Identifying critical inhalation technique errors in Dry Powder Inhaler use in patients with COPD based on the association with health status and exacerbations: findings from the multi-country cross-sectional observational PIFotal study.

BACKGROUND: Correct inhaler use depends on a complex interplay of factors, including device preparation and generating sufficient inspiratory flow. It is currently unknown which inhalation technique errors can be considered critical in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients on Dry Powder Inhaler (DPI) maintenance therapy. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between inhalation technique errors and health status or exacerbations in patients with COPD. Additionally, the association between the number of errors and COPD outcomes was determined. METHODS: The PIFotal study is a cross-sectional multi-country observational study in a primary care setting, including 1434 COPD patients aged ≥ 40 years (50.1% female; mean age 69.2 yrs) using a DPI for their maintenance therapy. Inhalation technique was video recorded and scored by two independent researchers using inhaler-specific checklists. Health status was assessed with two questionnaires; the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) and the COPD Assessment Test (CAT). The number of moderate and severe exacerbations in the past 12 months was recorded. Critical errors were identified based on their association with health status or exacerbations through multi-level prediction models adjusted for identified confounding. RESULTS: Errors in inhalation technique steps 'Breathe in', 'Hold breath', and 'Breathe out calmly after inhalation' were significantly associated with poorer CCQ and CAT outcomes and thus deemed critical. None of the errors were significantly associated with moderate exacerbations. Patients with errors 'Preparation', 'Hold inhaler in correct position during inhalation', and 'Breathe in' had significantly more severe exacerbations, and therefore these errors were also deemed critical. 81.3% of patients with COPD made at least one critical error. Specific combinations of errors were associated with worse outcomes. The more inhalation technique errors identified, the poorer the health status and the higher the exacerbation rate. CONCLUSION: In this study, we identified multiple critical inhalation technique errors in COPD patients using DPIs each associated with poorer outcomes. Explorative analysis revealed that specific combinations of errors may be of clinical relevance, especially those related to the inhalation manoeuvre. COPD outcomes worsened with increasing error count. These results warrant further prospective longitudinal studies to establish the effect of correcting these errors on COPD control. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04532853 (31/08/2020).

Patient perceptions of the re-usable Respimatt® Soft Mist™ inhaler in current users and those switching to the device: A real-world, non-interventional COPD study.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Inhalers are often used to treat patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, there are many available, which can lead to confusion and poor inhaler technique. It is important for a patient to be happy with their inhaler. This study looked at how patients liked the re-usable Respimat® Soft Mist™ inhaler vs. their previous inhaler. It also asked whether they would be willing to continue using the device at the end of the study period.After 4-6 weeks of using the re-usable device, patients reported that they were happy with the inhaler and most would be willing to carry on using it.Overall, these results show that doctors can prescribe Respimat re-usable to patients, even if the patient has not used the inhaler before.

Clinical Implications of Peak Inspiratory Flow in COPD: Post Hoc Analyses of the TRONARTO Study.

Background: In patients with COPD, inhalation ability should be assessed when considering inhaler choice. To evaluate whether the soft mist inhaler (SMI) is suitable for COPD patients irrespective of inhalation ability, the TRONARTO study investigated the efficacy of dual long-acting bronchodilator therapy delivered via the Respimat® SMI on lung function in patients with COPD stratified by inhalation ability. Tiotropium/olodaterol delivered via the SMI was effective both in patients with peak inspiratory flow (PIF) <60 L/min and PIF ≥60 L/min, measured against medium-low resistance. Methods: This congress compilation summarizes post hoc analyses from the TRONARTO study presented at the annual American Thoracic Society 2022 and European Respiratory Society 2022 meetings. These analyses evaluated PIF in over 200 patients, with PIF measurements taken daily at home for 4 weeks, and in the clinic at baseline, Weeks 2 and 4. Results: Overall, 57.9% of patients had a PIF range (difference between lowest and highest PIF measurements) <20 L/min (12.4% of patients had PIF range <10 L/min). At-home PIF range decreased over the study period, suggesting that inhaler training/repeated PIF measurements may help to make patients' inspiratory effort more consistent. Some patient characteristics correlated with lower PIF (female gender, shorter stature, more severe disease, worse airflow obstruction) and lower PIF range (more severe disease). PIF measurements differed between medium-low and high-resistance settings, highlighting the importance of measuring PIF at the resistance of a patient's inhaler. PIF correlated poorly with spirometry measurements. Conclusion: As indicated in COPD management guidelines, choice of inhaler is essential to optimize pharmacologic therapies for COPD. Poor inspiratory ability should be viewed as a treatable trait that can help to inform inhaler choice. Inhaler training and consideration of PIF (if patients use a dry powder inhaler) can reduce patient-to-inhaler mismatch, with potential consequences for health status and exacerbation risk.

