Effects of modifying visual inhaler spacer usage instructions on correct usage rate of untrained users.

BACKGROUND: Pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) used with spacers are considered the method of choice for delivery of inhaled drugs in preschool-age children. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of modifying the visual inhaler spacer usage guidelines on the correct usage rate. METHODS: The parents and caregivers of patients <6 years old who were prescribed inhalers with spacers for the first time were included in our study. The participants were randomly divided into a modified visual inhaler spacer usage guidelines group and an unmodified visual inhaler spacer usage guidelines group. All study participants underwent face-to-face interviews and completed questionnaires. RESULTS: A total of 510 participants with a median age of 31 (range, 20-46) years were included in this study. The modified visual guidelines group included 254 (49.6%) participants, and the unmodified visual guidelines group included 256 (50.4%) participants. One hundred sixty-five (65.2%) of the 254 participants in the modified visual guidelines group correctly demonstrated the inhaler spacer technique. In contrast, only 21 (8.2%) of the 256 participants in the unmodified visual guidelines group correctly demonstrated the inhaler spacer technique (p < 0.001). When comparing the inhaler spacer usage steps between the 2 groups, the modified visual guidelines group demonstrated the steps more correctly and more quickly (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The current visual inhaler spacer usage guidelines are insufficient. We believe that improving the visual inhaler spacer usage guidelines, in particular, will increase the correct usage rate and decrease the number of usage errors.

Real-Life Outcomes for Patients with Asthma Prescribed Spacers for Use with Either Extrafine- or Fine-Particle Inhaled Corticosteroids.

BACKGROUND: Spacers are often used with pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) to eliminate the need for coordinating inhalation with actuation. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the real-life effectiveness of spacers prescribed for use with either extrafine- or fine-particle inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). METHODS: This historical matched cohort study examined anonymous medical record data over 2 years (1-year baseline, 1-year outcome) for patients with asthma aged 12 to 80 years initiating ICSs by pMDI with or without prescribed spacer. We compared outcomes for spacer versus no-spacer arms, matched for key baseline and asthma-related characteristics, within 2 ICS cohorts: (1) extrafine-particle ICS (beclomethasone) and (2) fine-particle ICS (fluticasone). Effectiveness end points were compared using conditional regression methods. RESULTS: Matched spacer and no-spacer arms of the extrafine-particle ICS cohort each included 2090 patients (69% females; median age, 46-47 years) and the 2 arms of the fine-particle ICS cohort each included 444 patients (67% females; median age, 45 years). With extrafine-particle ICS, we observed no significant difference between spacer and no-spacer arms in severe exacerbation rate (primary end point): adjusted rate ratio, 1.01 (95% CI, 0.83-1.23). With fine-particle ICS, the severe exacerbation rate ratio with spacers was 0.77 (0.47-1.25). Oropharyngeal candidiasis incidence was low and similar in spacer and no-spacer arms for both ICS cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that prescribed spacer devices are associated with improved asthma outcomes for extrafine- or fine-particle ICS administered by pMDI. These findings challenge long-standing assumptions that spacers should improve pMDI effectiveness and indicate the need for pragmatic trials of spacers in clinical practice.

[Health care providers' knowledge and abilities to use inhalation devices and spacers]. / Évaluation des connaissances en aérosolthérapie du personnel hospitalier.

INTRODUCTION: Inhaled therapy is the mainstay of asthma treatment due to its local and rapid action. However, its efficiency relies on the teaching of a good inhalation technique by health care providers. We assessed health care providers' knowledge and practical skills in the use of inhalation devices. METHODS: An observational multicenter study was conducted in the pulmonology and paediatric wards in Marseille. The departments' common practices, theoretical knowledge and practical skills were assessed through a questionnaire and a demonstration using a spacer device. RESULTS: Forty health care providers were interviewed (9 attending physicians, 14 residents, 16 nurses and 1 physiotherapist), in 8 different pulmonology and paediatric wards. A total of 42.5% reported previous training in inhalation device technique. When evaluating theoretical knowledge, we found a mean of 54% correct answers. Attending physicians did significantly better than residents and nurses. With regard to practical skills, we found a mean of 1.12 failed steps out of 7. Here again attending physicians did significantly better than residents and nurses. CONCLUSION: Based on the results of our study, we recommend that attending physicians provide training of inhalation technique to nurses and residents, as they did significantly better theoretically and practically.

