Validation of the Polish-language version of the COPD Assessment Test.

INTRODUCTION: The COPD Assessment Test (CAT) is a standardized patient-completed tool dedicated to assessment of symptom severity. While the Polish CAT version has been used for a few years, it has not been validated so far. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to validate the Polish­language version of the CAT questionnaire by assessing its reproducibility and reliability. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Validation of the Polish­language version of the CAT questionnaire was a substudy of the international multicenter observational cross­sectional POPE survey of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in Central and Eastern European countries. The study was completed in 395 outpatients with stable disease at least 4 weeks before the survey. Validation was performed with the use of the Spearman correlation and Cronbach α coefficients, Cohen κ test, and the Bland-Altman procedure. RESULTS: The internal consistency assessed by the Cronbach α coefficient was 0.87 for the questionnaire and 0.84 to 0.86 for its separate items. The repeatability of the questionnaire was good to very good (Cohen κ, 0.76-0.85; P <0.01). The Spearman coefficient for the sum of scores of test-retest responses was 0.95 (P <0.01). The Bland-Altman analysis revealed very good test-retest and interrater reliability, with the mean difference between test I and test II results of -0.556 (95% CI, -0.345 to 0.767). CONCLUSIONS: The Polish version of the CAT questionnaire is a reproducible and reliable instrument for evaluation of patients with COPD and should be recommended for use in clinical practice.

Impact of a Single Session of Inhalation Technique Training on Inhalation Skills and the Course of Asthma and COPD.

BACKGROUND: A significant percentage of patients with asthma and COPD do not use their inhalers properly. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a single session of inhalation technique training on the frequency of inhalation errors and the course of asthma and COPD. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial included adults who had been diagnosed with and treated for asthma or COPD with at least one inhaler use daily on a regular basis. All subjects were followed for 6 months, at which time their inhalation technique was assessed and an individual inhalation training (study group) or a sham procedure (control group) was applied. The number of mishandlings was calculated as the ratio of the number of errors to the number of inhalers used by an individual subject. The effect of training was evaluated after 3 months and again after 6 months. RESULTS: 50 subjects with asthma and 50 subjects with COPD were enrolled. Only 20% of subjects made no critical errors before the intervention. Subjects who were trained in the proper inhalation technique made fewer errors after 3 months (32 of 50 vs 20 of 50). The relative risk was 1.63 (95% CI 1.1-2.4, P = .01) and the number needed to treat was 3.9 (95% CI 2.2-15). Despite the improvement in the inhalation technique, we found no reduction in the number of asthma/COPD exacerbations, symptom severity, or the quality of life. After 3 consecutive months, the efficacy of the intervention decreased, and only 66% of the former responders maintained the lower ratio of errors per inhaler. After 6 months, there was no difference in the number of subjects with better inhalation technique between intervention (24 of 50) and control group (27 of 50) (P = .62). CONCLUSIONS: Although a single inhalation training leads to a reduction in the number of errors made during inhalation, it does not influence the course of asthma and COPD. The positive effect of a single inhalation technique training is temporary. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT02131454.).

Mishandling of pMDI and DPI inhalers in asthma and COPD - Repetitive and non-repetitive errors.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacological treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is based mainly on inhaled medications. There is a continuous need to examine and train patients in their inhalation technique. The objective of the presented study is to determine whether the errors which patients made during inhalations are repetitive, and therefore easier to eradicate, or rather accidental, hence require more attention and effort from the health care professionals. METHODS: It was a prospective, cohort study which included adults with asthma or COPD, who have used at least one inhaler daily on a regular basis. Inhalation technique was evaluated twice in a six months interval basing on a list of the most common errors in the inhalation technique. There was no training of inhalation skills between visits. RESULTS: There were 92 patients (46 asthmatics, 46 with COPD; median age 66 years, median duration of the disease 10 years) included into the analysis. 92% of patients made at least one error during their inhalation. Among pMDI users the most common device mishandlings were: no or too short breath-holding after inhalation (60% of the patients during the first visit; 50% during the 2nd), too rapid and too forceful inhalation (52%; 61%) and lack of exhalation before the use of the medicine (48%; 43%). Among the DPI users, the most numerous errors were: no or too short (less than 3 s) breath-holding after inhalation (62%; 55%) and slow and not forceful enough inhalation (38%; 36%). When comparing the mishandlings in the inhalation technique conducted during the first and second visit the majority of the errors conducted by the patients were repetitive. However, some errors such as too early termination of inhalation (p = 0.016), inhalation through the nose during actuation (p = 0.002) among pMDI users and lack of expiration before inhalation (p = 0.027) among DPI users, were non-permanent. CONCLUSIONS: Improper inhalation technique is very common and the majority of errors made in inhalation technique are repetitive. This emphasizes the role of an ongoing verification and training of a proper inhalation technique in all patients that are regularly treated with inhalers.

Distribution and characteristics of COPD phenotypes - results from the Polish sub-cohort of the POPE study.

Background: This study aimed to examine the distribution of predefined phenotypes, demographic data, clinical outcomes, and treatment of patients who were included in the Polish cohort of the Phenotypes of COPD in Central and Eastern Europe (POPE) study. Patients and methods: This was a sub-analysis of the data from the Polish cohort of the POPE study, an international, multicenter, observational cross-sectional survey of COPD patients in Central and Eastern European countries. The study included patients aged >40 years, with a confirmed diagnosis of COPD, and absence of exacerbation for at least 4 weeks before study inclusion. A total of seven Polish centers participated in the study. Results: Among the 430 Polish COPD patients enrolled in the study, 61.6% were non-exacerbators (NON-AE), 25.3% were frequent exacerbators with chronic bronchitis (AE CB), 7.9% were frequent exacerbators without chronic bronchitis (AE NON-CB), and 5.1% met the definition of asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS). There were statistically significant differences among these phenotypes in terms of symptom load, lung function, comorbidities, and treatment. Patients with the AE CB phenotype were most symptomatic with worse lung function, and more frequently reported anxiety and depression. Patients with the ACOS phenotype were significantly younger and were diagnosed with COPD earlier than those with other COPD phenotypes; those with the ACOS phenotype were also more often atopic and obese. Conclusion: There is significant heterogeneity among COPD patients in the Polish population in terms of phenotype and clinical outcome. The non-exacerbator phenotype is observed most frequently in Poland, while the frequent exacerbator with chronic bronchitis phenotype is the most symptomatic.