Uncovering patterns of inhaler technique and reliever use: the value of objective, personalized data from a digital inhaler.

Electronic inhalers provide information about patterns of routine inhaler use. During a 12-week study, 360 asthma patients using albuterol Digihaler generated 53,083 inhaler events that were retrospectively analyzed. A total of 41,528 (78%) of the recorded inhalation events were suitable for flow analysis (having a PIF ≥ 18 L/min and <120 L/min). Median PIF, inhalation volume, inhalation duration, and time to PIF for these events steadily decreased between the first and last 10 days of the study, by 5.1%, 12.6%, 15.9%, and 6.4%, respectively. Continuous short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA) overuse, defined as ≥2 SABA inhalations/week throughout the study period, was seen in 29% (n = 104) of patients. Of 260 patients with ≥1 instance of acute short-term SABA overuse, 55 (21%) had a confirmed exacerbation. Electronic recording of real-life inhaler use can capture valuable, objective information that could inform disease management and clinical decision-making.

Effectiveness of a Maintenance and Reliever Digihaler System in Asthma: 24-Week Randomized Study (CONNECT2).

BACKGROUND: Digital health tools have been shown to help address challenges in asthma control, including inhaler technique, treatment adherence, and short-acting ß2-agonist overuse. The maintenance and reliever Digihaler System (DS) comprises 2 Digihaler inhalers (fluticasone propionate/salmeterol and albuterol) with an associated patient App and web-based Dashboard. Clinicians can review patients' inhaler use and Digihaler inhalation parameter data to support clinical decision-making. OBJECTIVE: CONNECT2 evaluated asthma control in participants using the DS versus standard-of-care (SoC) maintenance and reliever inhalers. METHODS: Participants (13 years or older) with uncontrolled asthma (Asthma Control Test [ACT] score <19) were randomized 4:3 (open-label) to the DS (n = 210) or SoC (n = 181) for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving well-controlled asthma (ie, an ACT score ≥20 or increase from baseline of ≥3 units at week 24). RESULTS: There was an 88.7% probability that participants using the DS would have greater odds of achieving improvement in asthma control compared with SoC after 24 weeks. The mean odds ratio (95% credible interval) for DS versus SoC was 1.35 (0.846-2.038), indicating a 35% higher odds of improved asthma control with the DS. The DS group had more clinician-participant interactions versus SoC, mainly addressing a poor inhaler technique. DS participants' maintenance treatment adherence was good (month 1: 79.2%; month 6: 68.6%); reliever use decreased by 38.2% versus baseline. App and Dashboard usability was rated "good." CONCLUSION: The positive results in asthma control in this study after 24 weeks demonstrate the effectiveness of the DS in asthma management.

A Predictive Machine Learning Tool for Asthma Exacerbations: Results from a 12-Week, Open-Label Study Using an Electronic Multi-Dose Dry Powder Inhaler with Integrated Sensors.

Purpose: Machine learning models informed by sensor data inputs have the potential to provide individualized predictions of asthma deterioration. This study aimed to determine if data from an integrated digital inhaler could be used to develop a machine learning model capable of predicting impending exacerbations. Patients and Methods: Adult patients with poorly controlled asthma were enrolled in a 12-week, open-label study using ProAir® Digihaler®, an electronic multi-dose dry powder inhaler (eMDPI) with integrated sensors, as reliever medication (albuterol, 90 µg/dose; 1-2 inhalations every 4 hours, as needed). Throughout the study, the eMDPI recorded inhaler use, peak inspiratory flow (PIF), inhalation volume, inhalation duration, and time to PIF. A model predictive of impending exacerbations was generated by applying machine learning techniques to data downloaded from the inhalers, together with clinical and demographic information. The generated model was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic area under curve (ROC AUC) analysis. Results: Of 360 patients included in the predictive analysis, 64 experienced a total of 78 exacerbations. Increased albuterol use preceded exacerbations; the mean number of inhalations in the 24-hours preceding an exacerbation was 7.3 (standard deviation 17.3). The machine learning model, using gradient-boosting trees with data from the eMDPI and baseline patient characteristics, predicted an impending exacerbation over the following 5 days with an ROC AUC of 0.83 (95% confidence interval: 0.77-0.90). The feature of the model with the highest weight was the mean number of daily inhalations during the 4 days prior to the day the prediction was made. Conclusion: A machine learning model to predict impending asthma exacerbations using data from the eMDPI was successfully developed. This approach may support a shift from reactive care to proactive, preventative, and personalized management of chronic respiratory diseases.

