scholarly journals Device use errors with soft mist inhalers: A global systematic literature review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 147997311990123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maryam Navaie ◽  
Carole Dembek ◽  
Soojin Cho-Reyes ◽  
Karen Yeh ◽  
Bartolome R Celli

Inhaled bronchodilators are the cornerstone of treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Soft mist inhalers (SMIs) are devices that deliver bronchodilators. Although correct device use is paramount to successful medication delivery, patient errors are common. This global systematic literature review and meta-analysis examined device use errors with SMIs among patients with obstructive lung diseases. PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were searched to identify studies published between 2010 and 2019 that met the following inclusion criteria: (a) English language; (b) a diagnosis of COPD, bronchitis, or emphysema; and (c) reported device use errors among adults receiving long-acting bronchodilator treatment with Respimat® SMI (i.e. Spiriva®, Stiolto®, Spiolto®, and Striverdi®). Descriptive statistics examined sociodemographics, clinical characteristics, and device use errors. Meta-analysis techniques were employed with random-effects models to generate pooled mean effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for overall and step-by-step errors. The I 2 statistic measured heterogeneity. Twelve studies ( n = 1288 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. Eighty-eight percent of patients had COPD, and most had moderate/very severe airflow limitation (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease spirometric stages II to IV). Aggregate results revealed that 58.9% (95% CI: 42.4–75.5; I 2 = 92.8%) of patients made ≥1 device use errors. Among 11 studies with step-by-step data, the most common errors were failure to (1) exhale completely and away from the device (47.8% (95% CI: 33.6–62.0)); (2) hold breath for up to 10 seconds (30.6% (95% CI: 17.5–43.7)); (3) take a slow, deep breath while pressing the dose release button (27.9% (95% CI: 14.5–41.2)); (4) hold the inhaler upright (22.6% (95% CI: 6.2–39.0)); and (5) turn the base toward the arrows until it clicked (17.6% (95% CI: 3.0–32.2)). Device use errors occurred in about 6 of 10 patients who used SMIs. An individualized approach to inhalation device selection and ongoing training and monitoring of device use are important in optimizing bronchodilator treatment.

2017 ◽  
Vol 76 (5) ◽  
pp. 886-890 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandre Sepriano ◽  
Roxana Rubio ◽  
Sofia Ramiro ◽  
Robert Landewé ◽  
Désirée van der Heijde

ObjectiveTo summarise the evidence on the performance of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) (also imaging and clinical arm separately), peripheral (p)SpA and the entire set, when tested against the rheumatologist's diagnosis (‘reference standard’).MethodsA systematic literature review was performed to identify eligible studies. Raw data on SpA diagnosis and classification were extracted or, if necessary, obtained from the authors of the selected publications. A meta-analysis was performed to obtain pooled estimates for sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, by fitting random effects models.ResultsNine papers fulfilled the inclusion criteria (N=5739 patients). The entire set of the ASAS SpA criteria yielded a high pooled sensitivity (73%) and specificity (88%). Similarly, good results were found for the axSpA criteria (sensitivity: 82%; specificity: 88%). Splitting the axSpA criteria in ‘imaging arm only’ and ‘clinical arm only’ resulted in much lower sensitivity (30% and 23% respectively), but very high specificity was retained (97% and 94% respectively). The pSpA criteria were less often tested than the axSpA criteria and showed a similarly high pooled specificity (87%) but lower sensitivity (63%).ConclusionsAccumulated evidence from studies with more than 5500 patients confirms the good performance of the various ASAS SpA criteria as tested against the rheumatologist's diagnosis.


Diabetes ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 67 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1159-P
Author(s):  
GLENN M. DAVIES ◽  
ANN MARIE MCNEILL ◽  
ELIZA KRUGER ◽  
STACEY L. KOWAL ◽  
FLAVIA EJZYKOWICZ ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
María Dolores Casaña-Ruiz ◽  
Carlos Bellot-Arcís ◽  
Vanessa Paredes-Gallardo ◽  
Verónica García-Sanz ◽  
José Manuel Almerich-Silla ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document