Critical Error Frequency and the Impact of Training with Inhalers Commonly used for Maintenance Treatment in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Abstract

David J Collier,1,2 Pascal Wielders,3 Job van der Palen,4,5 Logan Heyes,6 Dawn Midwinter,6 Kathryn Collison,7 Andy Preece,6 Neil Barnes,1,6 Raj Sharma6 1William Harvey Research Institute, Barts & The London School of Medicine & Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK; 2Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine & Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK; 3Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, Netherlands; 4Department of Pulmonology, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, Netherlands; 5Department of Research Methodology, Measurement, and Data Analysis, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands; 6Respiratory Therapy Area Unit, GlaxoSmithKline Plc., Stockley Park, Uxbridge, UK; 7Respiratory Medical Franchise, GlaxoSmithKline Plc., Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC, USACorrespondence: David J CollierWilliam Harvey Research Institute Clinical Research Centre, Barts & The London School of Medicine & Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UKTel [phone] Fax [phone] Email [email protected]: Training in correct inhaler use, ideally in person or by video demonstration, can minimize errors but is rarely provided in clinics. This open-label, low-intervention study evaluated critical error rates with dry-powder inhalers (DPIs), before and after training, in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Methods: Patients prescribed an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) (ELLIPTA, Turbuhaler, or DISKUS), long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/LABA (ELLIPTA or Breezhaler), or LAMA-only DPI (ELLIPTA, HandiHaler, or Breezhaler) were enrolled. Critical errors were assessed before training (Visit 1 [V1]; primary endpoint) and 6 weeks thereafter (Visit 2 [V2]; secondary endpoint). Logistic regression models were used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) for between-group comparisons.Results: The intent-to-treat population comprised 450 patients. At V1, fewer patients made ≥ 1 critical error with ELLIPTA (10%) versus other ICS/LABA DPIs (Turbuhaler: 40%, OR 4.66, P=0.005; DISKUS: 26%, OR 2.48, P=0.114) and other LAMA or LAMA/LABA DPIs (HandiHaler: 34%, OR 3.50, P=0.026; Breezhaler: 33%, OR 3.94, P=0.012). Critical error rates with the primary ICS/LABA DPI were not significantly different between ELLIPTA ICS/LABA (10%) and ICS/LABA plus LAMA groups (12– 25%). Critical errors with the primary ICS/LABA DPI occurred less frequently with ELLIPTA ICS/LABA with or without LAMA (11%) versus Turbuhaler ICS/LABA with or without LAMA (39%, OR 3.99, P< 0.001) and DISKUS ICS/LABA with or without LAMA (26%, OR 2.18, P=0.069). Simulating single-inhaler versus multiple-inhaler triple therapy, critical error rates were lower with ELLIPTA fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI; 10%) versus ELLIPTA FF/VI plus LAMA (22%), considering errors with either DPI (OR 2.50, P=0.108). At V2, critical error rates decreased for all DPIs/groups, reaching zero only for ELLIPTA. Between-group comparisons were similar to V1.Conclusion: Fewer patients made critical errors with ELLIPTA versus other ICS/LABA, and LAMA or LAMA/LABA DPIs. The effect of “verbal” training highlights its importance for reducing critical errors with common DPIs.Keywords: inhaler technique, critical errors, ELLIPTA, inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting β2-agonist, long-acting muscarinic antagonist

Keywords

• inhaler technique
• critical errors
• ellipta
• inhaled corticosteroid
• long-acting β2-agonist
• long-acting muscarinic antagonist