Inhaler device feature preferences among patients with obstructive lung diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Bronchodilators administered through inhalation devices are the mainstay treatment for patients with obstructive lung diseases. Patients do not view devices as interchangeable. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined device feature preferences among patients with obstructive lung diseases treated with handheld inhalers. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were searched to identify publications between 2010 and 2019 that met the following criteria:A manual search extended the study period from 2001 to 2019. Random-effects models were used to generate pooled mean effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for preferred device features. Heterogeneity was measured by the I statistic. RESULTS: Nineteen studies (n = 11,256) were included in this meta-analysis. Average age ranged from 50.4 to 74.3 years. The majority of patients were male (57%) and had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (92%).Patients preferred the following device features: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS:: Adults with obstructive lung diseases preferred small inhaler devices that were portable, durable, perceived as easy to use, and fast in medication administration. Healthcare providers should give due consideration to the patient's device feature preferences when developing a treatment plan that prescribes an inhalation device.

Device use errors with soft mist inhalers: A global systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Inhaled bronchodilators are the cornerstone of treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Soft mist inhalers (SMIs) are devices that deliver bronchodilators. Although correct device use is paramount to successful medication delivery, patient errors are common. This global systematic literature review and meta-analysis examined device use errors with SMIs among patients with obstructive lung diseases. PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were searched to identify studies published between 2010 and 2019 that met the following inclusion criteria: (a) English language; (b) a diagnosis of COPD, bronchitis, or emphysema; and (c) reported device use errors among adults receiving long-acting bronchodilator treatment with Respimat® SMI (i.e. Spiriva®, Stiolto®, Spiolto®, and Striverdi®). Descriptive statistics examined sociodemographics, clinical characteristics, and device use errors. Meta-analysis techniques were employed with random-effects models to generate pooled mean effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for overall and step-by-step errors. The I2 statistic measured heterogeneity. Twelve studies (n = 1288 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. Eighty-eight percent of patients had COPD, and most had moderate/very severe airflow limitation (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease spirometric stages II to IV). Aggregate results revealed that 58.9% (95% CI: 42.4-75.5; I2 = 92.8%) of patients made ≥1 device use errors. Among 11 studies with step-by-step data, the most common errors were failure to (1) exhale completely and away from the device (47.8% (95% CI: 33.6-62.0)); (2) hold breath for up to 10 seconds (30.6% (95% CI: 17.5-43.7)); (3) take a slow, deep breath while pressing the dose release button (27.9% (95% CI: 14.5-41.2)); (4) hold the inhaler upright (22.6% (95% CI: 6.2-39.0)); and (5) turn the base toward the arrows until it clicked (17.6% (95% CI: 3.0-32.2)). Device use errors occurred in about 6 of 10 patients who used SMIs. An individualized approach to inhalation device selection and ongoing training and monitoring of device use are important in optimizing bronchodilator treatment.

Exacerbations, Health Resource Utilization, and Costs Among Medicare Beneficiaries with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Treated with Nebulized Arformoterol Following a Respiratory Event.

BACKGROUND: Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABAs), with or without inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs), delivered by handheld inhalers or nebulizers are recommended as maintenance therapy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study evaluated exacerbations, health resource utilization (HRU), and costs among Medicare beneficiaries with COPD on handheld ICS+LABA who switched to nebulized arformoterol (ARF) or continued ICS+LABA following a respiratory event. METHODS: Using Medicare claims, we identified beneficiaries with COPD (international classification of disease, 9th revision, clinical modification [ICD-9-CM] 490-492.xx, 494.xx, 496.xx) between 2010-2014 who had ≥ 1 year of continuous enrollment in Parts A, B, and D; ≥ 2 COPD-related outpatient visits ≥ 30 days apart or ≥ 1 hospitalization(s); ICS+LABA use 90-days before ARF initiation; and a respiratory event (COPD-related hospitalization or emergency department [ED] visit < 30 days before ARF initiation). Using propensity scores, 423 beneficiaries who switched to ARF were matched to 423 beneficiaries who continued on handheld ICS+LABA (controls). Difference-in-difference regression models examined outcomes at 180-days follow-up. RESULTS: Beneficiaries who switched to ARF had 1.5 fewer exacerbations (p=0.015) but no difference in hospitalizations and ED visits compared to controls. Durable medical equipment (DME) costs were higher among ARF users than controls ($1590), yet total health care costs were similar due to cost offsets by ARF in pharmacy (-$794), inpatient (-$524), and outpatient care (-$65). ARF accounted for 55% ($886.63) of DME costs, with the remaining costs attributed to oxygen therapy ($428.10) and nebulized corticosteroids ($590.85). CONCLUSIONS: Switching from handheld ICS+LABA to nebulized ARF resulted in fewer COPD exacerbations among Medicare beneficiaries. Nebulized LABAs may improve outcomes in selected patients with COPD.

