ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To identify incorrect inhaler techniques employed by patients with respiratory diseases in southern Brazil and to profile the individuals who make such errors. METHODS: This was a population-based, cross-sectional study involving subjects ≥ 10 years of age using metered dose inhalers (MDIs) or dry powder inhalers (DPIs) in 1,722 households in the city of Pelotas, Brazil. RESULTS: We included 110 subjects, who collectively used 94 MDIs and 49 DPIs. The most common errors in the use of MDIs and DPIs were not exhaling prior to inhalation (66% and 47%, respectively), not performing a breath-hold after inhalation (29% and 25%), and not shaking the MDI prior to use (21%). Individuals ≥ 60 years of age more often made such errors. Among the demonstrations of the use of MDIs and DPIs, at least one error was made in 72% and 51%, respectively. Overall, there were errors made in all steps in 11% of the demonstrations, whereas there were no errors made in 13%.Among the individuals who made at least one error, the proportion of those with a low level of education was significantly greater than was that of those with a higher level of education, for MDIs (85% vs. 60%; p = 0.018) and for DPIs (81% vs. 35%; p = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: In this sample, the most common errors in the use of inhalers were not exhaling prior to inhalation, not performing a breath-hold after inhalation, and not shaking the MDI prior to use. Special attention should be given to education regarding inhaler techniques for patients of lower socioeconomic status and with less formal education, as well as for those of advanced age, because those populations are at a greater risk of committing errors in their use of inhalers.
Subject(s)
Administration, Inhalation , Dry Powder Inhalers/methods , Metered Dose Inhalers , Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive/drug therapy , Adolescent , Adult , Age Factors , Brazil , Child , Cross-Sectional Studies , Dry Powder Inhalers/adverse effects , Female , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Humans , Male , Metered Dose Inhalers/adverse effects , Middle Aged , Socioeconomic Factors , Young AdultABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To identify incorrect inhaler techniques employed by patients with respiratory diseases in southern Brazil and to profile the individuals who make such errors. METHODS: This was a population-based, cross-sectional study involving subjects ≥ 10 years of age using metered dose inhalers (MDIs) or dry powder inhalers (DPIs) in 1,722 households in the city of Pelotas, Brazil. RESULTS: We included 110 subjects, who collectively used 94 MDIs and 49 DPIs. The most common errors in the use of MDIs and DPIs were not exhaling prior to inhalation (66% and 47%, respectively), not performing a breath-hold after inhalation (29% and 25%), and not shaking the MDI prior to use (21%). Individuals ≥ 60 years of age more often made such errors. Among the demonstrations of the use of MDIs and DPIs, at least one error was made in 72% and 51%, respectively. Overall, there were errors made in all steps in 11% of the demonstrations, whereas there were no errors made in 13%.Among the individuals who made at least one error, the proportion of those with a low level of education was significantly greater than was that of those with a higher level of education, for MDIs (85% vs. 60%; p = 0.018) and for DPIs (81% vs. 35%; p = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: In this sample, the most common errors in the use of inhalers were not exhaling prior to inhalation, not performing a breath-hold after inhalation, and not shaking the MDI prior to use. Special attention should be given to education regarding inhaler techniques for patients of lower socioeconomic status and with less formal education, as well as for those of advanced age, because those populations are at a greater risk of committing errors in their use of inhalers. .
OBJETIVO: Conhecer os erros na técnica de uso de dispositivos inalatórios empregada por pacientes com doenças respiratórias no sul do Brasil e o perfil daqueles que possuem dificuldades em realizá-la. MÉTODOS: Estudo transversal, de base populacional, com indivíduos com idade ≥ 10 anos e em uso de inaladores pressurizados (IPrs) ou inaladores de pó (IP) em 1.722 domicílios de Pelotas (RS). RESULTADOS: Foram incluídos 110 indivíduos que utilizavam 94 IPrs e 49 IP. Os principais erros no uso dos IPrs e IP foram não expirar antes da inalação (66% e 47%, respectivamente), não fazer uma pausa inspiratória após a inalação (29% e 25%) e não agitar o IPr antes do uso (21%). Os indivíduos com idade ≥ 60 anos mais frequentemente cometeram erros. Das demonstrações de uso do IPr e IP, respectivamente, 72% e 51% apresentaram ao menos um erro, enquanto 13% das demonstrações foram plenamente corretas e 11% apresentaram erros em todas as fases. A proporção de indivíduos com menor nível de escolaridade que cometeram ao menos um erro foi significativamente maior do que a daqueles com maior nível de escolaridade tanto no uso de IPrs (85% vs. 60%; p = 0,018) quanto no de IPs (81% vs. 35%; p = 0,010). CONCLUSÕES: Nesta amostra, os principais erros cometidos no uso dos inaladores foram não realizar a expiração antes da inalação, não fazer a pausa inspiratória após a inalação e não agitar o IPr. Pacientes com menor nível socioeconômico e educacional, assim como aqueles com idade avançada, merecem especial atenção na educação sobre a realização da técnica inalatória, pois apresentam um maior risco de cometer erros durante o uso dos inaladores. .
Subject(s)
Adolescent , Adult , Child , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Young Adult , Administration, Inhalation , Dry Powder Inhalers/methods , Metered Dose Inhalers , Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive/drug therapy , Age Factors , Brazil , Cross-Sectional Studies , Dry Powder Inhalers/adverse effects , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Metered Dose Inhalers/adverse effects , Socioeconomic FactorsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis (CF) is characterised by impaired mucociliary clearance (MCC), chronic inflammation and infection, and progressively deteriorating lung function. Inhaled mannitol (Bronchitol) has been shown to increase MCC and cough clearance and FEV(1) in CF patients, contributing to better lung hygiene and consequently a slower decline in lung function. This study was designed to determine the dose relationship of mannitol treatment and improvement in FEV(1) and FVC as well as safety. METHODS: This was a randomised, open-label, crossover, dose response study. Following a 2-week treatment with mannitol 400mg b.i.d., 48 CF patients with a mean (SD) FEV(1) % predicted of 64 (13.2), received a further 3 treatments with 40mg, 120mg or 240mg b.i.d. for 2weeks each, in random order. RESULTS: The study demonstrated a dose dependent increase in FEV(1) and FVC. The 400mg dose showed the greatest improvement and the 40mg dose had no discernible effect. The mean percent change in FEV(1) was -1.57%, 3.61%, 3.87% and 8.75% respectively for the 40mg, 120mg, 240mg and 400mg treatments. There was a statistically significant change in FEV(1) for 400mg compared to 40mg (p<0.0001) but the difference with 120mg and 240mg did not reach significance. The mean % change in FVC was -0.90, 1.74, 3.07 and 8.14, for the 40mg, 120mg, 240mg and 400mg treatment arms, with p=0.0001, p=0.0037 and p=0.0304 respectively when compared to 400mg. The highest tested dose of 400mg had a similar safety profile to the other doses tested. The change in FEV(1) and FVC by dose in the paediatric age group (<18years) was similar to the results in the adult population. CONCLUSION: Based on these results the 400mg b.i.d. dose has been further studied in phase III trials.