Preference for Easyhaler® Over Previous Dry Powder Inhalers in Asthma Patients: Results of the DPI PREFER Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE: To study patient preference for and satisfaction with the Easyhaler® device and to assess ease of training and use of the inhaler in patients previously treated with a variety of dry powder inhalers (DPIs). METHODS: We designed a non-interventional, cross-sectional, single-visit observational study of adult patients with persistent asthma referred to specialized care who had previously been treated with DPI inhalers for at least 3 months. Once clinical baseline data had been checked, patients filled in questionnaires on asthma control (GINA 2019), Feeling of Satisfaction with the Inhaler (FSI-10), and adherence (TAI and Morisky-Green questionnaires). Thereafter, all patients were trained in the use of Easyhaler. We assessed ease of use and satisfaction (FSI-10) with Easyhaler, as well as inhaler device preferences. RESULTS: We recruited 502 patients (mean age, 50.2 ± 16.2 y; 63.1% female), of whom 485 were evaluable. In response to the main objective of the study, we compared the values of the self-completed adapted FSI-10, to measure satisfaction with the inhaler. A significantly higher score in each item of the questionnaire was recorded for Easyhaler. Overall, 38% of patients showed exclusive preference for Easyhaler (compared with 15% for the previous device) or were evenly matched in 46% of cases. CONCLUSION: In the present study, Easyhaler achieved better patient ratings in terms of preference and satisfaction than previously used DPI devices. In order to improve asthma adherence strategies, patient preferences and device choice should be taken into account.

Economic analysis of intermittent intravenous outpatient treatment with levosimendan in advanced heart failure in Spain.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Advanced heart failure (HF) leads to high hospitalization and mortality rates. The LION-HEART study was a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of intravenous administration of intermittent doses of levosimendan in outpatients with advanced HF. The aim of the present study was to perform a cost analysis to determine whether the lower rate of hospitalizations for HF, observed in patients treated with levosimendan in the LION-HEART study, can generate savings for the Spanish national health system compared with the option of not treating patients with advanced HF. METHODS: An economic model was used that included IC hospitalization rates from the LION-HEART study, the costs of hospitalization due to HF and those of the acquisition and intravenous administration of levosimendan. The time horizon of the analysis was 12 months. Two analyses were carried out, one deterministic and the other probabilistic (second-order Monte Carlo simulation). RESULTS: In the deterministic analysis, the total saving for each patient treated with levosimendan would amount to-€698.48. In the probabilistic analysis, the saving per patient treated with levosimendan would be-€849.94 (95%CI, €133.12 to-€2,255.31). The probability of savings with levosimendan compared with the no treatment option would be 94.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Intermittent ambulatory treatment with levosimendan can generate savings for the Spanish national health system compared with the option of not treating patients with advanced HF.

[Healthcare resources for asthma management at primary care level: Asthmabarometer Project]. / Recursos asistenciales en atención primaria para manejo del asma: proyecto Asmabarómetro.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe the current provision of basic resources for asthma management in Primary Health Care (PHC). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study, with an ad hoc quantitative survey. LOCATION AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 380 primary healthcare physicians in Spain. INTERVENTIONS AND MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Analysis of perceptions of management and use of basic human, organisational and material resources to ensure appropriate care provision to asthma patients. RESULTS: Survey respondents stated that their centre did not have a consultant doctor (64%) or nurse (62%) in respiratory disease. Almost all (92%) of the centres have spirometers, of which 70% have peak flow meters, and 93% have placebo inhalers. In the last year, respondents have received specific theoretical/practical training from the centre (46%), and by third parties (83%). More than three-quarters (78%) of the centres has educational material available for patients. There is no specific healthcare protocol in 36% of the centres, and 43% had no referral protocol. A clinical interview is conducted to monitor the patient (90%), but there are no validated questionnaires to measure therapeutic adherence (85%), or a checklist to check inhalation technique (83%). Differences are observed in the relevant variables in the analysis of each Spanish Autonomous Community. CONCLUSIONS: Access to certain resources in the care of patients with asthma is limited in aspects of coordination between levels, varied according to Spanish Autonomous Community, and improved in most health resources in Asthma.