Inhalation Technique Errors with Metered-Dose Inhalers Among Patients with Obstructive Lung Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of U.S. Studies.

BACKGROUND: Metered dose inhalers (MDIs) are commonly prescribed for inhalation therapy, but correct use is critical to promoting effective medication delivery. This systematic literature review and meta-analysis evaluates the overall and step-by-step prevalence of errors among adults with obstructive lung diseases in the United States who used MDIs. METHODS: Electronic and manual searches conducted between 1979-2018 using PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and Google identified 10 articles that met the following inclusion criteria: (a) English language, (b) U.S. adults diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and (c) MDI use error rates. Meta-analytic techniques using random-effects models were applied to calculate effect sizes, weighted proportions, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed by the I2 statistic. RESULTS: Aggregate findings revealed that 86.7% of patients (n=390, 95% CI 77.5-96.0) made at least 1 inhalation technique error, and 76.9% (n=885, 95% CI 65.8-87.9) incorrectly performed ≥ 20% of device use steps. The most prevalent step-by-step errors across the studies (n=1105) were failure to: (a) exhale fully and away from the inhaler before inhalation (65.5% [95% CI 52.0, 78.9]); (b) hold breath for 5-10 seconds (41.9% [95% CI 29.8, 53.9]); (c) inhale slowly and deeply (39.4% [95% CI 26.2, 52.5]); (d) exhale after inhalation (35.9% [95% CI 17.0, 54.8]); and (e) shake the inhaler before use (34.2% [95% CI 30.6, 37.7]). CONCLUSIONS: Across the studies used in this meta-analysis more than three-fourths of U.S. adults with obstructive lung diseases used MDIs incorrectly. Our findings suggest the need for ongoing patient education and consideration of alternative devices to mitigate errors.

Predictors of Nebulized Arformoterol Treatment: A Retrospective Analysis of Medicare Beneficiaries with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

This study examined sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and health resource utilization among Medicare beneficiaries with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to identify predictors of nebulized arformoterol treatment. Using Medicare administrative data from 2010 to 2014, beneficiaries with ≥2 COPD outpatient visits ≥30 d apart or ≥1 COPD-related hospitalization(s) (ICD-9-CM 491.xx, 492.xx, and 496) were identified. Inclusion criteria required ≥1 COPD medication claim(s) and continuous enrollment in Parts A, B, and D. Four cohorts were identified: (a) 11,887 arformoterol users, (b) a subsample of arformoterol users (n = 1,778) who were hospitalized and discharged 30 d before initiating arformoterol, (c) 450,178 controls who had not received arformoterol, and (d) a subsample of controls (n = 21,910) who had hospitalizations. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate predictors of arformoterol treatment. The majority of beneficiaries were older than 70 years of age, female, Caucasian, and 47% were dual-eligible. The strongest predictors of arformoterol treatment were oxygen therapy, systemic corticosteroid or methylxanthine use, an exacerbation, a COPD-related hospitalization, and receiving care from a pulmonologist (all p < .001). Dual-eligibility, being a racial/ethnic minority, and having severe psychiatric comorbidity or immunodeficiency lowered the odds of receiving nebulized arformoterol (all p < .001). Among beneficiaries with recent hospitalizations, exacerbations and COPD-related admissions increased the odds of receiving arformoterol (p < .001). Nebulized arformoterol treatment was more likely to be initiated in sicker patients with COPD. Ensuring access to nebulized maintenance therapy is important and particularly warranted for COPD populations with greater medical needs.

