Pharmaceutical care services available in Danish community pharmacies.

In recent years, increased longevity of the Danish population has resulted in a growing segment with age-related and chronic health conditions. This, together with a general increase in the demand on the services of doctors, has augmented the role of pharmacies in the provision of healthcare services. In Denmark, a variety of pharmacy services has been developed, evaluated and implemented since the introduction of pharmaceutical care. The services are aimed at the person responsible for administering the medicine e.g. the patient themselves or care workers, thereby supporting medication safety. The services available have been developed, evaluated and implemented in collaboration between community pharmacies, the Danish Association of Pharmacies, the Danish College of Pharmacy Practice and international collaborators. In this commentary we present an overview of the available pharmacy service, the contents of each service, remuneration and the scientific evidence behind each service. The commentary covers: Inhaler Technique Assessment Service; New Medicines Service; Medication Review; and Medication Safety in Residential Facilities.

Scottish consensus statement on the role of FeNO in adult asthma.

Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) is the only available point of care test to assess type-2 inflammation in asthma. In making a diagnosis of asthma, FeNO should be used together with blood eosinophils and spirometry, alongside a history. Raised FeNO in conjunction with blood eosinophilia are treatable traits of type 2 inflammation in asthma, which in turn may guide personalised management. A FeNO suppression test can be used to assess adherence and device use with ICS therapy. Furthermore FeNO may be used to provide feedback to patients in response to ICS, especially when spirometry is normal. FeNO may facilitate appropriate referral to secondary care for more definitive specialist investigations. In summary, FeNO is cost effective in the diagnosis and management of asthma and should be incorporated into primary and secondary care as part of routine clinical practice.

Nebulizer cleaning and disinfection practices in families with cystic fibrosis: The relationship between attitudes, practice and microbe colonization.

BACKGROUND: The daily burden of health maintenance for children and families with cystic fibrosis (CF) is immense with respect to time and complexity of care. Infection control practices, specifically nebulizer cleaning and disinfection, are a recommended component of home health care for CF families due to colonization of home respiratory equipment with lung pathogens. To better inform education interventions at our center, we were interested in studying how families' views on infection prevention and awareness of CF Foundation infection prevention and control (IP&C) guidelines correlate with actual home nebulizer care and the presence of microorganisms on their nebulizers. METHODS: Twenty families who have children with CF were surveyed to better understand attitudes toward infection prevention, awareness of CFF IP&C guidelines and nebulizer cleaning and disinfection practices in the home. Their nebulizers were also cultured for microbes to correlate recovery with infection control behaviors. RESULTS: A subset of families recognizes the importance of germ avoidance but do not recognize nebulizer cleaning and disinfection as very important for infection control practices. Decreased frequency of disinfection, but not cleaning, was correlated with the recovery of organisms on the nebulizers. CONCLUSIONS: The study questionnaire results identify a gap between recognizing the importance of infection prevention and consistently implementing CFF IP&C guidelines in the home. This demonstrates the need at our center for new educational interventions to promote cleaning and disinfection of home nebulizers after each use as recommended by the CFF.

Objective Assessment of Patient Inhaler User Technique Using an Audio-Based Classification Approach.

Many patients make critical user technique errors when using pressurised metered dose inhalers (pMDIs) which reduce the clinical efficacy of respiratory medication. Such critical errors include poor actuation coordination (poor timing of medication release during inhalation) and inhaling too fast (peak inspiratory flow rate over 90 L/min). Here, we present a novel audio-based method that objectively assesses patient pMDI user technique. The Inhaler Compliance Assessment device was employed to record inhaler audio signals from 62 respiratory patients as they used a pMDI with an In-Check Flo-Tone device attached to the inhaler mouthpiece. Using a quadratic discriminant analysis approach, the audio-based method generated a total frame-by-frame accuracy of 88.2% in classifying sound events (actuation, inhalation and exhalation). The audio-based method estimated the peak inspiratory flow rate and volume of inhalations with an accuracy of 88.2% and 83.94% respectively. It was detected that 89% of patients made at least one critical user technique error even after tuition from an expert clinical reviewer. This method provides a more clinically accurate assessment of patient inhaler user technique than standard checklist methods.