Improving Resident Knowledge of Spacers.

Studies show the delivery of inhaled medications is maximized when a metered-dose inhaler (MDI) with a spacer is utilized. Our residents expressed concern with their knowledge of MDIs and spacers. This study was designed to address those concerns. Residents were given a 12-question pre-intervention, self-assessment questionnaire that explored their overall knowledge and comfort in utilizing MDI with spacers. Participants then received educational intervention via multimedia videos and a demonstration of proper use of MDI with spacer. Participants were given the same questionnaire immediately following the education and again 3 months later. Improvement was significant (P < .05) for each element studied as derived from the 12 questions. Improvement remained significant when these variables were assessed in the 3-month follow-up. In this study, we successfully improved the ability of our residents to deliver quality care by improving their knowledge and confidence in utilizing MDIs with spacers.

Metered dose inhaler-spacer use education effects on achieve asthma control in children.

INTRODUCTION: Improper Metered Dose Inhaler (MDI)-spacer use technique can result in less than optimal delivery of medicine to the lungs and poor asthma outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of standardized education on proper MDI- spacer use and asthma control in children with asthma and to identify the factors associated with these results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a cohort study that evaluated the influence of standardized education about MDI-Spacer device use on asthma control in children. Asthmatic children using MDI-Spacer device and their parents were enrolled in this study. Children were followed up for two months after standardized education and the change in asthma control was recorded. RESULT: Thirty eight children (14 females and 24 males) aged between 2.5 and 13 years were enrolled in the study. Mean age of the children was 7.5 ± 2.8 years. Six patients were lost to follow up and thirty two patients completed the study. Mean inhalation technique score was 4.9 ± 1.3 before education and increased significantly to 7.8 ± 0.4 after education (p< 0.001). Mean Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score decreased significantly with education (0.77 ± 0.9 vs 0.1 ± 0.1 respectively, p< 0.001). Similarly, mean asthma symptom score (ASS) decreased significantly from 4.3 ± 3.6 to 0.2 ± 0.7 with education (p< 0.001). Most common mistake in use of MDI-Spacer device use was detected to be lack of mouth rinsing after use before education in 78.9% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Providing standardized education about MDI-Spacer device use to children and parents leads to correct MDI-Spacer device use and is associated with improvement in asthma symptom score and asthma control.

[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.

Assessment of the factors affecting the failure to use inhaler devices before and after training.

BACKGROUND: Inhaler devices used for the treatment of chronic respiratory diseases are frequently incorrectly used by the patients. The effects of training on the correct use of these devices are unquestionable. However, despite the training provided on the correct technique of using the inhaler device, some patients still continue using the device incorrectly. The aims of the present study are to determine the rate of incorrect use of the inhaler devices, assess the parameters that affect the incorrect use, demonstrate the contribution of training, and determine the characteristics of the patients who use the devices incorrectly despite training. METHODS: 342 consecutive patients were included in the study. The patients' ability to use the devices correctly was scored before and after face-to-face trainings. The parameters affecting incorrect use, the impact of training, and characteristics of the patients who continued the incorrect usage after training were evaluated. RESULTS: The rate of correct usage was 58.9% for dry powder inhalers (DPI) and 31.1% for pressurized metered dose inhalers (pMDI) before the training. The parameters affecting correct usage were educational status, gender, living in rural areas, duration of disease, and being diagnosed and followed-up by a chest diseases specialist. The rate of correct usage increased to 92.6% for DPI and 45.2% for pMDI after the training. The factors affecting continued incorrect usage after standard training were old age and the type of the pMDI device. CONCLUSIONS: The technique for using the inhaler device should be described to the patients in a face-to-face session by the prescribing physician. Device selection should be done on a "trial" basis and it should be considered that particularly older patients and those using pMDIs continue using the devices incorrectly despite training; hence, alternative treatment options should be reviewed for these patients.