Medication management patterns among Medicare beneficiaries with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who initiate nebulized arformoterol treatment.

Purpose: Global evidence-based treatment strategies for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) recommend using long-acting bronchodilators (LABDs) as maintenance therapy. However, COPD patients are often undertreated. We examined COPD treatment patterns among Medicare beneficiaries who initiated arformoterol tartrate, a nebulized long-acting beta2 agonist (LABA), and identified the predictors of initiation. Methods: Using a 100% sample of Medicare administrative data, we identified beneficiaries with a COPD diagnosis (ICD-9 490-492.xx, 494.xx, 496.xx) between 2010 and 2014 who had ≥1 year of continuous enrollment in Parts A, B, and D, and ≥2 COPD-related outpatient visits within 30 days or ≥1 hospitalization(s). After applying inclusion/exclusion criteria, three cohorts were identified: (1) study group beneficiaries who received nebulized arformoterol (n=11,886), (2) a subset of the study group with no LABD use 90 days prior to initiating arformoterol (n=5,542), and (3) control group beneficiaries with no nebulized LABA use (n=220,429). Logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of arformoterol initiation. Odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and p values were computed. Results: Among arformoterol users, 47% (n=5,542) had received no LABDs 90 days prior to initiating arformoterol. These beneficiaries were being treated with a nebulized (50%) or inhaled (37%) short-acting bronchodilator or a systemic corticosteroid (46%), and many received antibiotics (37%). Compared to controls, beneficiaries who initiated arformoterol were significantly more likely to have had an exacerbation, a COPD-related hospitalization, and a pulmonologist or respiratory therapist visit prior to initiation (all p<0.05). Beneficiaries with moderate/severe psychiatric comorbidity or dual-eligible status were significantly less likely to initiate arformoterol, as compared to controls (all p<0.05). Conclusion: Medicare beneficiaries who initiated nebulized arformoterol therapy had more exacerbations and hospitalizations than controls 90 days prior to initiation. Findings revealed inadequate use of maintenance medications, suggesting a lack of compliance with evidence-based treatment guidelines.

Grammatical Encoding and Learning in Agrammatic Aphasia: Evidence from Structural Priming.

The present study addressed open questions about the nature of sentence production deficits in agrammatic aphasia. In two structural priming experiments, 13 aphasic and 13 age-matched control speakers repeated visually- and auditorily-presented prime sentences, and then used visually-presented word arrays to produce dative sentences. Experiment 1 examined whether agrammatic speakers form structural and thematic representations during sentence production, whereas Experiment 2 tested the lasting effects of structural priming in lags of two and four sentences. Results of Experiment 1 showed that, like unimpaired speakers, the aphasic speakers evinced intact structural priming effects, suggesting that they are able to generate such representations. Unimpaired speakers also evinced reliable thematic priming effects, whereas agrammatic speakers did so in some experimental conditions, suggesting that access to thematic representations may be intact. Results of Experiment 2 showed structural priming effects of comparable magnitude for aphasic and unimpaired speakers. In addition, both groups showed lasting structural priming effects in both lag conditions, consistent with implicit learning accounts. In both experiments, aphasic speakers with more severe language impairments exhibited larger priming effects, consistent with the "inverse preference" prediction of implicit learning accounts. The findings indicate that agrammatic speakers are sensitive to structural priming across levels of representation and that such effects are lasting, suggesting that structural priming may be beneficial for the treatment of sentence production deficits in agrammatism.

Diagnostic approach, treatment, and outcomes of cervical sympathetic chain schwannomas: a global narrative review.