[The Aut-idem Rule and the Importance of Patient-Individual Selection of Inhalers for the Therapy of Airway Diseases in Practices of Pneumologists and General Practitioners - Assessment and Implementation by Pneumologists and General Practitioners]. / Aut-idem-Regelung und Inhalatorauswahl bei inhalativer Therapie in pneumologischen und hausärztlichen Praxen unter Alltagsbedingungen ­ Einschätzung und Umsetzung durch Pneumologen und Hausärzte.

Drug therapy of obstructive airway diseases mainly relies on inhaled medication. The success of this therapy depends primarily on the selection of the appropriate inhaler considering patient's choice and the correct application. The aut-idem-rule, an active exclusion of the optional substitution by the pharmacist, allows prescribing physicians to ensure the delivery of a particular inhaler, which was selected for that patient, who was trained to use specifically that inhaler. This survey shows that pneumologists and, to a greater extent general practitioners, do not consistently make use of this option, although they unanimously agree on the importance of targeted inhaler selection. As a result, patients may receive different inhalers in the pharmacy, where the inhaler is chosen under consideration of market-driven aspects such as rebate contracts or stock. This causes that patients get confused by the exchange of their inhaler. Thus the exchange of the inhaler by the pharmacist leads to uncertainty and application problems in patients. Hence, the success of the comparatively complex inhaled therapy is endangered. This could be prevented, if prescribing physicians were informed and supported consistently regarding the use of aut-idem exclusion to ensure an optimal therapy for each individual patient.

Checklists for the Assessment of Correct Inhalation Therapy.

Introduction For the long-term treatment of obstructive lung diseases inhalation therapy with drugs being delivered directly to the lungs as an aerosol has become the method of choice. However, patient-related mistakes in inhalation techniques are frequent and recognized to be associated with reduced disease control. Since the assessment of patient-mistakes in inhalation has yet not been standardized, the present study was aimed at developing checklists for the assessment of correct inhalation. Methods Checklists were developed in German by an expert panel of pneumologists and professionally translated into English following back-translation procedures. The checklists comparably assessed three major steps of inhalation: 1) inhalation preparation, 2) inhalation routine, and 3) closure of inhalation. Results Checklists for eight frequently used inhalers were developed: Aerolizer, Breezhaler, Diskus (Accuhaler), metered-dose inhaler, Handihaler, Novolizer, Respimat, Turbohaler. Each checklist consists of ten items: three for inhalation preparation, six for inhalation routine, and one for closure of inhalation. Discussion Standardized checklists for frequently used inhalers are available in German and English. These checklists can be used for clinical routines or for clinical trials. All checklists can be downloaded free of charge for non-profit application from the homepage of the German Airway League (Deutsche Atemwegsliga e. V.): www.atemwegsliga.de.

[Critical evaluation of inhalation spacer devices available in France]. / Évaluation critique des chambres d'inhalation commercialisées en France.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the spacer devices sold in France and to provide a critical evaluation in the light of the published data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We contacted the pharmaceutical companies, manufacturers and distributors of each spacer in order to obtain their technical parameters and the results of any in vitro or in vivo studies. A review of the literature via PubMed completed the first set of data. We were interested in the quantity of fine particles (less than 5 µm diameter) obtained with a cascade impactor at paediatric flow rates, for all inhaled drugs available in France. RESULTS: Eleven spacer devices were available in 2013 in France (Ablespacer®, Aerochamber Plus®, Babyhaler®, VHC Arrow®, L'Espace®, Funhaler®, Inhaler®, Itinhaler®, OptiChamber Diamond®, Tipshaler® and Vortex®), but three are no longer manufactured (Babyhaler®, Funhaler® and Inhaler®). All were small volume spacers, sold with facial masks of several different sizes. Four were antistatic (Aerochamber Plus®, Intinhaler®, OptiChamber Diamond® and Vortex®). Only salbutamol was tested with all the devices. Inhaled corticosteroids were tested with some and combinations were studied only with Ablespacer®, Aerochamber Plus®, Itinhaler®, and Vortex®. The results were difficult to interpret because the studies were conducted with very different protocols. The only clinical studies were conducted with Aerochamber Plus®, L'Espace® and Vortex®. CONCLUSION: There was a great disparity between commercialized spacer devices in terms of the available data describing their in vitro performance.

Delivered dose estimate to standardize airway hyperresponsiveness assessment in mice.

