[Assessment of the handling of inhaler devices: an observational study of children in primary care]. / Comparaison de l'utilisation des dispositifs d'inhalation par les enfants asthmatiques en pratique de ville.

UNLABELLED: The correct use of inhaler devices is important for the efficacy of the treatment of childhood asthma. Few studies have compared the use of inhaler devices in real life, in particular in children. AIM: To determine whether such devices were correctly used in asthmatic children within a primary care setting. POPULATION AND METHODS: Three hundred and sixty-four children aged 5 to 18 years (mean+/-SD: 14.1+/-3.3) treated for at least 1 month by an inhaler device were included. During a routine visit to the doctor, the primary care physician assessed the childrens' handling of their current device, using a checklist established for each device from the package leaflet. RESULTS: At least half of the patients made at least 1 error, regardless of the inhaler used. The best result was obtained with the Diskus (46% error-rate) and the worst with the pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) (78% error-rate). The rank order of increasing critical-error rate (at least 1 error) was as follows: Diskus (6%)

Randomised double masked trial comparing the efficacy and tolerance of 0.05% mequitazine eye drops versus 0.05% levocabastine and placebo in allergic conjunctivitis induced by a conjunctival provocation test with Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus.

AIM: A double masked randomised trial comparing 0.05% mequitazine eye drops with 0.05% levocabastine and placebo was carried out in otherwise healthy volunteers allergic to house dust mites (Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus). METHOD: Double masked, randomised, single centre study, comparing three parallel treatment groups. 60 healthy adults with a confirmed history of allergic conjunctivitis to house dust mites for at least 2 years were included and completed the trial. Conjunctival provocation tests (CPT) were done at screening, at visit 2 (V2) (1 week later), and at visit 3 (V3) (2 weeks after V2). Treatment was instilled in the same eye, 5 minutes after the CPT at V2, and twice daily until V3. CPT were scored 5, 10, 15, and 60 minutes after instillation of the dose of Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus antigen determined at inclusion (V2, curative test) or resulting in positivity (V3, preventive test) RESULTS: In the V2 (curative) test the difference between the active treatments and placebo on the redness+itching scores was not significant. At the V3 (preventive) CPT there was a lower number of reactions at the threshold dose with mequitazine (20%) compared to placebo (60%, p = 0.01) or levocabastine (45%, p = 0.10). CONCLUSION: This trial failed to clearly demonstrate curative superiority of topical antihistamines with placebo, when a single dose of treatment was instilled following CPT. However mequitazine 0.05% eye drops were superior to placebo in preventing a reaction to CPT, after 2 weeks of treatment.

Assessment of handling of inhaler devices in real life: an observational study in 3811 patients in primary care.

The correct use of inhalation devices is an inclusion criterion for all studies comparing inhaled treatments. In real life, however, patients may make many errors with their usual inhalation device, which may negate the benefits observed in clinical trials. Our study was undertaken to compare inhalation device handling in real life. A total of 3811 patients treated for at least 1 month with an inhalation device (Aerolizer, Autohaler, Diskus, pressurized metered dose inhaler (pMDI), or Turbuhaler) were included in this observational study performed in primary care in France between February 1st and July 14th, 2002. General practitioners had to assess patient handling of their usual inhaler device with the help of a checklist established for each inhaler model, from the package leaflet. Seventy-six percent of patients made at least one error with pMDI compared to 49-55% with breath-actuated inhalers. Errors compromising treatment efficacy were made by 11-12% of patients treated with Aerolizer, Autohaler, or Diskus compared to 28% and 32% of patients treated with pMDI and Turbuhaler, respectively. Overestimation of good inhalation by general practitioners was maximal for Turbuhaler (24%), and lowest for Autohaler and pMDI (6%). Ninety percent of general practitioners felt that participation in the study would improve error detection. These results suggest that there are differences in the handling of inhaler devices in real life in primary care that are not taken into account in controlled studies. There is a need for continued education of prescribers and users in the proper use of these devices to improve treatment efficacy.

The CADEUS study: methods and logistics.

PURPOSE: At the request of the French Health authorities, a study called CADEUS (COX-2 inhibitors and NSAIDs: description of users) aimed to describe the users of cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors and traditional non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (tNSAIDs). We report here the methodology, logistics and study design performances. METHODS: CADEUS is a cohort study designed to include 40,000 patients randomly sampled monthly in the French National Healthcare Insurance database, who received at least one dispensation of celecoxib, rofecoxib or tNSAIDs (1:1:2), from September 2003 to August 2004. Patients and prescribers were asked to fill a questionnaire on indication, medical history, risk factors and hospitalizations since drug acquisition. There was no reminder. For each respondent, healthcare resources used for the 6 months before and after inclusion were extracted from the database. Response rate, response delay, responders and non-responders characteristics were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 222,879 patients and their prescribers contacted, 20.8% patients and 32.6% prescribers responded. Median response delay was 16 days for patients and 17 days for physicians. Factors associated with patient response were age, cohort, type of prescriber and period of inclusion. CONCLUSION: This is the first study of this design in France, combining data from a claims database and direct patient and prescriber questionnaires.

