Factors associated with effective inhaler technique among children with moderate to severe asthma.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Volerman A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9246324 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Factors associated with effective inhaler technique among children with moderate to severe asthma.
Volerman Anna A Fierstein Jamie J Boon Kathy K Kanaley Madeleine M Kan Kristin K Vojta Deneen D Gupta Ruchi R
Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology : official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology 20190903 5
Similar Datasets
Project description:Past studies have not evaluated inhaler use in hospitalized children with asthma. The objectives of this study were to evaluate inhaler technique in hospitalized pediatric patients with asthma and identify risk factors for improper use. We conducted a prospective cross-sectional study in a tertiary children's hospital for children 2-16 years of age admitted for an asthma exacerbation, and inhaler technique demonstrations were analyzed. Of 113 participants enrolled, 55% had uncontrolled asthma, and 42% missed a critical step in inhaler technique. More patients missed a critical step when they used a spacer with mouthpiece instead of a spacer with mask (75% [51%-90%] vs 36% [27%-46%]) and were older (7.8 [6.7-8.9] vs 5.8 [5.1-6.5] years). Patients using the spacer with mouthpiece remained significantly more likely to miss a critical step when adjusting for other clinical covariates (odds ratio 6.95 [1.71-28.23], P = .007). Hospital-based education may provide teachable moments to address poor proficiency, especially for older children using a mouthpiece.
| S-EPMC6625439 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe benefits and harms of adding long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) for moderate to severe asthma remain unclear.ObjectiveTo systematically synthesize the outcomes and adverse events associated with triple therapy (ICS, LABA, and LAMA) vs dual therapy (ICS plus LABA) in children and adults with persistent uncontrolled asthma.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ICTRP, FDA, and EMA databases from November 2017, to December 8, 2020, without language restriction.Study selectionTwo investigators independently selected randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing triple vs dual therapy in patients with moderate to severe asthma.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses, including individual patient-level exacerbation data, were used. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to assess certainty (quality) of the evidence.Main outcomes and measuresSevere exacerbations, asthma control (measured using the Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ-7], a 7-item list with each item ranging from 0 [totally controlled] to 6 [severely uncontrolled]; minimal important difference, 0.5), quality of life (measured using the Asthma-related Quality of Life [AQLQ] tool; score range, 1 [severely impaired] to 7 [no impairment]; minimal important difference, 0.5), mortality, and adverse events.ResultsTwenty RCTs using 3 LAMA types that enrolled 11 894 children and adults (mean age, 52 years [range, 9-71 years]; 57.7% female) were included. High-certainty evidence showed that triple therapy vs dual therapy was significantly associated with a reduction in severe exacerbation risk (9 trials [9932 patients]; 22.7% vs 27.4%; risk ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.77 to 0.90]) and an improvement in asthma control (14 trials [11 230 patients]; standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.06 [95% CI, -0.10 to -0.02]; mean difference in ACQ-7 scale, -0.04 [95% CI, -0.07 to -0.01]). There were no significant differences in asthma-related quality of life (7 trials [5247 patients]; SMD, 0.05 [95% CI, -0.03 to 0.13]; mean difference in AQLQ score, 0.05 [95% CI, -0.03 to 0.13]; moderate-certainty evidence) or mortality (17 trials [11 595 patients]; 0.12% vs 0.12%; risk ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.33 to 2.75]; high-certainty evidence) between dual and triple therapy. Triple therapy was significantly associated with increased dry mouth and dysphonia (10 trials [7395 patients]; 3.0% vs 1.8%; risk ratio, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.14 to 2.38]; high-certainty evidence), but treatment-related and serious adverse events were not significantly different between groups (moderate-certainty evidence).Conclusions and relevanceAmong children (aged 6 to 18 years) and adults with moderate to severe asthma, triple therapy, compared with dual therapy, was significantly associated with fewer severe asthma exacerbations and modest improvements in asthma control without significant differences in quality of life or mortality.