Effectiveness of a Digital Inhaler System for Patients With Asthma: A 12-Week, Open-Label, Randomized Study (CONNECT1).

BACKGROUND: The albuterol Digihaler (albuterol 90 µg/dose) transmits data wirelessly to a smart device application, which synchronizes with a Digital Health Platform to store and transfer data to a web-based Dashboard. The Reliever Digihaler System (RDS) comprises the albuterol Digihaler, application, Digital Health Platform and Dashboard. This allows patients and health care professionals to review reliever inhaler usage and inhalation quality to aid clinical decision making. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the effectiveness, as measured by change in asthma control, of the RDS compared with standard of care. METHODS: In this 12-week study, participants aged 13 years or older with suboptimal asthma control (Asthma Control Test [ACT] score < 19) were randomized to use either RDS or standard of care albuterol reliever inhalers. The health care professionals were recommended at study start to check each participant's inhalation data (including inhalation quantity and quality parameters) 1 or more times per week. Primary outcome was the proportion of participants achieving clinically meaningful improvement in asthma control (ACT score ≥ 20 at week 12 and/or increase ≥ 3 units from baseline). Bayesian statistical analysis provided a posterior probability distribution for odds ratios with corresponding credible intervals. RESULTS: Participants using the RDS (n = 167) had an 85.3% probability of greater odds of clinically meaningful asthma control improvements than those using SoC (n = 166) after 3 months (mean odds ratio 1.33; 95% credible interval 0.813-2.050). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, participants using the RDS had greater odds of clinically meaningful improvements in asthma control versus SoC after 3 months. Further investigation of the potential of the RDS to help improve asthma management is warranted.

Investigating the Accuracy of the Digihaler, a New Electronic Multidose Dry-Powder Inhaler, in Measuring Inhalation Parameters.

Background: The Digihaler® is a Food and Drug Administration-approved, digital multidose dry powder inhaler with an integrated electronic module that provides patients and health care professionals with feedback on inhalation parameters, including usage, adherence, and technique. This study compared inhalation parameters measured using the Digihaler with readings made simultaneously using an inhalation profile recorder (IPR). Methods: This single-visit, open-label study enrolled children (4-17 years) and adults (18-55 years) with asthma, and adults (≥55 years) with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Participants made three separate inhalations using an empty Digihaler device, each measured simultaneously by the Digihaler and IPR. Inhalation profiles were downloaded from the devices at the end of the study. Inhalation parameters measured included peak inspiratory flow (PIF) and inhaled volume (inhV). The profile with the highest PIF and corresponding IPR profile were analyzed. Results: Overall, 150 participants were enrolled; inhalation data were available for 148 (50 children and 49 adults with asthma, and 49 with COPD). Mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 39.1 (24.5) years; 51% of participants were male. Overall mean (SD) PIFs as measured by the Digihaler and IPR were 70.62 (17.73) L/min and 72.55 (19.42) L/min, respectively, with a mean percentage difference of -1.75% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.64 to 0.15). Mean percentage differences between the Digihaler and IPR measurements of PIF ranged from -2.97% among adults with COPD to 0.16% among children with asthma. Overall mean (SD) inhV for the Digihaler and IPR were 1.57 (0.69) L and 1.67 (0.73) L, respectively, with a mean percentage difference of -6.11 (95% CI: -8.08 to -4.13). There was a strong correlation between PIF and inhV measurements taken by the Digihaler and those taken by the IPR (Spearman's correlation coefficient = 0.96). Conclusions: Our findings confirm the ability of the Digihaler to provide accurate measurement of inhalation parameters when used by patients.