Channelling of COX-2 inhibitors to patients at higher gastrointestinal risk but not at lower cardiovascular risk: the Cox2 inhibitors and tNSAIDs description of users (CADEUS) study.

PURPOSE: To describe the characteristics of users of cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors and traditional nonselective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (tNSAIDs) in France. METHODS: Between 1 August 2003 and 31 July 2004, patients who received at least one dispensing of celecoxib, rofecoxib or tNSAIDs were randomly sampled with a 1:1:2 target ratio within the French National Healthcare Insurance database. Patients and prescribers were asked to fill a questionnaire on socio-demographic characteristics, NSAID indication and use and previous medical history. For each respondent, healthcare resources used in the 6 months before inclusion were extracted from the database. Multivariate logistic regression was used to study the determinants of a first COX-2 inhibitor dispensing. RESULTS: Of the 45 217 patients included, 13 065 COX-2 inhibitors and 13 553 tNSAID users had prescriber data. Ninety seven per cent of COX-2 inhibitor prescriptions were for 'rheumatological' indications, whereas 37% of tNSAIDs use was for benign diseases (n = 2643) or analgesia (n = 2318). Among patients with rheumatological indications (n = 4730) and a first COX-2 inhibitor (n = 2427) or tNSAID (n = 2303) dispensing, multivariate analysis of factors associated with COX-2 inhibitors dispensing showed that, compared to new tNSAID users, new COX-2 inhibitor users were older, more often female, on sick leave or unemployed. COX-2 use was also associated with previous gastrointestinal history and previous gastroprotective agent dispensing, but not with previous cardiovascular (CV) history. CONCLUSION: The choice of NSAID depended largely on indication and on previous gastrointestinal history, in line with the recommendations of the French health authorities. Possible knowledge of CV risk associated with COX-2 inhibitors did not influence prescribing.

Antidepressants: general practitioners' opinions and clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare general practitioners' (GPs) opinions on antidepressant drugs and their prescriptions to depressed patients. METHOD: Between November 2000 and July 2001 a representative sample of French GPs was asked their opinion of the 15 most prescribed antidepressants, and then to describe the treatments of the current depressive episode of four depressive patients each, their changes and the reasons thereof. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-one GPs and 778 patients participated. The best-ranked antidepressants by the GPs were paroxetine, fluoxetine, sertraline and clomipramine for efficacy, and paroxetine, tianeptine, sertraline and fluoxetine for tolerability. In patients, the drugs most often prescribed were fluoxetine, paroxetine, and sertraline. Those least often stopped for intolerance were moclobemide (0%), dosulepine (0%), venlafaxine (4.5%) and citalopram (5.0%), and maprotiline (0%), citalopram (1.7%) and venlafaxine (2.3%) for lack of efficacy. The best predictor for prescription of antidepressants was the GPs' overall ranking, itself depending on opinions of the tolerability and efficacy of the drug. However, opinions of tolerability and efficacy were not related to the rates of treatment discontinuation for intolerability or inefficacy. CONCLUSION: Prescriber opinion does not seem related to actual product performance.

Antidepressants: psychiatrists' opinions and clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare psychiatrists' opinion on antidepressant drugs and their prescriptions to depressed patients. METHOD: Between January and September 1999 a representative sample of French psychiatrists was asked their opinion of the 15 most prescribed antidepressants, and then to describe the treatments of the current depressive episode of four depressive patients each, their changes and the reason thereof. RESULTS: A total of 232 psychiatrists and 935 patients participated. The best ranked antidepressants were clomipramine, paroxetine and amitriptyline for efficacy, tianeptine, paroxetine and citalopram for tolerability. In patients, the most often prescribed were paroxetine, fluoxetine and venlafaxine. Those least often stopped for intolerance were tianeptine (2.9%), citalopram (5.2%), venlafaxine (3.3%) and amitriptyline (5.7%) for lack of efficacy. There was no difference in stopping rates for inefficacy of tricyclics and serotonin-selective agents. CONCLUSION: The best predictors for the prescribed antidepressants were the psychiatrists' overall rankings and opinions of the tolerability of the drug.