Evaluation of MDI-spacer utilization and technique in caregivers of urban minority children with persistent asthma.

OBJECTIVE: Incorrect Metered-Dose Inhaler (MDI)-spacer technique can result in decreased drug delivery to distal airways and poor asthma outcomes. There is lack of research to examine whether the caregivers utilize proper technique when applying an MDI-spacer delivery system for young minority children with persistent asthma in the United States. The objective of this study was to evaluate MDI-spacer utilization and technique among the caregivers of Bronx minority children with persistent asthma and to determine characteristics associated with correct use. METHODS: We analyzed data from 169 caregivers of urban minority children with persistent asthma (aged 2-9 years). MDI-spacer device technique was assessed using a 10-step checklist derived from the national guidelines, literature and manufacturers' instructions. Based on the median MDI-technique score of six steps demonstrated accurately, caregivers were categorized as correct (seven or more) or incorrect (six or less) users. RESULTS: Of the 169 caregivers, 95% were mothers, mean age 32.3 years (SD 7.6), 56% were unemployed; 74% of the children were Hispanic, 87% had either "not well controlled" or "very poorly controlled" asthma, 92% had a spacer at home and 71% used it "all" or "most" of the time. Only one caregiver correctly demonstrated all 10 steps of the MDI-spacer technique. Child's having one or more asthma-related hospitalizations in the past 12 months and higher caregiver educational level were independent predictors of correct MDI-spacer technique. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The caregivers of urban, minority children with persistent asthma lack proper MDI-spacer technique, suggesting the potential value of both targeted short- and long-term educational interventions.

Holding chambers (spacers) versus nebulisers for beta-agonist treatment of acute asthma.

BACKGROUND: In acute asthma inhaled beta(2)-agonists are often administered by nebuliser to relieve bronchospasm, but some have argued that metered-dose inhalers with a holding chamber (spacer) can be equally effective. Nebulisers require a power source and need regular maintenance, and are more expensive in the community setting. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of holding chambers (spacers) compared to nebulisers for the delivery of beta(2)-agonists for acute asthma. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trial Register and reference lists of articles. We contacted the authors of studies to identify additional trials. Date of last search: February 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials in adults and children (from two years of age) with asthma, where spacer beta(2)-agonist delivery was compared with wet nebulisation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently applied study inclusion criteria (one review author for the first version of the review), extracted the data and assessed risks of bias. Missing data were obtained from the authors or estimated. Results are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: This review includes a total of 1897 children and 729 adults in 39 trials. Thirty-three trials were conducted in the emergency room and equivalent community settings, and six trials were on inpatients with acute asthma (207 children and 28 adults). The method of delivery of beta(2)-agonist did not show a significant difference in hospital admission rates. In adults, the risk ratio (RR) of admission for spacer versus nebuliser was 0.94 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.43). The risk ratio for children was 0.71 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.08, moderate quality evidence). In children, length of stay in the emergency department was significantly shorter when the spacer was used. The mean duration in the emergency department for children given nebulised treatment was 103 minutes, and for children given treatment via spacers 33 minutes less (95% CI -43 to -24 minutes, moderate quality evidence). Length of stay in the emergency department for adults was similar for the two delivery methods. Peak flow and forced expiratory volume were also similar for the two delivery methods. Pulse rate was lower for spacer in children, mean difference -5% baseline (95% CI -8% to -2%, moderate quality evidence), as was the risk of developing tremor (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.95, moderate quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Nebuliser delivery produced outcomes that were not significantly better than metered-dose inhalers delivered by spacer in adults or children, in trials where treatments were repeated and titrated to the response of the participant. Spacers may have some advantages compared to nebulisers for children with acute asthma.

Comparison of the bronchodilating effects of albuterol delivered by valved vs. non-valved spacers in pediatric asthma.