A Pooled Analysis of Mortality in Patients with COPD Receiving Dual Bronchodilation with and without Additional Inhaled Corticosteroid.

Background: Recent studies report a lower mortality rate during treatment with long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA)/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) versus LAMA/LABA in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and a history of exacerbations. Objective: We compared time to all-cause mortality with LAMA/LABA versus LAMA/LABA/ICS in patients with mild-to-very-severe COPD and a predominantly low exacerbation risk. Methods: Data were pooled from six randomized controlled trials (TONADO 1/2, DYNAGITO, WISDOM, UPLIFT and TIOSPIR; LAMA/LABA: n = 3156, LAMA/LABA/ICS: n = 11,891). Analysis was on-treatment and data were censored at 52 weeks. Patients on LAMA/LABA/ICS received ICS prior to study entry, which was not withdrawn at randomization. Patients on LAMA/LABA/ICS were propensity score (PS)-matched to patients on LAMA/LABA who had not previously received ICS; covariates included age, sex, geographical region, smoking status, post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second percent predicted, exacerbation history in previous year, body mass index and time since diagnosis. Time to all-cause mortality was assessed using Cox proportional hazard regression models. Results: After PS matching, 3133 patients on LAMA/LABA and 3133 patients on LAMA/LABA/ICS were analyzed. Fewer than 20% of patients reported ≥2 exacerbations in the prior year (LAMA/LABA: 19.1%; LAMA/LABA/ICS: 19.0%). There were 41 (1.3%) deaths on LAMA/LABA and 45 (1.4%) deaths on LAMA/LABA/ICS. No statistically significant difference in time to death was observed between treatment arms (hazard ratio for LAMA/LABA 1.06; 95% confidence intervals 0.68, 1.64; P = 0.806). Sensitivity analyses conducted using different covariates or in an intent-to-treat population showed similar results. Conclusion: This pooled analysis of over 6000 patients with mild-to-very-severe COPD and predominantly low exacerbation risk showed no differences in mortality with LAMA/LABA versus LAMA/LABA/ICS, suggesting that the survival benefit of triple therapy seen in some recent studies may be specific to a high-risk population. This supports current Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease recommendations that triple therapy should be reserved for the subpopulations of patients who need it the most (eg, those with an eosinophilic phenotype and a high risk of exacerbations) to avoid ICS overuse.

Clinical recommendations for dry powder inhaler use in the management of COPD in primary care.

