No abstract

Pharmacologic treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease has consistent beneficial and plausible effects on cardiac function and pulmonary vasculature that may contribute to favorable effects of inhaled therapies. Future studies should investigate the effect of prolonged lung deflation on intrinsic myocardial function. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01691885).

Background: Guidelines recommend inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Most COPD patients are managed in primary care and receive ICS long-term and irrespective of severity. The effect of withdrawing ICS from COPD patients in primary care is unknown.

BackgroundAdministering maintenance COPD therapy with a combination of multiple inhalers may increase inhaler errors. This study evaluated the potential benefits of using a single Ellipta dry powder inhaler (DPI) compared with two combinations of DPIs commonly used to deliver triple maintenance therapy.MethodsPatients receiving inhaled COPD medication were enrolled in this multicenter, randomized, open-label, placebo-device, crossover study with a 2×2 complete block design (NCT0298218), which comprised two substudies: Ellipta vs Diskus + HandiHaler (substudy 1) or Turbuhaler + HandiHaler (substudy 2). Patients demonstrated inhaler use after reading the relevant patient information leaflet (PIL). A trained investigator assessed user errors (critical errors [errors likely to result in no or significantly reduced medication being inhaled] and overall errors). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients making ≥1 critical error after reading the PIL. The secondary endpoints included error rates during ≤2 reassessments following investigator instruction (if required), instruction time, and patient preference.ResultsAfter reading the PIL, significantly fewer patients made critical errors with Ellipta compared with Diskus + HandiHaler (9% [7/80] vs 75% [60/80], respectively; P<0.001) or Turbuhaler + HandiHaler (9% [7/79] vs 73% [58/79], respectively; P<0.001). The number of patients making overall errors was also lower with Ellipta vs tested inhaler combinations (P<0.001 for each substudy). The median instruction time needed for error-free use was shorter with Ellipta in substudies 1 and 2 (2.7 and 2.6 minutes, respectively) vs either combination (10.6 [Diskus + HandiHaler] and 11.3 minutes [Turbuhaler + HandiHaler], respectively). Significantly more patients preferred Ellipta over Diskus + HandiHaler or Turbuhaler + HandiHaler overall for taking their COPD medication (81% vs 9% and 84% vs 4%, respectively) and per the number of steps for taking their COPD medication (89% vs 8% and 91% vs 5%, respectively).ConclusionFewer patients with COPD made critical errors with the single DPI, and patients required less instruction time, compared with each dual DPI combination.

No abstract

BackgroundUK government policy aims to strengthen the role of community pharmacies in health promotion. Thus, we conducted feasibility studies for an intervention to enhance delivery of the NHS Smoking Cessation Service.MethodsThe overall aims were to assess acceptability and feasibility of conducting the intervention in community pharmacies and piloting this with a cluster randomised trial. Specific objectives were (1) to estimate likely participation rates of pharmacies and stop smoking advisors, (2) to establish the potential impact of the training intervention on throughput and retention of smokers in smoking services, (3) to establish potential impact on smoking cessation outcomes, (4) to optimise logistics for conducting a cluster randomised trial in the next phase of the research programme and (5) to consider the feasibility of collecting pharmacy and service user data.In this cluster randomised parallel group pilot trial, 12 community pharmacies in East London were allocated to intervention or usual practice using simple randomisation (allocation ratio 2:1). Data were analysed descriptively.ResultsTwelve of 54 (22.2%, 95% CI 12.0% to 35.6%) pharmacies and 20 of 23 (87.0%, 95% CI 66.4% to 97.2%) advisors invited, agreed to participate. Over 5 months, 302 smokers in intervention pharmacies (mean per pharmacy 43.1, 95% CI: −4.3 to 90.5) and 319 in usual practice pharmacies (mean per pharmacy 79.8, 95% CI: 19.0 to 140.5) joined the service. 51 of 621 smokers (6.3% in intervention vs 10.0% in usual practice) consented to provide additional data on smoking cessation. 17 of 19 smokers that consented were retained at 4 weeks in intervention arm (89.5%, 95% CI: 66.9% to 98.7%) and 24 of 32 in usual practice (75.0%, 95% CI: 56.6% to 88.5%). 10 of 19 in the intervention arm (52.6%, 95% CI: 28.9% to 75.6%) stopped smoking compared to 7 of 32 in usual practice arm (21.9%, 95% CI: 9.3% to 40.0%).The pilot was useful in providing insights on how best to conduct the definitive trial and shortcomings of our present logistical arrangements, including feasibility of collecting pharmacy and service user data.ConclusionsRecruitment rates show that the main trial is feasible, and the results suggest that the intervention may improve retention and quit rates in smoking cessation services. We gained insights on how best to conduct the definitive trial which will proceed as planned.