INTRODUCTION: Inhaled therapy using a metered-dose inhaler (MDI) with attached valved holding chamber has been increasingly recognized as the optimal method for delivering bronchodilators for asthma treatment. However, mainly due to the high cost of these valved holding chambers in many developing countries, the use of non-valved spacers is frequent, despite the scarce evidence that supports their efficacy. The aim of this study was to compare the bronchodilator response to albuterol administered by MDI with and without a valved spacer. METHODS: In a randomized, two-period, two-sequence crossover clinical trial, we analyzed 31 stable asthmatic children (6-18 yrs of age) on two consecutive days, who were randomly assigned to receive 100 µg of albuterol MDI through either a locally produced valved spacer or a non-valved spacer. The next day, a crossover treatment was employed through the use of the other spacer. Spirometry was recorded before and after each albuterol administration. RESULTS: As we were not able to identify any sequence or carryover effect, we tested for treatment effects in both periods. No significant differences in the absolute change in FEV(1) (0.20 ± 0.17 vs. 0.18 ± 0.16, p = 0.63), FVC (0.07 ± 0.13 vs. 0.07 ± 0.16, p = 0.88), or MMEF (0.49 ± 0.31 vs. 0.43 ± 0.39, p = 0.53) after bronchodilator administration were found between the use of valved and non-valved spacers. CONCLUSIONS: In stable asthmatic children, albuterol administered through MDI using a non-valved spacer produces a bronchodilator response similar to that of a spacer with a valve that requires an inhalatory opening pressure (with flows between 2 and 32 l/min) that even toddlers with bronchial obstruction can easily generate.

Effect of educational and policy interventions on institutional utilization of wet nebulization respiratory drugs and portable inhalers.

BACKGROUND: Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease treatment guidelines support the preferential use of portable inhalers (PIs) over wet nebulization (WN) respiratory therapy. Hospital- and community-based educational initiatives and a community-based provincial drug program policy change were previously implemented to promote the conversion of WN therapy to PI and spacer device use in Nova Scotia. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of these interventions on salbutamol, ipratropium bromide, and spacer device (Aerochamber) use at the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre (QEII HSC). METHODS: We conducted a time-series analysis of drug utilization data from August 1998 to July 2005. We used two intervention phases compared to the pre-intervention phase to determine whether the educational and policy interventions were associated with significant changes in monthly drug and spacer device utilization rates at the QEII HSC (1000-bed teaching hospital; Halifax, Nova Scotia). RESULTS: Salbutamol and ipratropium bromide PI use significantly increased in both intervention phases, compared to the pre-intervention phase. Mean (SD) defined daily doses/100 bed-days for salbutamol PI increased from 30.4 (0.4) in the pre-intervention phase to 34.6 (0.9) and 37.0 (0.4) in intervention phases I and II respectively (p<0.001 for both), and ipratropium bromide PI increased from 27.3 (3.5) to 32.8 (2.5) in intervention phase I (p=0.004) and 35.6 (3.5) in intervention phase II (p<0.001). However, a significant corresponding decrease was observed with salbutamol WN only. Mean (SD) Aerochamber units/100 bed-days significantly increased. CONCLUSIONS: Educational and policy interventions had limited effects on converting WN to PI use at the QEII HSC.

Children admitted with acute wheeze/asthma during November 1998-2005: a national UK audit.