Over 1400 patients using dry powder inhalers (DPIs) to deliver COPD maintenance therapies were recruited across Europe and Australia. Their peak inspiratory flow (PIF) was measured, inhaler technique was observed, and adherence to treatment assessed. From relating the findings with patient health status, and thereby identifying critical errors, key clinical recommendations for primary care clinicians were determined, namely - measure PIF before prescribing a DPI to ensure inhalation manoeuvre ability is well-matched with the device. Some patients could benefit from inhalation training whereas others should have their DPI changed for one better suited to their inspiratory ability or alternatively be prescribed an active device (such as a soft mist inhaler or pressurized metered dose inhaler). Observing the inhalation technique was valuable however this misses suboptimal PIF (approaching one fourth of patients with a satisfactory observed manoeuvre had a suboptimal PIF for their DPI). Assess adherence as deliberate non-adherence can point to a mismatch between a patient and their inhaler (deliberate non-adherence was significantly associated with PIFs below the minimum for the DPI). In-person observation of inhalation technique was found to be inferior to video rating based on device-specific checklists. Where video assessments are not possible, observation training for healthcare professionals would therefore be valuable particularly to improve the ability to identify the critical errors associated with health status namely 'teeth and lips sealed around mouthpiece', 'breathe in' and 'breathing out calmly after inhalation'. However, it is recommended that observation alone should not replace PIF measurement in the DPI selection process.Trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04532853 .

Factors associated with health status and exacerbations in COPD maintenance therapy with dry powder inhalers.

The study aimed to determine the associations of Peak Inspiratory Flow (PIF), inhalation technique and adherence with health status and exacerbations in participants with COPD using DPI maintenance therapy. This cross-sectional multi-country observational real-world study included COPD participants aged ≥40 years using a DPI for maintenance therapy. PIF was measured three times with the In-Check DIAL G16: (1) typical PIF at resistance of participant's inhaler, (2) maximal PIF at resistance of participant's inhaler, (3) maximal PIF at low resistance. Suboptimal PIF (sPIF) was defined as PIF lower than required for the device. Participants completed questionnaires on health status (Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ)), adherence (Test of Adherence to Inhalers (TAI)) and exacerbations. Inhalation technique was assessed by standardised evaluation of video recordings. Complete data were available from 1434 participants (50.1% female, mean age 69.2 years). GOLD stage was available for 801 participants: GOLD stage I (23.6%), II (54.9%), III (17.4%) and IV (4.1%)). Of all participants, 29% had a sPIF, and 16% were shown able to generate an optimal PIF but failed to do so. sPIF was significantly associated with worse health status (0.226 (95% CI 0.107-0.346), worse units on CCQ; p = 0.001). The errors 'teeth and lips sealed around mouthpiece', 'breathe in', and 'breathe out calmly after inhalation' were related to health status. Adherence was not associated with health status. After correcting for multiple testing, no significant association was found with moderate or severe exacerbations in the last 12 months. To conclude, sPIF is associated with poorer health status. This study demonstrates the importance of PIF assessment in DPI inhalation therapy. Healthcare professionals should consider selecting appropriate inhalers in cases of sPIF.

Suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow and Critical Inhalation Errors are Associated with Higher COPD-Related Healthcare Costs.

Purpose: To assess the relationship between suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow (sPIF), inhalation technique errors, and non-adherence, with Healthcare Resource Utilisation (HCRU) in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients receiving maintenance therapy via a Dry Powder Inhaler (DPI). Patients and methods: The cross-sectional, multi-country PIFotal study included 1434 COPD patients (≥40 years) using a DPI for maintenance therapy. PIF was measured with the In-Check DIAL G16, and sPIF was defined as a typical PIF lower than required for the device. Inhalation technique was assessed by standardised evaluation of video recordings and grouped into 10 steps. Patients completed the "Test of Adherence to Inhalers" questionnaire. HCRU was operationalised as COPD-related costs for primary healthcare, secondary healthcare, medication, and total COPD-related costs in a 1-year period. Results: Participants with sPIF had higher medication costs compared with those with optimal PIF (cost ratio [CR]: 1.07, 95% CI [1.01, 1.14]). Multiple inhalation technique errors were associated with increased HCRU. Specifically, "insufficient inspiratory effort" with higher secondary healthcare costs (CR: 2.20, 95% CI [1.37, 3.54]) and higher total COPD-related costs (CR: 1.16, 95% CI 1.03-1.31). "no breath-hold following the inhalation manoeuvre (<6 s)" with higher medication costs (CR: 1.08, 95% CI [1.02, 1.15]) and total COPD-related costs (CR 1.17, 95% CI [1.07, 1.28]), and "not breathing out calmly after inhalation" with higher medication costs (CR: 1.19, 95% CI [1.04, 1.37]). Non-adherence was not significantly associated with HCRU. Conclusion: sPIF and inhalation technique errors were associated with higher COPD-related healthcare utilisation and costs in COPD patients on DPI maintenance therapy.