Airway hyperresponsiveness often constitutes a primary outcome in respiratory studies in mice. The procedure commonly employs aerosolized challenges, and results are typically reported in terms of bronchoconstrictor concentrations loaded into the nebulizer. Yet, because protocols frequently differ across studies, especially in terms of aerosol generation and delivery, direct study comparisons are difficult. We hypothesized that protocol variations could lead to differences in aerosol delivery efficiency and, consequently, in the dose delivered to the subject, as well as in the response. Thirteen nebulization patterns containing common protocol variations (nebulization time, duty cycle, particle size spectrum, air humidity, and/or ventilation profile) and using increasing concentrations of methacholine and broadband forced oscillations (flexiVent, SCIREQ, Montreal, Qc, Canada) were created, characterized, and studied in anesthetized naïve A/J mice. A delivered dose estimate calculated from nebulizer-, ventilator-, and subject-specific characteristics was introduced and used to account for protocol variations. Results showed that nebulization protocol variations significantly affected the fraction of aerosol reaching the subject site and the delivered dose, as well as methacholine reactivity and sensitivity in mice. From the protocol variants studied, addition of a slow deep ventilation profile during nebulization was identified as a key factor for optimization of the technique. The study also highlighted sensitivity differences within the lung, as well as the possibility that airway responses could be selectively enhanced by adequate control of nebulizer and ventilator settings. Reporting results in terms of delivered doses represents an important standardizing element for assessment of airway hyperresponsiveness in mice.

A risk-based approach to management of leachables utilizing statistical analysis of extractables.

To incorporate quality by design concepts into the management of leachables, an emphasis is often put on understanding the extractable profile for the materials of construction for manufacturing disposables, container-closure, or delivery systems. Component manufacturing processes may also impact the extractable profile. An approach was developed to (1) identify critical components that may be sources of leachables, (2) enable an understanding of manufacturing process factors that affect extractable profiles, (3) determine if quantitative models can be developed that predict the effect of those key factors, and (4) evaluate the practical impact of the key factors on the product. A risk evaluation for an inhalation product identified injection molding as a key process. Designed experiments were performed to evaluate the impact of molding process parameters on the extractable profile from an ABS inhaler component. Statistical analysis of the resulting GC chromatographic profiles identified processing factors that were correlated with peak levels in the extractable profiles. The combination of statistically significant molding process parameters was different for different types of extractable compounds. ANOVA models were used to obtain optimal process settings and predict extractable levels for a selected number of compounds. The proposed paradigm may be applied to evaluate the impact of material composition and processing parameters on extractable profiles and utilized to manage product leachables early in the development process and throughout the product lifecycle.

The importance of continuity in inhaler device choice for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Inhaled therapies are central to the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Physicians consider many factors when selecting the most appropriate inhaler device, including device efficacy and the cost to the health care system. This review aims to discuss the factors that are important when considering inhaler devices and the importance of continuity in the choice of inhaler device. A large number of factors can contribute to therapeutic outcomes with inhalation devices. The inhalation technique is critical to treatment success and differs substantially between inhaler devices. Misuse of an inhaler is common, and thorough training of patients and physicians is important to ensure correct utilization. Patient satisfaction is an important consideration because it is significantly correlated with compliance and better outcomes. Financial pressures contribute to decision making: although selecting the less expensive inhaler device might reduce direct treatment costs, it can have a large impact on disease control and the patient's well-being. Switching may be associated with a poor inhalation technique, reduced disease control and quality of life, increased use of other treatments and health care resources, and a greater chance of unsuccessful treatment. Nonconsensual switches can result in patient discontent, reduced confidence in the medication, and uncertainty regarding the degree of disease control. It is recommended that patients with stable disease remain on their current device. If a switch is considered, the patient should be consulted and the physician should take into account the patient's preference, their ability to correctly use the device, and the availability of the preferred drug in the preferred device.

Improving inhaler adherence in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: The PHARMACOP-intervention significantly improved medication adherence and inhalation technique for patients with COPD compared with usual care. This study aimed to evaluate its cost-effectiveness. METHODS: An economic analysis was performed from the Belgian healthcare payer's perspective. A Markov model was constructed in which a representative group of patients with COPD (mean age of 70 years, 66% male, 43% current smokers and mean Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 second of % predicted of 50), was followed for either receiving the 3-month PHARMACOP-intervention or usual care. Three types of costs were calculated: intervention costs, medication costs and exacerbation costs. Outcome measures included the number of hospital-treated exacerbations, cost per prevented hospital-treated exacerbation and cost per Quality Adjusted Life-Year. Follow-up was 1 year in the basecase analysis. Sensitivity and scenario analyses (including long-term follow-up) were performed to assess uncertainty. RESULTS: In the basecase analysis, the average overall costs per patient for the PHARMACOP-intervention and usual care were €2,221 and €2,448, respectively within the 1-year time horizon. This reflects cost savings of €227 for the PHARMACOP-intervention. The PHARMACOP-intervention resulted in the prevention of 0.07 hospital-treated exacerbations per patient (0.177 for PHARMACOP versus 0.244 for usual care). Results showed robust cost-savings in various sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Optimization of current pharmacotherapy (e.g. close monitoring of inhalation technique and medication adherence) has been shown to be cost-saving and should be considered before adding new therapies.

