BackgroundPatients with COPD may be prescribed multiple inhalers as part of their treatment regimen, which require different inhalation techniques. Previous literature has shown that the effectiveness of inhaled treatment can be adversely affected by incorrect inhaler technique. Prescribing a range of device types could worsen this problem, leading to poorer outcomes in COPD patients, but the impact is not yet known.AimsTo compare clinical outcomes of COPD patients who use devices requiring similar inhalation technique with those who use devices with mixed techniques.MethodsA matched cohort design was used, with 2 years of data from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database. Matching variables were established from a baseline year of follow-up data, and two cohorts were formed: a “similar-devices cohort” and a “mixed-devices cohort”. COPD-related events were recorded during an outcome year of follow-up. The primary outcome measure was an incidence rate ratio (IRR) comparing the rate of exacerbations between study cohorts. A secondary outcome compared average daily use of short-acting beta agonist (SABA).ResultsThe final study sample contained 8,225 patients in each cohort (mean age 67 [SD, 10], 57% males, 37% current smokers). Patients in the similar-devices cohort had a lower rate of exacerbations compared with those in the mixed-devices cohort (adjusted IRR 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80–0.84) and were less likely to be in a higher-dose SABA group (adjusted proportional odds ratio 0.54, 95% CI 0.51–0.57).ConclusionCOPD patients who were prescribed one or more additional inhaler devices requiring similar inhalation techniques to their previous device(s) showed better outcomes than those who were prescribed devices requiring different techniques.

Background Blood eosinophil count (BEC) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) concentration are established biomarkers in asthma, associated particularly with the risk of exacerbations. We evaluated the relationship of BEC and FeNO as complementary and independent biomarkers of severe asthma exacerbations. Methods This observational study included data from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database. Asthma patients (18–80 years) with valid continuous data for 1 year before FeNO reading, ≥ 1 inhaled corticosteroid prescription, and BEC recorded ≤ 5 years before FeNO reading were separated into cohorts. Categorisation 1 was based on the American Thoracic Society criteria for elevated FeNO concentration (high: ≥ 50 ppb; non-high: < 25 ppb) and BEC (high: ≥ 0.300 × 10 9 cells/L; non-high: < 0.300 × 10 9 cells/L). Categorisation 2 (FeNO concentration, high: ≥ 35 ppb; non-high: < 35 ppb) was based on prior research. Reference groups included patients with neither biomarker raised. Results In categorisation 1, patients with either high FeNO or high BEC (n = 200) had a numerically greater exacerbation rate (unadjusted rate ratio, 1.31 [95% confidence interval: 0.97, 1.76]) compared with patients in the reference group. Combination of high FeNO and high BEC (n = 27) resulted in a significantly greater exacerbation rate (3.67 [1.49, 9.04]). Similarly, for categorisation 2, when both biomarkers were raised (n = 53), a significantly greater exacerbation rate was observed (1.72 [1.00, 2.93]). Conclusion The combination of high FeNO and high BEC was associated with significantly increased severe exacerbation rates in the year preceding FeNO reading, suggesting that combining FeNO and BEC measurements in primary care may identify asthma patients at risk of exacerbations. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13601-019-0282-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background and objective Mixed inhaler device use for asthma is associated with worse inhaler technique and outcomes. Given that relievers are commonly prescribed as pressurized metred‐dose inhalers (pMDI), changing preventers from dry powder inhalers (DPI) to pMDI may improve asthma outcomes. This study aimed to assess the persistence and effectiveness of switching from DPI to pMDI for inhaled corticosteroid and long‐acting β2‐agonist combination therapy (ICS/LABA). Methods This was a historical cohort study using Ajou University Hospital (Korea) patient records. Persistence of switch was defined as receiving ≥1 pMDI and no DPI after the switch. Effectiveness of switch was assessed as the proportion without severe asthma exacerbation and the proportion achieving risk domain asthma control (RDAC; no asthma‐related hospitalization, antibiotics without upper respiratory diagnosis or acute course of oral corticosteroids) and overall asthma control (OAC; RDAC and ≤ 200 μg salbutamol/≤500 μg terbutaline average daily dose) comparing 1 year after and before the switch. Results Within 85 patients who switched from DPI to pMDI and persisted for a year, higher proportion were free from asthma exacerbation after the switch (mean difference in proportion = 0.129, 95% CI: 0.038–0.220). Switching to pMDI was also associated with better RDAC (75.3% vs 57.7%, P = 0.001) and OAC (57.7% vs 45.9%, P = 0.021). From the entire 117 patients who switched to fixed‐dose combination (FDC)/ICS LABA pMDI, 76.1% (95% CI: 69.0–100.0%) patients persisted in the following 6 months. Conclusion Switching to and persisting with pMDI was associated with decreased asthma exacerbations and improved asthma control. The majority of patients persisted with the switch to pMDI for ICS/LABA treatment.

Objective: The objective of this study was to determine whether the effectiveness of budesonide comparator is non-inferior to budesonide reference in the prevention of asthma exacerbations. Asthma-related hospitalizations and safety were also examined. Methods: This study used a matched, historic cohort design. Data were drawn from the Clinformatics ™ Data Mart US claims database and included a 1-year baseline, starting 1 year before the index prescription date, and a 1-year outcome period. Patients received budesonide comparator or reference treatment. The primary outcome was the rate of asthma exacerbations. Non-inferiority for budesonide comparator vs budesonide reference was established if the 95% confidence interval (CI) upper limit of mean difference in proportions between treatments was <15%. Secondary outcomes examined rate of asthma-related hospitalizations and adverse events (AEs). Results:The budesonide comparator and reference-matched cohorts each included 3109 patients. The adjusted upper 95% CI for the difference in proportions of patients experiencing asthma exacerbations was 0.035 (3.5%), demonstrating non-inferiority. Cohorts did not significantly differ in the rate of asthma exacerbations (adjusted rate ratio [RR]=1.04, 95% CI: 0.95-1.14) or rate of asthma-related hospitalizations (adjusted RR=1.10, 95% CI: 0.99-1.24) after adjusting for baseline confounders. No asthma exacerbations occurred during the outcome period in 72.9% of budesonide comparator patients and 71.8% of budesonide reference patients. No asthma-related hospitalizations occurred in 77.9% of patients in the budesonide comparator cohort and 79.0% of patients in the budesonide reference cohort. The most frequent AEs were throat irritation (≤0.4% of patients) and hoarseness/dysphonia (0.02% of patients). AEs did not significantly differ between treatment cohorts. Conclusion:In this real-life study, non-inferiority of the budesonide comparator vs reference was met for the primary end point of asthma exacerbation rates. Asthma-related hospitalization and AE rates did not differ between the two treatment cohorts. The budesonide comparator is an effective and safe treatment alternative for asthma exacerbations.

Changing to, or initiating FP/FOR combination therapy, is associated with a non-inferior proportion of patients who are severe exacerbation-free at a lower average annual cost compared with continuing or initiating treatment with FP/SAL.