Digital Health Technology in Asthma: A Comprehensive Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: A variety of digital intervention approaches have been investigated for asthma therapy during the past decade, with different levels of interactivity and personalization and a range of impacts on different outcome measurements. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of digital interventions in asthma with regard to acceptability and outcomes and evaluate the potential of digital initiatives for monitoring or treating patients with asthma. METHODS: We evaluated digital interventions using a scoping review methodology through a literature search and review. Of 871 articles identified, 121 were evaluated to explore intervention characteristics, the perception and acceptability of digital interventions to patients and physicians, and effects on asthma outcomes. Interventions were categorized by their level of interactivity with the patient. RESULTS: Interventions featuring non-individualized content sent to patients appeared capable of promoting improved adherence to inhaled corticosteroids, but with no identified improvement in asthma burden; and data-gathering interventions appeared to have little effect on adherence or asthma burden. Evidence of improvement in both adherence and patients' impairment due to asthma were seen only with interactive interventions involving two-way responsive patient communication. Digital interventions were generally positively perceived by patients and physicians. Implementation was considered feasible, with certain preferences for design and features important to drive use. CONCLUSIONS: Digital health interventions show substantial promise for asthma disease monitoring and personalization of treatment. To be successful, future interventions will need to include both inhaler device and software elements, combining accurate measurement of clinical parameters with careful consideration of ease of use, personalization, and patient engagement aspects.

Asthma control is associated with economic outcomes, work productivity and health-related quality of life in patients with asthma.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this analysis was to examine the association between asthma control (based on Asthma Control Test (ACT) responses) and healthcare resource utilisation (HRU), work productivity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among a nationwide sample of US adults with a self-reported diagnosis of asthma and without comorbid chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. METHODS: Data were obtained from the 2015 and 2016 self-administered, internet-based National Health and Wellness Surveys. Patients were grouped by ACT score (≤15: poorly controlled; 16-19: partly controlled; 20-25: well-controlled asthma). Study outcomes included HRU (patient-reported healthcare provider visits, emergency department visits and hospitalisations during the previous 6 months); work productivity, measured using the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-General Health Scale; HRU-associated costs and work productivity loss and HRQoL, measured using EuroQoL-5 Dimensions-5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) and the Short Form Health Survey-36V.2 (SF-36V.2). Incremental differences in outcomes between groups were assessed using generalised linear models adjusted for covariates. RESULTS: Of 7820 eligible adults, 17.4% had poorly controlled, 20.1% partly controlled and 62.5% well-controlled asthma. Well-controlled asthma was associated with significantly lower HRU (p<0.001) and lower mean direct costs ($6012 vs $8554 and $15 262, respectively; p<0.001); well-controlled asthma was also associated with significantly lower mean scores for work absenteeism, work presenteeism, overall work impairment and activity impairment (all p<0.001), and lower mean indirect costs ($6353 vs $10 448 and $14 764, respectively; p<0.001). Clinically meaningful differences favouring well-controlled asthma were seen for all HRQoL measures, with statistically significantly higher adjusted mean EQ-5D-5L index and SF-6D Health Utilities Index scores (derived from SF-36V.2) for patients with well-controlled asthma compared with partly controlled or poorly controlled asthma (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrates a clear relationship between asthma control and its impact on HRU, costs, work productivity and HRQoL. This will allow for better identification and management of patients with poorly controlled asthma.

Asthma control and COPD symptom burden in patients using fixed-dose combination inhalers (SPRINT study).

Previous studies have found suboptimal control of symptom burden to be widespread among patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The Phase IV SPRINT study was conducted in 10 countries in Europe to assess asthma disease control and COPD symptom burden in patients treated with a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting beta agonists (LABAs). SPRINT included 1101 patients with asthma and 560 with COPD; all were receiving treatment with an FDC of ICS/LABA, delivered via various inhalers. Data were obtained over a 3-month period, during a single routine physician's office visit. Asthma control was defined as Asthma Control Test (ACT) score >19. COPD symptom burden was assessed by COPD Assessment Test (CAT), with a CAT score <10 defining low COPD symptom burden. Among patients using any ICS/LABA FDC, 62% of patients with asthma had achieved disease control (ACT score >19) and 16% of patients with COPD had low symptom burden (CAT score <10).

DuoResp® Spiromax® adherence, satisfaction and ease of use: findings from a multi-country observational study in patients with asthma and COPD in Europe (SPRINT).