Generics, chemisimilars and biosimilars: is clinical testing fit for purpose?

The effectiveness and safety of generic drugs are backed by sound physicochemical control and regulatory bioequivalence acceptance criteria. Statistical testing of bioequivalence, comparing the pharmacokinetic profiles of the test and reference products, was made possible by modern drug assays. When the pharmacokinetic profile correlates with the dose, such comparisons show assay sensitivity and readily detect differences in dose. For large biological molecules, different manufactured batches cannot be validated using pharmacokinetic data alone. For these biosimilars, there is a three-stage assessment of pharmaceutical quality, laboratory testing and clinical data. This approach has also been applied to certain chemical products, termed 'chemisimilars', which have variable or complex synthesis of the active substance, or complex formulation, or a complex delivery device. Although there may be no detectable difference between the test and reference on clinical testing, many of the outcome measures are insensitive to even large differences in dose. For testing to be fit for purpose it should distinguish important dose differences, but many clinical tests of chemisimilars and biosimilars do not. As pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic technology advances, the trend of replacing dose-insensitive clinical trial data with equivalence tests that show assay sensitivity can be expected to continue.

Could interchangeable use of dry powder inhalers affect patients?

The aim of asthma treatment is optimal disease control. Poor asthma control results in considerable patient morbidity, as well as contributing to the considerable burden placed by the disease on healthcare budgets. There is a need for costs to be carefully scrutinised, with the switching of patients to inhaler devices with lower acquisition costs likely to be increasingly considered. However, before such practice becomes widespread, it is important to establish whether or not this could adversely impact on patients and the level of disease control. For approval to have been given, all marketed inhalers must have satisfied current regulatory requirements for devices. Full preclinical and clinical development programmes are not required when application is made for authorisation to market a new inhaler containing an existing chemical entity, although clinical equivalence testing must be used. Both beneficial and adverse effects should be tested, and the limits of equivalence must be clearly defined, based on therapeutic relevance. It should be noted that equivalence studies are invalid when the end point is not responding (i.e. at the top of the dose-response curve) and when equivalence limits approach or are equal to the magnitude of the drug effect. Approval on the basis of regulations designed to safeguard quality of dry powder inhalers does not mean that devices are interchangeable. When using an inhaler, there are many stages between the patient and the therapeutic effect, involving device design, pharmaceutical performance and patient behaviour. Regulations governing new devices cover only a few of the many factors affecting disease control. Furthermore, clinical trials to assess equivalence may not take into account factors in patient behaviour or variations in patient inhaler technique that may affect use of devices in real-life situations. When assessing the consequences of interchangeable use of dry powder inhalers on healthcare costs, it is important to ensure that the acquisition cost of the devices is not the only cost considered. Other costs that should be considered include the cost of time spent demonstrating to the patient how to use the new device, the cost of additional physician visits to address patient concerns and the management costs if disease control is adversely affected.

Assessment of patient performance of the HandiHaler compared with the metered dose inhaler four weeks after instruction.