OBJECTIVE: This review examined the diagnostic approach, surgical treatment, and outcomes of cervical sympathetic chain schwannomas (CSCS) to guide clinical decision making. DATA SOURCES: Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. REVIEW METHODS: A literature review from 1998 to 2013 identified 156 articles of which 51 representing 89 CSCS cases were evaluated in detail. Demographic, clinical, and outcomes data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers with high interrater reliability (κ = .79). Cases were mostly international (82%), predominantly from Asia (50%) and Europe (27%). CONCLUSIONS: On average, patients were 42.6 years old (SD = 13.3) and had a neck mass ranging between 2 to 4 cm (52.7%) or >4 cm (43.2%). Nearly 70% of cases were asymptomatic at presentation. Presurgical diagnosis relied on CT (63.4%), MRI (59.8%), or both (19.5%), supplemented by cytology (33.7%), which was nearly always inconclusive (96.7%). US-treated cases were significantly more likely to receive presurgical MRI than internationally treated cases but less likely to have cytology (P < .05). Presurgical diagnosis was challenging, with only 11% confirmatory accuracy postsurgically. Irrespective of mass size, extracapsular resection (ie, complete resection with nerve sacrifice) was the most frequently (87.6%) performed surgical procedure. Common postsurgical adverse events included Horner's syndrome (91.1%), first bite syndrome (21.1%), or both (15.7%), with higher prevalence when mass size was >4 cm. Adverse events persisted in 82.3% of cases at an average 30.0 months (SD = 30.1) follow-up time. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Given the typical CSCS patient is young and asymptomatic and the likelihood of persistent morbidity is high with standard surgical approaches, less invasive treatment options warrant consideration.

Phonological facilitation of object naming in agrammatic and logopenic primary progressive aphasia (PPA).

Phonological processing deficits are characteristic of both the agrammatic and logopenic subtypes of primary progressive aphasia (PPA-G and PPA-L). However, it is an open question which substages of phonological processing (i.e., phonological word form retrieval, phonological encoding) are impaired in these subtypes of PPA, as well as how phonological processing deficits contribute to anomia. In the present study, participants with PPA-G (n = 7), participants with PPA-L (n = 7), and unimpaired controls (n = 17) named objects as interfering written words (phonologically related/unrelated) were presented at different stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) of 0, +100, +300, and +500 ms. Phonological facilitation (PF) effects (faster naming times with phonologically related interfering words) were found for the controls and PPA-L group only at SOA = 0 and +100 ms. However, the PPA-G group exhibited protracted PF effects (PF at SOA = 0, +100, and +300 ms). These results may reflect deficits in phonological encoding in PPA-G, but not in PPA-L, supporting the neuropsychological reality of this substage of phonological processing and the distinction between these two PPA subtypes.

Verb and sentence production and comprehension in aphasia: Northwestern Assessment of Verbs and Sentences (NAVS).

BACKGROUND: Verbs and sentences are often impaired in individuals with aphasia, and differential impairment patterns are associated with different types of aphasia. With currently available test batteries, however, it is challenging to provide a comprehensive profile of aphasic language impairments because they do not examine syntactically important properties of verbs and sentences. AIMS: This study presents data derived from the Northwestern Assessment of Verbs and Sentences (NAVS; Thompson, 2011), a new test battery designed to examine syntactic deficits in aphasia. The NAVS includes tests for verb naming and comprehension, and production of verb argument structure in simple active sentences, with each examining the effects of the number and optionality of arguments. The NAVS also tests production and comprehension of canonical and non-canonical sentences. METHODS & PROCEDURES: A total of 59 aphasic participants (35 agrammatic and 24 anomic) were tested using a set of action pictures. Participants produced verbs or sentences for the production subtests and identified pictures corresponding to auditorily provided verbs or sentences for the comprehension subtests. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: The agrammatic group, compared to the anomic group, performed significantly more poorly on all subtests except verb comprehension, and for both groups comprehension was less impaired than production. On verb naming and argument structure production tests both groups exhibited difficulty with three-argument verbs, affected by the number and optionality of arguments. However, production of sentences using three-argument verbs was more impaired in the agrammatic, compared to the anomic, group. On sentence production and comprehension tests, the agrammatic group showed impairments in all types of non-canonical sentences, whereas the anomic group exhibited difficulty primarily with the most difficult, object relative, structures. CONCLUSIONS: Results show that verb and sentence deficits seen in individuals with agrammatic aphasia are largely influenced by syntactic complexity; however, individuals with anomic aphasia appear to exhibit these impairments only for the most complex forms of verbs and sentences. The present data indicate that the NAVS is useful for characterising verb and sentence deficits in people with aphasia.