OBJECTIVE: To report 8 years' data from a UK-wide audit of acute wheeze/asthma management in children carried out annually since 1998. DESIGN: Paediatricians were invited to complete a simple form based on British Thoracic Society (BTS) asthma guidelines for any child over 1 year of age admitted with acute wheeze/asthma each November from 1998 to 2005. Information was collected about patient demographics, initial hospital severity assessment, in-hospital treatment, asthma education and emergency planning, discharge treatment and follow-up. RESULTS: Data on 9429 admissions were available, with between 53 and 67 centres participating each year. The majority of children were under 5 years of age (median age 3 years). Nearly all were treated with bronchodilators, and around 90% received systemic steroids. Vital signs (pulse and respiratory rate) and oxygen saturation on admission remained stable over the audit period. However, the proportion of admitted children given bronchodilators exclusively by spacer increased from 7% to 44% between 1998 and 2005. The proportion discharged with written asthma plans increased from 24% to 41%. Wide variations were noted between centres in the proportions of children receiving chest x rays and written asthma plans. Children admitted under the care of a respiratory specialist were more likely to have documentation that they had been given written asthma information and a written asthma plan and had had their inhaler device technique checked than if under the care of a general paediatrician. CONCLUSIONS: In many areas, hospital treatment closely followed published guidance. However, some important deficiencies were noted and variations remain. As well as monitoring guideline implementation, national audit can highlight opportunities for research and improving care locally and nationally.

Nebulizers or pressurized metered-dose inhalers in the treatment of asthma exacerbations.

The use of inhaled beta2-agonists delivered by a metered-dose inhaler (MDI) with a holding chamber (spacer) actually is considered the best treatment for childhood acute asthma. However, its use in daily practice still seems rather limited. The aim of this study was to investigate, using a questionnaire, the use of a nebulizer or MDI as the first-line method for delivering inhaled beta2-agonists in children with acute asthma. A questionnaire was developed and distributed to 22 pediatric departments and to 131 family pediatricians (FPs) in northeast Italy. We showed that in the hospitals the episodes of acute asthma usually were treated with bronchodilators administered by wet nebulization (95.45%). This was the case also for FPs (70.9%). However, 29.1% of FPs usually advised the use of an MDI/holding chamber to children with acute asthma. Despite the established efficacy of inhaled beta2-agonists administrated with an MDI compared with wet nebulization in acute asthma, this practice still is rather limited. The use of wet nebulization was more evident in hospital settings compared with community medicine. Emergency room visits may represent a missed opportunity to promote an effective method of delivering bronchodilators in childhood asthma.

Knowledge of pediatricians in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, about inhalation therapy in asthmatic children.

BACKGROUND: Despite the numerous guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of asthma, there are data that indicate that general pediatrician's knowledge of the disease and its preferred treatment is limited, which may influence the quality of care given to asthmatic children. The purpose of this study was to describe pediatrician's knowledge of spacers and of concepts of chilhood asthma, as well as their prescribing habits concerning inhalation therapy, in the public health system of the city of Rio de Janeiro. METHODS AND RESULTS: A descriptive cross-sectional study was performed in a sample of 72 pediatricians from the public health system of Rio de Janeiro. A questionnaire was used to assess prescriptions for spacers, the reasons whay spacers were not used, the models employed, classification of asthma according to clinical severity and symptom frequency, recommendation for the correct spacer volume according to age group, and the concept of asthma as an inflammatory disease. Seventy percent (51/72) of the physicians did not routinely prescribe the spacer. The reasons given were as follows: a) lack of spacer availability in the public health system in 55 % (28/51); b) high cost in 57 % (29/51); c) the complexity of their use in 35 % (18/51); d) unwillingness to use aerosol type medication in 15 % (8/51), and e)lack of knowledge of their function and utilization in 59 % (30/51). Of the 30 % (21/72) who reported they regularly and routinely prescribed the spacer in daily practice, 48 % (10/21) stated that this routine prescription, even when indicated, was below 25 % of what was expected and makeshift models were preferred by 24 % (5/21) of the pediatricians. Six percent of the pediatricians chose the appropriate spacer volume according to age group, 62.5 % (45/72) reported that they classified asthma according to severity, 16 % (7/45) gave the correct answers when classifying asthma according to national consensus, and 22 % (16/72) considered asthma to be an inflammatory disease. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that pediatrician's knowledge of inhalation therapy with dosed aerosol spacers and of asthma-related concepts in the public health system in Rio de Janeiro is limited. This may restrict the quality of care given to the asthmatic children in the city and suggests the need for training programs for the management of asthmatic children.