Impact of PIF, Inhalation Technique and Medication Adherence on Health Status and Exacerbations in COPD: Protocol of a Real-World Observational Study (PIFotal COPD Study).

INTRODUCTION: Dry powder inhalers (DPIs), a commonly prescribed inhaler type for respiratory diseases, require patients to generate sufficient peak inspiratory flow (PIF) to ensure optimal drug delivery to the airways. Effectiveness of therapy also requires a good inhalation technique and adequate medication adherence. For patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), recent studies conducted in tertiary care suggest that DPI users with suboptimal PIF have poorer COPD-related health status and increased exacerbation risk versus those with optimal PIF. The PIFotal study will investigate the impact of PIF, inhalation technique and medication adherence on patient-reported outcomes in patients with COPD in primary care using a DPI for their maintenance therapy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This cross-sectional observational study will assess 1200 patients (aged ≥ 40 years, diagnosed with COPD and using a DPI for COPD maintenance therapy for ≥ 3 months) from the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Greece and Australia. Assessments will consist of (1) PIF measurements (usual patient inhalation manoeuvre, maximal PIF against resistance of own inhaler, and maximal PIF against low resistance); (2) Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ), COPD Assessment Test and Test of Adherence to Inhalers scores; and (3) video recordings of patient inhalation technique. Dependent variables include health status (CCQ score), number of self-reported exacerbations in previous 12 months, and healthcare resource utilisation in previous 6 months. Independent variables include PIF values, inhalation technique errors, medication adherence, and demographic and clinical characteristics. In the primary analysis, the mean difference in CCQ score between patients (1) with optimal/suboptimal PIF, (2) exhibiting/not exhibiting inhalation technique errors, and (3) adhering/not adhering to medication will be examined in a multivariable linear mixed model. ETHICS: The study protocol was approved by ethics committees/institutional review boards of all participating sites prior to enrolment; written informed consent was obtained from all study participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04532853.

Diagnosis and management of asthma, COPD and asthma-COPD overlap among primary care physicians and respiratory/allergy specialists: A global survey.

INTRODUCTION: Asthma-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) overlap (ACO) is a heterogenous condition with clinical features shared by both asthma and COPD. OBJECTIVES: This online global survey of respiratory/allergy specialists and primary care practitioners (PCPs) was performed to understand current clinical approaches to the differential diagnosis and management of asthma, COPD and ACO. METHODS: Respondents were recruited through: (a) a global online physician respondent community (49,980 PCPs and 7205 specialists); (b) market research agents; (c) experts; (d) professional societies; (e) colleague invitation. Respondents were presented with a survey including hypothetical clinical scenarios of diagnostic uncertainty to identify management approaches. RESULTS: 891 responses (447 PCPs and 444 specialists) were collected across 13 countries. Reported features used for diagnosis of asthma and COPD were consistent with practice guidelines, but there was variability in those selected for ACO diagnosis. Features typically selected by specialists focused on spirometry/history, while PCPs focused on previous treatment/symptoms. Most respondents could correctly diagnose patients with features of ACO; however, features selected for theoretical diagnosis were often different to those selected in the case scenarios. Additionally, treatment selection was often inconsistent with guidelines, with over half of respondents not recommending inhaled corticosteroids in a patient with ACO and dominant features of asthma. CONCLUSION: While most PCPs and respiratory/allergy specialists can reach a working diagnosis of ACO, there remains uncertainty around which diagnostic features are most important and what constitutes optimal management. It is imperative that clinical studies including patients with ACO are initiated, allowing the generation of evidence-based management strategies.

