Background: Inhalation therapy is the backbone of asthma and COPD control. However, inhaler adherence and device mishandling continue to be a problem in real life. Some studies have shown that using a patient-preferred inhaler may reduce device handling errors and improve adherence to prescribed chronic inhaler drug therapy. The aim of this study was to compare the preferences for commonly used inhaler devices in Germany in patients with chronic obstructive respiratory disease. We also pursued the question which properties of an inhaler device are particularly important to the user and what effects age, gender and type of disease (asthma or COPD) may have on device preference and handling errors. Methods: Prospective, open-label cross-sectional study in which 105 patients with asthma (58%) or COPD (42%) participated. Validated checklists were used to objectively assess inhaler technique and errors with 10 different placebo devices. For each device, patients were asked to test the handling, to assess the device properties and to name the device that they would most or least prefer. Results: Across the 10 placebo inhaler devices tested, patients needed an average of 1.22 attempts to error-free use. The device with the lowest mean number of attempts was the Turbohaler® (1.02), followed by the Nexthaler® (1.04), the Diskus® (1.07) and the Spiromax® (1.10). Patients over 60 years vs. younger age (p = 0.002) and COPD vs. asthma patients (p = 0.016) required more attempts to ensure correct use. 41% of the study participants chose one of the devices they already used as the most preferred inhaler. Overall, 20% opted for the Spiromax®, 15% for the Nexthaler® and 14% for the Turbohaler® or a pMDI. The least preferred device was the Elpenhaler® (0%). From a selection of 7 predefined inhaler attributes, patients stated easy handling as the most important for them. This was followed by short inhalation time and low inhalation resistance. Conclusions: Patient preference may vary between inhaler devices. The lowest number of attempts to error-free use was reported for the Turbohaler® and the Nexthaler®. The Spiromax® and the Nexthaler® achieved the best overall ratings and were the devices most preferred by patients.

The aim of this study was to examine the perception and preference of geriatric patients for commonly used inhaler devices in Germany. Patients and Methods: This was a prospective, open-label cross-sectional study with inpatient inhaler-naïve geriatric volunteers (age ≥ 70 years). All 106 participants were interviewed and subjected to a geriatric examination for cognitive, motor and fine motor skills before demonstrating the use of nine inhalers in random order. For each device, patients were asked to test the handling, to assess the device properties and to name the device that they would most or least prefer. Results: The mean age of the patients was 80.8 years. From a selection of 7 predefined general inhaler attributes, ease of use, discrete handling and inhalation resistance were the most important for the geriatric participants. Across all inhaler devices, the volunteers needed an average of 2.47 attempts to error-free use. The device with the lowest mean number of attempts was the Nexthaler ® (1.75; SD ± 0.903), followed by Spiromax ® (1.96; SD ± 0.965) and Genuair ® (2.05; SD ± 1.027). There was a weak to moderate correlation between the number of attempts required to ensure the correct use of these three inhalers and the patient's cognitive and fine motor skills. Fifty-nine patients (56%) chose the Nexthaler as the inhalation device that they would most prefer (p<0.001 vs other devices). This was followed by Spiromax (n=23; 22%) and Genuair (n=12; 11%). The device that was least favored was the Elpenhaler ® (p<0.001 vs other devices). Conclusion: Patient preference and frequency of inhaler handling-errors may vary between inhaler devices. The Nexthaler was the easiest-to-use and most popular device among inhaler-naïve patients.

Eosinophilic pulmonary vasculitis as a manifestation of the hyperinflammatory phase of

No abstract