The HandiHaler is a novel breath-actuated dry powder system designed for the delivery of tiotropium 18microg daily in the treatment of COPD. We compared patient ability to use the HandiHaler or metered dose inhaler (MDI) device correctly 4 weeks after receiving brief instructions and device demonstration. A single-blind study was conducted in COPD patients in two centers in Denmark. ALL patients (n = 151) received one placebo capsule via the HandiHaler daily and ipratropium (20 microg) two actuations via the MDI q.i.d. Mean FEV1 for all patients was 1.25 + 0.54 (46% predicted). Twelve instructions establishing proper device use were evaluated for the MDI and Handihaler. Error scores were analyzed by number of patients with less, equal or more errors when using HandiHaler compared to MDI in the total efficacy population (n = 139) and according to those who had not previously used an MDI for at least 12 months (MDI beginners) (n = 74) and those who had used an MDI (MDI experienced) (n = 65). Four weeks after device instruction, a higher proportion of patients in the total population (P < 0.01) had fewer errors with the HandiHaler (35.3%) compared to the MDI (15.1%). The number of errors was equal in 50% of patients. Similar findings were observed in the subgroup of patients who were MDI beginners (42% vs. 11%, P < 0.01) with non-significant trends in favor of the HandiHaler in those patients who were MDI experienced (29.7% vs. 18.9%, P = 0.096). Similar results in favor of HandiHaler were noted across different age and sex strata. The proportion of patients correctly using the device on the first of three attempts was 59.7% and 54.7% for the HandiHaler and MDI, respectively (P = 0.399). In summary, use of the HandiHaler can be easily taught with fewer errors compared to the MDI. Furthermore, patient performance using the HandiHaler was superior to that with an MDI despite prior MDI experience and more frequent usage.

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.

Heat and moisture exchangers in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients: a plea for an independent assessment of their performance.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether use of a hygroscopic and hydrophobic heat and moisture exchanger (HME) for 7 days without change affects its efficiency in long-term, mechanically ventilated, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled clinical study comparing two combined HMEs. SETTING: Medical intensive care unit at a university teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Long-term, mechanically ventilated, COPD patients compared with non-COPD patients. INTERVENTIONS: In the first part of the study, COPD patients were studied with the Hygroster HME changed once a week. For the second part, the Hygroster was assessed in non-COPD patients and compared with the Hygrobac HME used in COPD and non-COPD patients for 1 wk without change. Devices could be changed if hygrometric measurements indicated insufficient humidity delivery. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Daily measurements were recorded for inspired gas temperature and relative and absolute humidity. Ventilatory variables, clinical indicators of efficient humidification, were also recorded. No tracheal tube occlusion occurred. However, contrary to the manufacturer advertisement, the Hygroster experienced surprisingly low values for absolute humidity in both COPD and non-COPD patients. Such events did not occur with the Hygrobac. Absolute humidity with the Hygroster was constantly and significantly lower during the 7-day study period than with the Hygrobac. Absolute humidity measured in COPD patients was identical to that measured in the rest of the study population with both HMEs. CONCLUSIONS: Manufacturer specifications and bedside measurements of absolute humidity differed considerably for the Hygroster, which in certain instances did not achieve efficient humidification in both COPD and non-COPD patients. This did not occur with the Hygrobac, which performed well throughout the 7-day period in both COPD and non-COPD patients. Our results speak for independent and evaluation of HMEs.

Long-term mechanical ventilation with hygroscopic heat and moisture exchangers used for 48 hours: a prospective clinical, hygrometric, and bacteriologic study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether use of a hygroscopic heat and moisture exchanger (HME) for 48 hrs without change affects its efficiency and the level of bacterial colonization in long-term mechanically ventilated medical intensive care unit patients. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized clinical study evaluating two hygroscopic HMEs. SETTING: Medical intensive care unit at a university teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Long-term mechanically ventilated medical intensive care unit patients, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly allocated to one of the two HMEs studied (Hygrolife and EdithFlex) and changed every 48 hrs. Devices in both groups could be changed if hygrometric measurements indicated insufficient humidity delivery. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Daily measurements of inspired gas temperature and relative and absolute humidity. In addition, cultures of tracheal aspirations and both patient and ventilator sides of the device were performed after 48 hrs of use. Ventilatory variables and clinical indicators of efficient humidification were also recorded. Prolonged use of both HMEs was safe and efficient (no tracheal tube occlusion occurred). Mean duration of mechanical ventilation was 20 days. Both clinical indicators and hygrometric measurements showed that both devices performed well during 48 hrs. Absolute humidity with EdithFlex was significantly higher on day 0 and day 1 than with Hygrolife. Absolute humidity measured in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients was identical to that measured in the rest of the study population. Tracheal colonization and HME colonization were similar with both HMEs. Bacterial contamination of the ventilator side of both devices was markedly low. CONCLUSIONS: These two purely hygroscopic HMEs provided safe and efficient humidification during a 48-hr period of use in long-term mechanically ventilated medical intensive care unit patients, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. In addition, they maintained ventilatory circuits clean, despite the absence of filtering media. The cost of mechanical ventilation is consequently reduced.