Nebulizer versus metered dose inhaler with space chamber (MDI spacer) for acute asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation: attitudes of patients and healthcare providers in the COVID-19 era.

OBJECTIVE: Short-acting bronchodilators for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations are commonly delivered by nebulizers although administration using metered dose inhaler with space chamber (MDI spacer) has been shown to be equally efficacious. There are few studies examining patients' and healthcare providers' attitudes on the two administration methods in adults. This study explores patients' and healthcare providers' attitudes on the use of nebulizer versus MDI spacer for acute asthma and COPD exacerbations in adults.Methods: Patients admitted for asthma or COPD exacerbations, doctors, and nurses in a university-affiliated hospital were surveyed from 1 April 2021 to 30 September 2021 regarding their views on the effectiveness, ease of use, preparation and administration, side effects, and infection risk of the two administration methods. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients, 103 doctors, and 650 nurses completed the survey. 60.6% of patients perceived nebulizer to be more effective. Patients who found nebulizer more comfortable were more likely to prefer nebulizer (OR 43.97, p = 0.01), while those who associated it with a greater infection risk were less likely to prefer nebulizer (OR 0.15, p = 0.03). 49.5% of doctors and 49.1% of nurses perceived nebulizer to be more effective, compared to 10.7% and 34.5%, respectively, for MDI spacer. Effectiveness and patient comfort influenced doctors' and nurses' preference for nebulizer while ease of preparation and administration influenced nurses' preference only. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and healthcare providers perceived nebulizer to be more effective. Factors unique to each group influenced their preference for nebulizer.

Evaluation of multi-component interventions for prevention of nosocomial pneumonia in older adults: a randomized, controlled trial.

AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy of multi-component interventions for prevention of hospital-acquired pneumonia in older patients hospitalized in geriatric wards. METHODS: A randomized, parallel-group, controlled trial was undertaken in patients aged 65 and above who were admitted to a tertiary hospital geriatric unit from January 1, 2016 to June 30, 2018 for an acute non-respiratory illness. Participants were randomized by to receive either a multi-component intervention (consisting of reverse Trendelenburg position, dysphagia screening, oral care and vaccinations), or usual care. The outcome measures were the proportion of patients who developed hospital-acquired pneumonia during hospitalisation, and mean time from randomization to the next hospitalisation due to respiratory infections in 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 123 participants (median age, 85; 43.1% male) were randomized, (n = 59) to intervention group and (n = 64) to control group. The multi-component interventions did not significantly reduce the incidence of hospital-acquired pneumonia but did increase the mean time to next hospitalisation due to respiratory infection (11.5 months vs. 9.5 months; P = 0.049), and reduced the risk of hospitalisation in 1 year (18.6% vs. 34.4%; P = 0.049). Implementation of multi-component interventions increased diagnoses of oropharyngeal dysphagia (35.6% vs. 20.3%; P < 0.001) and improved the influenza (54.5% vs 17.2%; P < 0.001) and pneumococcal vaccination rates (52.5% vs. 20.3%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The nosocomial pneumonia multi-component intervention did not significantly reduce the incidence of hospital-acquired pneumonia during hospitalisation but reduce subsequent hospitalisations for respiratory infections. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT04347395.