Prospective observational study in patients with obstructive lung disease: NOVELTY design.

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have overlapping clinical features and share pathobiological mechanisms but are often considered distinct disorders. Prospective, observational studies across asthma, COPD and asthma-COPD overlap are limited. NOVELTY is a global, prospective observational 3-year study enrolling ∼12 000 patients ≥12 years of age from primary and specialist clinical practices in 19 countries (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02760329). NOVELTY's primary objectives are to describe patient characteristics, treatment patterns and disease burden over time, and to identify phenotypes and molecular endotypes associated with differential outcomes over time in patients with a diagnosis/suspected diagnosis of asthma and/or COPD. NOVELTY aims to recruit real-world patients, unlike clinical studies with restrictive inclusion/exclusion criteria. Data collected at yearly intervals include clinical assessments, spirometry, biospecimens, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and healthcare utilisation (HCU). PROs and HCU will also be collected 3-monthly via internet/telephone. Data will be used to identify phenotypes and endotypes associated with different trajectories for symptom burden, clinical progression or remission and HCU. Results may allow patient classification across obstructive lung disease by clinical outcomes and biomarker profile, rather than by conventional diagnostic labels and severity categories. NOVELTY will provide a rich data source on obstructive lung disease, to help improve patient outcomes and aid novel drug development.

Safety, reactogenicity and immunogenicity of two investigational pneumococcal protein-based vaccines: Results from a randomized phase II study in infants.

INTRODUCTION: Vaccination with formulations containing pneumococcal protein antigens such as pneumolysin toxoid (dPly) and histidine-triad protein D (PhtD) may extend serotype-related protection of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) against Streptococcus pneumoniae. METHODS: This phase II, multi-center, observer-blind trial conducted in Europe (NCT01204658) assessed 2 investigational vaccines containing 10 serotype-specific polysaccharide conjugates of PHiD-CV and either 10 or 30µg of dPly and PhtD each. Infants randomized 1:1:1:1 received 4 doses of PHiD-CV/dPly/PhtD-10, PHiD-CV/dPly/PhtD-30, PHiD-CV, or 13-valent PCV (PCV13), co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV/Hib, at ages ∼2, 3, 4 and 12-15months. Occurrences of fever >40.0°C following primary vaccination with PHiD-CV/dPly/PhtD vaccines compared to PHiD-CV (non-inferiority objective), dose superiority, safety and immunogenicity were assessed. RESULTS: 575 children received primary vaccination, and 564 booster vaccination. The non-inferiority objective was met; no fever >40.0°C causally related to vaccination was reported during primary vaccination. Incidence of adverse events appeared similar between the 3 PHiD-CV groups. Serious adverse events were reported in 13, 9, 21 (1 related to vaccination), and 17 children in the PHiD-CV/dPly/PhtD-10, PHiD-CV/dPly/PhtD-30, PHiD-CV, and PCV13 groups, respectively. PHiD-CV/dPly/PhtD-30 was superior to PHiD-CV/dPly/PhtD-10 in terms of post-dose 3 anti-Ply and Anti-PhtD antibody levels. Anti-Ply and anti-PhtD antibody levels were higher in both PHiD-CV/dPly/PhtD groups than in controls and increased from post-primary to post-booster timepoint. Post-primary and booster vaccination, for each PHiD-CV serotype, ≥98.5% of participants in PHiD-CV/dPly/PhtD groups had antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2µg/mL, except for 6B (≥72.3%) and 23F (≥82.7%) post-primary vaccination. Similar results were observed in the PHiD-CV group. Immune responses to protein D and DTPa-HBV-IPV/Hib were within similar ranges for the 3 PHiD-CV groups. CONCLUSION: Both PHiD-CV/dPly/PhtD formulations co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV/Hib in infants were well-tolerated and immunogenic for dPly and PhtD antigens, while immune responses to serotype-specific, protein D and co-administered antigens did not appear altered in comparison to PHiD-CV group.