ObjectiveTo develop a complex intervention for community pharmacy staff to promote uptake of smoking cessation services and to increase quit rates.DesignFollowing the Medical Research Council framework, we used a mixed-methods approach to develop, pilot and then refine the intervention.Methods Phase I: We used information from qualitative studies in pharmacies, systematic literature reviews and the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation—Behaviour framework to inform design of the initial version of the intervention. Phase II: We then tested the acceptability of this intervention with smoking cessation advisers and assessed fidelity using actors who visited pharmacies posing as smokers, in a pilot study. Phase III: We reviewed the content and associated theory underpinning our intervention, taking account of the results of the earlier studies and a realist analysis of published literature. We then confirmed a logic model describing the intended operation of the intervention and used this model to refine the intervention and associated materials.SettingEight community pharmacies in three inner east London boroughs.Participants12 Stop Smoking Advisers.InterventionTwo, 150 min, skills-based training sessions focused on communication and behaviour change skills with between session practice.ResultsThe pilot study confirmed acceptability of the intervention and showed preliminary evidence of benefit; however, organisational barriers tended to limit effective operation. The pilot data and realist review pointed to additional use of Diffusion of Innovations Theory to seat the intervention in the wider organisational context.ConclusionsWe have developed and refined an intervention to promote smoking cessation services in community pharmacies, which we now plan to evaluate in a randomised controlled trial.Trial registration numberUKCRN ID 18446, Pilot.

ObjectivesSmokers are more likely to quit if they use the National Health Service (NHS) Stop Smoking Service (SSS). However, community pharmacies experience low service uptake. The Smoking Treatment Optimisation in Pharmacies (STOP) programme aims to address this problem by enhancing staff training using a theory-based intervention. In this study, we evaluated intervention fidelity using simulated smokers (actors) to assess smoker engagement and enactment of key intervention components by STOP trained staff.DesignAn observational pilot study.SettingsFive community pharmacies in North East London with an NHS SSS.MethodsSix actors, representative of East London’s population, were recruited and trained to complete intervention fidelity assessments. Consenting pharmacy staff from five participating pharmacies received STOP Intervention training. Four weeks after the staff training, the actors visited the participating pharmacies posing as smokers eligible for smoking cessation support. Engagement behaviour by pharmacy staff and enactment of intervention components was assessed using a scoring tool derived from the STOP logic model (scoring range of 0–36), and contemporaneous field notes taken by actors.Results18 of 30 completed assessments were with STOP trained staff (10/18 were counter assistants). Mean score for smoker engagement was 24.4 (SD 9.0) points for trained and 16.9 (SD 7.8) for untrained staff, respectively. NHS SSS leaflets (27/30) were the most common smoking cessation materials seen on pharmacy visits. Most trained counter staff engaged with smokers using leaflets and a few proactively offered appointments with their cessation advisors. Appropriate use of body language was reported on 26/30 occasions alongside the use of key phrases from the STOP training session (n=8). Very few pharmacy staff wore STOP promotional badges (4/30).ConclusionsSTOP training may change client engagement behaviour in pharmacy staff and could improve the uptake of the NHS SSS. A cluster randomised controlled trial is currently in progress to evaluate its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.Trial registration numberISRCTN16351033.