Objective: Adherence and inhaler technique are often suboptimal in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). New inhalers have been developed to improve these determinants of treatment effectiveness. We assessed treatment adherence, satisfaction, and ease of use of DuoResp® Spiromax® among SPRINT study participants.Methods: The Phase IV SPRINT study was conducted in 10 European countries. Asthma and COPD patients were receiving a fixed-dose combination of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA), delivered via various inhalers including DuoResp Spiromax. DuoResp Spiromax users self-assessed adherence using the 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8®), and ease of use and satisfaction using 10-point scales, during a single physician's office visit.Results: Of 1661 (asthma: n = 1101; COPD: n = 560) SPRINT study participants, 342 (asthma: n = 235; COPD: n = 107) received DuoResp Spiromax prior to inclusion. Overall, 72.5% of DuoResp Spiromax users reported medium or high adherence (MMAS-8 score ≥6). Mean (standard deviation [SD]) satisfaction score for DuoResp Spiromax was 8.9 (1.6). Almost all (98.8%) DuoResp Spiromax users were at least satisfied with their inhaler; 85.4% were very satisfied. Mean (SD) ease of use score for DuoResp Spiromax was 9.1 (1.3).Conclusions: Asthma and COPD patients using DuoResp Spiromax reported moderate-to-high medication adherence, were very satisfied with their inhaler and found it easy to use.

Digital technologies and adherence in respiratory diseases: the road ahead.

Outcomes for patients with chronic respiratory diseases remain poor despite the development of novel therapies. In part, this reflects the fact that adherence to therapy is low and clinicians lack accurate methods to assess this issue. Digital technologies hold promise to overcome these barriers to care. For example, algorithmic analysis of large amounts of information collected on health status and treatment use, along with other disease relevant information such as environmental data, can be used to help guide personalised interventions that may have a positive health impact, such as establishing habitual and correct inhaler use. Novel approaches to data analysis also offer the possibility of statistical algorithms that are better able to predict exacerbations, thereby creating opportunities for preventive interventions that may adapt therapy as disease activity changes. To realise these possibilities, digital approaches to disease management should be supported by strong evidence, have a solid infrastructure, be designed collaboratively as clinically effective and cost-effective systems, and reflect the needs of patients and healthcare providers. Regulatory standards for digital interventions and strategies to handle the large amounts of data generated are also needed. This review highlights the opportunities provided by digital technologies for managing patients with respiratory diseases.

Comparison of correct technique and preference for Spiromax®, Easyhaler® and Turbuhaler®: a single-site, single-visit, crossover study in inhaler-naïve adult volunteers.

Background: Many patients do not use inhalers correctly. Inhalers associated with good technique have the potential to improve symptom control and are often preferred by patients. Methods: Inhaler-naïve, adult volunteers were randomized to use empty Spiromax®, Easyhaler®, and Turbuhaler® dry powder inhalers (DPIs) in one of six possible sequences in this single-site, single-visit, crossover study conducted in Sweden. Randomization was stratified by age and gender. Participants attempted to use each device intuitively (no instructions) and after reading the instructions for use from the patient information leaflet. Device preference was surveyed after using all devices. Mastery of device handling (i.e. dose preparation) or inhalation was defined as having no healthcare-professional-observed errors. The primary endpoint was mastery of device handling after reading the instructions. Results: More participants mastered device handling with Spiromax vs Easyhaler or Turbuhaler, both intuitively (44%, 0%, and 10%, respectively) and after reading the instructions (99%, 56%, and 81%, respectively). Fewer participants had ≥1 device-handling error with Spiromax than with the other devices. The percentage of participants still showing inhalation errors after reading the instructions ranged between 21% for Spiromax and 40% for Easyhaler. After reading instructions, mastery of handling and inhalation was numerically lower among older (aged >60 years) vs younger participants across all devices. Most participants preferred Spiromax for device handling (59%) and intuitiveness/ease of use (61%). Conclusion: These findings highlight that important differences exist between DPI devices, which could have implications for disease control when selecting a device for a patient.

Evaluation of inhaler technique and achievement and maintenance of mastery of budesonide/formoterol Spiromax® compared with budesonide/formoterol Turbuhaler® in adult patients with asthma: the Easy Low Instruction Over Time (ELIOT) study.

