involving device design, pharmaceutical performance and patient behaviour. Regulations governing new devices cover only a few of the many factors affecting disease control. Furthermore, clinical trials to assess equivalence may not take into account factors in patient behaviour or variations in patient inhaler technique that may affect use of devices in real-life situations. When assessing the consequences of interchangeable use of dry powder inhalers on healthcare costs, it is important to ensure that the acquisition cost of the devices is not the only cost considered. Other costs that should be considered include the cost of time spent demonstrating to the patient how to use the new device, the cost of additional physician visits to address patient concerns and the management costs if disease control is adversely affected. [source]

Many asthma patients experience persistent symptoms despite appropriate clinical and guideline-based treatment with inhaled corticosteroids

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF NURSE PRACTITIONERS, Issue 9 2007
Joan Mogil MSN, NP-C (Nurse Practitioner)
Abstract Purpose: To review possible reasons for persistence of asthma symptoms despite appropriate use of clinical and guideline-based treatments, including the use of inhaled corticosteroids. Data sources: Review of the worldwide scientific literature on factors related to persistent symptoms in patients with asthma. Conclusions: Patients with asthma may not respond as expected to therapy because of factors that include poor adherence, improper inhaler technique, persistent exposure to symptom triggers, and limitations of current standard therapy, including steroid insensitivity or the steroid plateau effect. Persistent symptoms may also be associated with IgE-mediated airway inflammation, as current standard asthma therapies do not directly address the IgE-mediated component of the inflammatory cascade. Asthma is a complex disease and its treatment requires the full cooperation and participation of the patient. Implications for practice: Healthcare professionals can play a key role by educating patients and their family members about the nature of asthma and rationale for treatment, supporting the importance of strict adherence to prevention measures and the prescribed treatment regimen. [source]

A randomised controlled trial of clinics in secondary schools for adolescents with asthma

CHILD: CARE, HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT, Issue 1 2004
Cliona Ni Bhrolchain
Aim To test the hypothesis that delivery of a programme of asthma care in nurse-led clinics in school would improve access to care and health outcomes compared with care in general practice. Methods Pupils at four secondary schools in Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire, UK, were included in the randomized controlled trial. Another two schools were included to control for any cross-contamination between school clinic attenders and general practice attenders in the trial schools. Pupils in trial schools were randomly assigned to receive an invitation for an asthma review at school or in general practice. Schools were stratified for deprivation and covered rural, urban and suburban populations. Pupils with asthma were identified using a screening questionnaire and then cross-referenced with practice prescribing records. Four school nurses with additional specialist asthma training ran the school clinics weekly. Consultations concentrated on the needs and interests of adolescents and followed national guidelines for treatment changes. Reviews were arranged at 1 and 6 months, with an additional 3-month review if needed. The pupil's GP was kept informed. General practice care was according to the practice's usual treatment protocols. Primary outcomes were the proportion of pupils who had had an asthma review in 6 months, health-related quality of life and level of symptoms. Secondary outcomes were pupil knowledge and attitude to asthma, inhaler technique, the proportion taking inhaled steroids daily, school absence due to asthma, PEFR and pupil preference for the setting of care. Sample size was calculated to have an 80% chance of showing an increase from 40% to 60% having a review in 6 months and half a standard deviation improvement on the quality of life measure. Analysis was on an intention to treat basis. Results School clinic pupils were more likely to attend (91% vs. 51%). However, symptom control or quality of life were no better. School clinic pupils knew more about asthma, had a more positive attitude and better inhaler technique. Absence and PEFR showed no difference. 63% who attended school clinics preferred this model but, taking both groups together, just over half would prefer to attend their GP for follow-up. Cost of care (including practice, school clinic, hospital and medication) was £32.10 at school, £19.80 at the trial practices and £18.00 at control practices. Conclusions Previous evaluations of nurse-led asthma clinics in practice have also failed to show improvements in outcomes, though process measures do improve. This may be due to the need for nurses to refer patients to doctors for changes in medication, rather than doing this themselves. Some weaknesses in study design that may have affected outcome, but the essential conclusion is that nurse-led asthma clinics in school are not cost effective. The study does suggest that such clinics can reach a high proportion of adolescents, but for asthma at least this does not result in any measurable improvement in outcome. [source]