Assessment of inhaler techniques employed by patients with respiratory diseases in southern Brazil: a population-based study / Avaliação da técnica de utilização de dispositivos inalatórios no tratamento de doenças respiratórias no sul do Brasil: estudo de base populacional

OBJECTIVE: To identify incorrect inhaler techniques employed by patients with respiratory diseases in southern Brazil and to profile the individuals who make such errors. METHODS: This was a population-based, cross-sectional study involving subjects ≥ 10 years of age using metered dose inhalers (MDIs) or dry powder inhalers (DPIs) in 1,722 households in the city of Pelotas, Brazil. RESULTS: We included 110 subjects, who collectively used 94 MDIs and 49 DPIs. The most common errors in the use of MDIs and DPIs were not exhaling prior to inhalation (66% and 47%, respectively), not performing a breath-hold after inhalation (29% and 25%), and not shaking the MDI prior to use (21%). Individuals ≥ 60 years of age more often made such errors. Among the demonstrations of the use of MDIs and DPIs, at least one error was made in 72% and 51%, respectively. Overall, there were errors made in all steps in 11% of the demonstrations, whereas there were no errors made in 13%.Among the individuals who made at least one error, the proportion of those with a low level of education was significantly greater than was that of those with a higher level of education, for MDIs (85% vs. 60%; p = 0.018) and for DPIs (81% vs. 35%; p = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: In this sample, the most common errors in the use of inhalers were not exhaling prior to inhalation, not performing a breath-hold after inhalation, and not shaking the MDI prior to use. Special attention should be given to education regarding inhaler techniques for patients of lower socioeconomic status and with less formal education, as well as for those of advanced age, because those populations are at a greater risk of committing errors in their use of inhalers. .

OBJETIVO: Conhecer os erros na técnica de uso de dispositivos inalatórios empregada por pacientes com doenças respiratórias no sul do Brasil e o perfil daqueles que possuem dificuldades em realizá-la. MÉTODOS: Estudo transversal, de base populacional, com indivíduos com idade ≥ 10 anos e em uso de inaladores pressurizados (IPrs) ou inaladores de pó (IP) em 1.722 domicílios de Pelotas (RS). RESULTADOS: Foram incluídos 110 indivíduos que utilizavam 94 IPrs e 49 IP. Os principais erros no uso dos IPrs e IP foram não expirar antes da inalação (66% e 47%, respectivamente), não fazer uma pausa inspiratória após a inalação (29% e 25%) e não agitar o IPr antes do uso (21%). Os indivíduos com idade ≥ 60 anos mais frequentemente cometeram erros. Das demonstrações de uso do IPr e IP, respectivamente, 72% e 51% apresentaram ao menos um erro, enquanto 13% das demonstrações foram plenamente corretas e 11% apresentaram erros em todas as fases. A proporção de indivíduos com menor nível de escolaridade que cometeram ao menos um erro foi significativamente maior do que a daqueles com maior nível de escolaridade tanto no uso de IPrs (85% vs. 60%; p = 0,018) quanto no de IPs (81% vs. 35%; p = 0,010). CONCLUSÕES: Nesta amostra, os principais erros cometidos no uso dos inaladores foram não realizar a expiração antes da inalação, não fazer a pausa inspiratória após a inalação e não agitar o IPr. Pacientes com menor nível socioeconômico e educacional, assim como aqueles com idade avançada, merecem especial atenção na educação sobre a realização da técnica inalatória, pois apresentam um maior risco de cometer erros durante o uso dos inaladores. .

A comparative study of patients' preferences and sensory perceptions of three forms of inhalers among Thai asthma and COPD patients.

In 9 study centers, 419 patients with asthma or COPD were randomized to receive two forms of salbutamol metered-dose-inhalers (MDIs), i.e. CFC-driven MDI, non-CFC (HFA) MDI and one salbutamol dry powder inhaler (DPI), in a multi-center, comparative, cross-over and randomized study, performed to facilitate the formulation of a strategic plan to phase out CFC MDIs. After having received all three forms of test products, the patients completed an evaluation questionnaire indicating their preferences, likelihood of treatment compliance on each product and the easiest one to use. Statistical analysis showed that the CFC MDI was significantly less irritating (p < 0.014) but lower in its overall appeal (p < 0.0001). The "most preferred form to be prescribed" was DPI at 47.5% followed by non-CFC at 32.5% and CFC MDI at 20.1%. Concerning the ease of use among the three forms of test products, 59.9% of the patients indicated "no difference". Adverse events were mild and occurred in only 8.2%. In conclusion, patients' preference and sensory perception among the three forms of inhalers were comparable except that the CFC MDI was significantly less irritating but lower in its overall appeal. DPI was the most preferred and easiest form to use but also the most expensive. Taking public health into consideration, a non-CFC MDI with a similar market price to the CFC MDI would be the obvious choice in a strategic plan to phase out CFC MDIs with the least difficulty to the consumers.