BACKGROUND: Incorrect inhaler technique is a common cause of poor asthma control. This two-phase pragmatic study evaluated inhaler technique mastery and maintenance of mastery with DuoResp® (budesonide-formoterol [BF]) Spiromax® compared with Symbicort® (BF) Turbuhaler® in patients with asthma who were receiving inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting ß2-agonists. METHODS: In the initial cross-sectional phase, patients were randomized to a 6-step training protocol with empty Spiromax and Turbuhaler devices. Patients initially demonstrating ≥1 error with their current device, and then achieving mastery with both Spiromax and Turbuhaler (absence of healthcare professional [HCP]-observed errors), were eligible for the longitudinal phase. In the longitudinal phase, patients were randomized to BF Spiromax or BF Turbuhaler. Co-primary endpoints were the proportions of patients achieving device mastery after three training steps and maintaining device mastery (defined as the absence of HCP-observed errors after 12 weeks of use). Secondary endpoints included device preference, handling error frequency, asthma control, and safety. Exploratory endpoints included assessment of device mastery by an independent external expert reviewing video recordings of a subset of patients. RESULTS: Four hundred ninety-three patients participated in the cross-sectional phase, and 395 patients in the longitudinal phase. In the cross-sectional phase, more patients achieved device mastery after three training steps with Spiromax (94%) versus Turbuhaler (87%) (odds ratio [OR] 3.77 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.05-6.95], p < 0.001). Longitudinal phase data indicated that the odds of maintaining inhaler mastery at 12 weeks were not statistically significantly different (OR 1.26 [95% CI 0.80-1.98], p = 0.316). Asthma control improved in both groups with no significant difference between groups (OR 0.11 [95% CI -0.09-0.30]). An exploratory analysis indicated that the odds of maintaining independent expert-verified device mastery were significantly higher for patients using Spiromax versus Turbuhaler (OR 2.11 [95% CI 1.25-3.54]). CONCLUSIONS: In the cross-sectional phase, a significantly greater proportion of patients using Spiromax versus Turbuhaler achieved device mastery; in the longitudinal phase, the proportion of patients maintaining device mastery with Spiromax versus Turbuhaler was similar. An exploratory independent expert-verified analysis found Spiromax was associated with higher levels of device mastery after 12 weeks. Asthma control was improved by treatment with both BF Spiromax and BF Turbuhaler. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2013-004630-14 (registration date 23 January 2014); NCT02570425 .

Expert Nordic perspectives on the potential of novel inhalers to overcome unmet needs in the management of obstructive lung disease.

The effective self-management of obstructive lung disease is dependent upon the patient achieving good inhaler technique. However, many current inhalers are complicated to use, which may lead to handling difficulties. These difficulties can cause clinically relevant errors, whereby pharmacotherapy fails to achieve adequate lung deposition and therapeutic effect. In this report, the potential of novel inhaler devices to overcome unmet needs in the management of obstructive lung disease is considered by a panel of Nordic experts. The panel concludes that innovative inhalers can contribute to good disease management and better use of healthcare resources.

Effect of inhalation profile and throat geometry on predicted lung deposition of budesonide and formoterol (BF) in COPD: An in-vitro comparison of Spiromax with Turbuhaler.

Successful delivery of inhalation medication to the lungs can be affected by the inhalation manoeuvre used. Conventional in-vitro testing of the emitted dose from a dry powder inhaler (DPI) uses a vacuum pump to simulate an inhalation. We have adapted this method by replacing the pump with patient inhalation profiles and an anatomical throat. Three anatomical throat sizes and three inhalation profiles were used. The profiles represented the 10th, 50th and 90th percentiles of peak inhalation flow and acceleration of flow from a population of 50 COPD patients inhaling through empty Spiromax and Turbuhaler devices. Combining the dose emission results for the three throat sizes, the mean (SD) budesonide fine-particle dose (FPD) from budesonide-formoterol Spiromax 320/9 µg was 78.91 (20.18), 79.91 (15.36) and 75.10 (19.91)µg and the total emitted dose (TED) of budesonide was 263.69 (40.74), 261.20 (21.65) and 261.61 (45.65)µg. Similarly, the FPD from 320/9 µg Turbuhaler was 22.45 (3.24), 52.20 (12.57) and 69.11 (75.10)µg with a TED of 143.80 (14.90), 149.50 (26.61) and 158.61 (43.04)µg. Spiromax showed greater consistency than Turbuhaler over a range of inspiratory flow profiles. The results demonstrate the value of this new method to assess the doses that patients receive during real-life use of their DPI.