| S-EPMC8135065 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6473469 | biostudies-literature
Project description:With the current wealth of new inhalers available and insurance policy driven inhaler switching, the need for insights in optimal education on inhaler use is more evident than ever. We aimed to systematically review educational inhalation technique interventions, to assess their overall effectiveness, and identify main drivers of success. Medline, Embase and CINAHL databases were searched for randomised controlled trials on educational inhalation technique interventions. Inclusion eligibility, quality appraisal (Cochrane's risk of bias tool) and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. Regression analyses were performed to identify characteristics contributing to inhaler technique improvement. Thirty-seven of the 39 interventions included (95%) indicated statistically significant improvement of inhaler technique. However, average follow-up time was relatively short (5 months), 28% lacked clinical relevant endpoints and all lacked cost-effectiveness estimates. Poor initial technique, number of inhalation procedure steps, setting (outpatient clinics performing best), and time elapsed since intervention (all, p < 0.05), were shown to have an impact on effectiveness of the intervention, explaining up to 91% of the effectiveness variation. Other factors, such as disease (asthma vs. chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), education group size (individual vs. group training) and inhaler type (dry powder inhalers vs. pressurised metered dose inhalers) did not play a significant role. Notably, there was a trend (p = 0.06) towards interventions in adults being more effective than those in children and the intervention effect seemed to wane over time. In conclusion, educational interventions to improve inhaler technique are effective on the short-term. Periodical intervention reinforcement and longer follow-up studies, including clinical relevant endpoints and cost-effectiveness, are recommended.
| S-EPMC5435089 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Inhaler technique can be corrected with training, but skills drop off quickly without repeated training. The aim of our study was to explore the effect of novel inhaler technique labels on the retention of correct inhaler technique. In this single-blind randomized parallel-group active-controlled study, clinical pharmacists enrolled asthma patients using controller medication by Accuhaler [Diskus] or Turbuhaler. Inhaler technique was assessed using published checklists (score 0-9). Symptom control was assessed by asthma control test. Patients were randomized into active (ACCa; THa) and control (ACCc; THc) groups. All patients received a "Show-and-Tell" inhaler technique counseling service. Active patients also received inhaler labels highlighting their initial errors. Baseline data were available for 95 patients, 68% females, mean age 44.9 (SD 15.2) years. Mean inhaler scores were ACCa:5.3 ± 1.0; THa:4.7 ± 0.9, ACCc:5.5 ± 1.1; THc:4.2 ± 1.0. Asthma was poorly controlled (mean ACT scores ACCa:13.9 ± 4.3; THa:12.1 ± 3.9; ACCc:12.7 ± 3.3; THc:14.3 ± 3.7). After training, all patients had correct technique (score 9/9). After 3 months, there was significantly less decline in inhaler technique scores for active than control groups (mean difference: Accuhaler -1.04 (95% confidence interval -1.92, -0.16, P = 0.022); Turbuhaler -1.61 (-2.63, -0.59, P = 0.003). Symptom control improved significantly, with no significant difference between active and control patients, but active patients used less reliever medication (active 2.19 (SD 1.78) vs. control 3.42 (1.83) puffs/day, P = 0.002). After inhaler training, novel inhaler technique labels improve retention of correct inhaler technique skills with dry powder inhalers. Inhaler technique labels represent a simple, scalable intervention that has the potential to extend the benefit of inhaler training on asthma outcomes.AsthmaREMINDER LABELS IMPROVE INHALER TECHNIQUE: Personalized labels on asthma inhalers remind patients of correct technique and help improve symptoms over time. Iman Basheti at the Applied Science Private University in Jordan and co-workers trialed the approach of placing patient-specific reminder labels on dry-powder asthma inhalers to improve long-term technique. Poor asthma control is often exacerbated by patients making mistakes when using their inhalers. During the trial, 95 patients received inhaler training before being split into two groups: the control group received no further help, while the other group received individualized labels on their inhalers reminding them of their initial errors. After three months, 67% of patients with reminder labels retained correct technique compared to only 12% of controls. They also required less reliever medication and reported improved symptoms. This represents a simple, cheap way of tackling inhaler technique errors.
