Inhaler technique mastery and maintenance in healthcare professionals trained on different devices.

OBJECTIVE: Healthcare professionals (HCPs) are required to assess and train patients in the correct use of inhalers but are often unable to demonstrate correct technique themselves. We sought to assess the level of training required for HCPs to master and maintain device mastery when using two different dry powder inhalers (DPIs). METHODS: We conducted a randomized, un-blinded, crossover study in undergraduate HCPs who undertook a six-step training procedure (intuitive use, patient information leaflet, instructional video, individual tuition from expert, then two repeats of individual tuition) for the use of Turbuhaler® (an established device) and Spiromax® (a newer device, reportedly easier to use). Device mastery (absence of errors) was evaluated by expert assessors at each training step. Maintenance of mastery was assessed 4 ± 1 week (visit 2) and 8 ± 2 weeks (visit 3) after initial training (visit 1). RESULTS: Of 516 eligible participants, 113 (22%) demonstrated device mastery prior to training on Spiromax® compared with 20 (4%) on Turbuhaler® (p < 0.001). The median number of training steps required to achieve mastery was 2 (interquartile range [IQR] 2-4) for Spiromax® and 3 (IQR 2-4) for Turbuhaler® (p < 0.001). A higher number of participants maintained mastery with Spiromax® compared with Turbuhaler®, at visits 2 and 3 (64% vs 41% and 79% vs 65%, respectively; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There are significant differences in the nature and extent of training required to achieve and maintain mastery for Spiromax® and Turbuhaler® devices. The implications on clinical practice, device education delivery, and patient outcomes require further evaluation.

A Randomized Pragmatic Trial of Changing to and Stepping Down Fluticasone/Formoterol in Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend reducing treatment in patients with well-controlled asthma after 3 months of stability. However, there is inadequate real-life data to guide physicians on therapy change in daily practice. OBJECTIVE: To assess asthma control after change to and step-down of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate dihydrate (FP/FOR) in real-life patients. METHODS: In a randomized controlled, pragmatic, open-label trial, 225 well-controlled patients with asthma were randomized (1:2) to maintain high-dose fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate (FP/SAL, 1000/100 µg) or switch to FP/FOR (1000/40 µg) daily for 12 weeks (phase 1). One hundred sixteen patients stable on FP/FOR at week 12 were subsequently randomized (1:1) to maintain this therapy, or stepped down to FP/FOR (500/20 µg) daily for 12 weeks (phase 2). The primary end point was the 7-question Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ7) score. RESULTS: In phase 1, FP/FOR (1000/40 µg) (n = 126) was noninferior to FP/SAL (1000/100 µg) (n = 73) for ACQ7 (difference in means, -0.12; 95% CI, -0.32 to 0.09). In phase 2, FP/FOR (500/20 µg) (n = 52) was noninferior to FP/FOR (1000/40 µg) (n = 52) for ACQ7 (difference in means, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.20 to 0.22). There was no significant difference in exacerbation rate between the groups in either phase. However, 1 to 2 exacerbations in 12 months before phase 1 were associated with the occurrence of an exacerbation after step-down (P = .007). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with well-controlled asthma, a change from FP/SAL to FP/FOR did not compromise asthma control. Step-down of FP/FOR was well tolerated; however, in contrast to current guidelines, our data suggest caution in stepping down patients uncontrolled in the last 12 months. Larger step-down studies are required to confirm these findings.

Sleep deprivation affects reactivity to positive but not negative stimuli.

OBJECTIVE: The current study examined the effects of partial and total sleep deprivation on emotional reactivity. METHODS: Twenty-eight partially sleep-deprived participants and 31 totally sleep-deprived participants rated their valence and arousal responses to positive and negative pictures across four testing sessions during the day following partial sleep deprivation or during the night under total sleep deprivation. RESULTS: The results suggest that valence and arousal ratings decreased under both sleep deprivation conditions. In addition, partial and total sleep deprivation had a greater negative effect on positive events than negative events. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that sleep-deprived persons are more likely to respond less to positive events than negative events. One explanation for the current findings is that negative events could elicit more attentive behavior and thus stable responding under sleep deprivation conditions. As such, sleep deprivation could impact reactivity to emotional stimuli through automated attentional and self-regulatory processes.