The correct use of inhalation devices is an inclusion criterion for all studies comparing inhaled treatments. In real life, however, patients may make many errors with their usual inhalation device, which may negate the benefits observed in clinical trials. Our study was undertaken to compare inhalation device handling in real life. A total of 3811 patients treated for at least 1 month with an inhalation device (Aerolizer, Autohaler, Diskus, pressurized metered dose inhaler (pMDI), or Turbuhaler) were included in this observational study performed in primary care in France between February 1st and July 14th, 2002. General practitioners had to assess patient handling of their usual inhaler device with the help of a checklist established for each inhaler model, from the package leaflet. Seventy-six percent of patients made at least one error with pMDI compared to 49-55% with breath-actuated inhalers. Errors compromising treatment efficacy were made by 11-12% of patients treated with Aerolizer, Autohaler, or Diskus compared to 28% and 32% of patients treated with pMDI and Turbuhaler, respectively. Overestimation of good inhalation by general practitioners was maximal for Turbuhaler (24%), and lowest for Autohaler and pMDI (6%). Ninety percent of general practitioners felt that participation in the study would improve error detection. These results suggest that there are differences in the handling of inhaler devices in real life in primary care that are not taken into account in controlled studies. There is a need for continued education of prescribers and users in the proper use of these devices to improve treatment efficacy.

Despite precautions, warnings and attempts to limit use, there remains a high proportion of long-term BZD users in the general French population, especially in the elderly. Our findings add to the weight of opinion that messages concerning proper use of BZDs certainly need to be clarified and amplified.

A retrospective, observational, cohort study in primary care. To determine the total direct medical and non-medical cost of chronic low back pain (LBP) in France and its associated factors. Chronic LBP affects 5-10% of the population its burden in France is unknown. Ninety-eight randomly selected general practitioners included 796 adult patients with chronic LBP between October 2001 and December 2002. Direct costs due to physician visits, investigations, medications, hospitalizations, and other medical and non-medical resource use were collected for the 6 months prior to study visit. Costs both reimbursed and not by the French health insurance system were considered. Quality of life (QoL) and disease severity were measured using Short Form (SF)-8 and Roland-Morris disability questionnaire (RMDQ), respectively. Costs were updated to represent 2007 prices. Men represented 50.6% of the 796 patients, mean age was 53 +/- 11.3 years, and the duration of LBP was more than 1 year in 80.9% of patients. The total mean cost per patient over six months was 715.6 euro (95% CI: 644.2-797.8). Of these costs, 22.9% related to care provided by physiotherapists and allied specialists, 19.5% to medications, 17.4% to hospitalizations, 9.6% to investigations, and 12.5% to physician fees. In multivariate analysis, the factors associated with the cost of chronic LBP were disease severity (RMDQ score) and age of the patients. LBP is a disease that is both common and costly.

This is the first study of this design in France, combining data from a claims database and direct patient and prescriber questionnaires.