| S-EPMC5434787 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8942067 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8981792 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo explore whether an association exists between health care professionals' (HCPs) asthma knowledge and inhaler technique demonstration skills.MethodsHCPs' asthma knowledge and inhaler technique demonstration skills were assessed at baseline at an inter-professional educational workshop focusing on asthma medication use. Asthma knowledge was assessed via a published questionnaire. Correct inhaler technique for the three inhalers, the Accuhaler, Turbuhaler and pressurized Metered Dose Inhaler (pMDI) was assessed using published checklists.ResultsTwo hundred HCPs agreed to participate: 10 specialists (medical doctors specialized in respiratory diseases) (5%), 46 general practitioners (23%), 79 pharmacists (39%), 15 pharmacists' assistants (8%), 40 nurses (20%) and 10 respiratory therapists (5%). Backwards stepwise multiple regression conducted to determine predictors of HCPs' inhaler technique, showed that out of many independent variables (asthma knowledge score, profession, age, gender, place of work, years in practice and previous personal use of the study inhaler/s), asthma knowledge score was the only variable showing significant association with inhaler technique (R(2)=0.162, p<0.001).ConclusionThis study revealed significant associations between asthma knowledge and inhaler technique scores for all HCPs. Providing inter-professional workshops for all HCPs involved integrating education on asthma knowledge and practice of inhaler technique skills are looked-for.
| S-EPMC4800018 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Two main types of devices are used to facilitate the administration of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting β-agonist (LABA) in combination, dry powder inhalers (DPIs) and pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs). There are few reports comparing the effects of the two devices, and it is unknown which should be recommended for asthma patients with given sets of characteristics. In the current study, the beneficial effects and side effects associated with DPIs and pMDIs were compared, and the question of which device should be recommended for asthma patients was investigated. A prospective, randomized, crossover, comparative study in adult outpatients with asthma was conducted using salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination (SFC) 50 μg/250 μg, one inhalation of Adoair® 250 Diskus® twice daily or two inhalations of Adoair® 125 Aerosol twice daily, for 8 weeks. Questionnaires, exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) tests and pulmonary function tests were administered after the use of each device for 8 weeks, and the results derived from each device were compared. Sixty-eight subjects were included in the final analysis. There were no significant differences between quality-of-life scores, FeNO, spirometry test results and forced oscillation results. With regard to patient preferences, 57.4% preferred the Adoair® Aerosol and 35.3% preferred the Adoair® Diskus®, as determined via the comparative evaluation questionnaire. Although DPI prescription accounts for the predominant market share of combined ICS/LABA in Japan, patients preferred a pMDI device to a DPI device. Compared to DPIs, pMDIs may be the preferential choice for patients with asthma.
| S-EPMC8241158 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) is recommended for annual influenza vaccination in children from age 2 years. However, some guidelines recommend against its use in children with asthma or recurrent wheeze due to concerns over its potential to induce wheezing. OBJECTIVE:We sought to assess the safety of LAIV in children with moderate to severe asthma, and in preschool children with recurrent wheeze. METHODS:Prospective, multicenter, open-label, phase IV intervention study in 14 specialist UK clinics. LAIV was administered under medical supervision, with follow-up of asthma symptoms 72 hours and 4 weeks late, using validated questionnaires. RESULTS:A total of 478 young people (median, 9.3; range, 2-18 years) with physician-diagnosed asthma or recurrent wheeze were recruited, including 208 (44%) prescribed high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and 122 (31%) with severe asthma. There was no significant change in asthma symptoms in the 4 weeks after administration (median change, 0; P = .26, McNemar test), with no impact of level of baseline asthma control/symptoms in predicting either a worsening of asthma or exacerbation after LAIV using a regression model. A total of 47 subjects (14.7%; 95% CI, 11%-19.1%) reported a severe asthma exacerbation in the 4 weeks after immunization, requiring a short course of systemic corticosteroids; in 4 cases, this occurred within 72 hours of vaccination. No association with asthma severity, baseline lung function, or asthma control was identified. CONCLUSIONS:LAIV appears to be well tolerated in the vast majority of children with asthma or recurrent wheeze, including those whose asthma is categorized as severe or poorly controlled.
| S-EPMC7156909 | biostudies-literature