skip to content
Dovepress - Open Access to Scientific and Medical Research
View our mobile site

8852

Effectiveness of inhaler types for real-world asthma management: retrospective observational study using the GPRD

Original Research

(2294) Views  (601) Full article downloads

Authors: Price D, Haughney J, Sims E, Ali M, von Ziegenweidt J, Hillyer EV, Lee AJ, Chisholm A, Barnes N

Published Date April 2011 Volume 2011:4 Pages 37 - 47
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/JAA.S17709

David Price1,2 John Haughney1, Erika Sims2, Muzammil Ali2, Julie von Ziegenweidt2, Elizabeth V Hillyer2, Amanda J Lee3, Alison Chisholm2, Neil Barnes4
1Centre of Academic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK; 2Research in Real Life Ltd, Cawston, Norwich, UK; 3Section of Population Health, University of Aberdeen, UK; 4Department of Respiratory Medicine, London Chest Hospital, Barts and The London NHS Trust, London, UK

Purpose: Results of randomized controlled trials may not predict effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in real-world clinical practice, where inhaler technique and device characteristics can influence effectiveness. We compared asthma outcomes for ICS delivered via three different inhaler devices: pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI), breath-actuated MDI (BAI), and dry powder inhaler (DPI).
Patients and methods: This retrospective database study evaluated 1-year outcomes for primary care patients with asthma aged 5–60 years prescribed their first ICS (initiation population) by pMDI (n = 39,746), BAI (n = 9809), or DPI (n = 6792), or their first ICS dose increase (step-up population) by pMDI (n = 6245), BAI (n = 1388), or DPI (n = 1536). Co-primary outcome measures were composite proxy measures of asthma control (no hospital attendance for asthma, oral corticosteroids, or antibiotics for lower respiratory infection) and severe exacerbations (unscheduled hospital admission, emergency room attendance, or oral corticosteroids). Outcomes were adjusted for potential confounding factors identified during a baseline year.
Results: In the initiation population, adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals [CI]) for asthma control, as compared with pMDIs, were significantly better for BAIs (1.08 [1.02–1.14]) and DPIs (1.13 [1.06–1.21]), while adjusted exacerbation rate ratios (95% CI) were 1.00 (0.93–1.08) and 0.88 (0.81–0.95), respectively. In the step-up population, adjusted odds of asthma control were 1.21 (1.05–1.39) for BAIs and 1.13 (0.99–1.29) for DPIs; adjusted exacerbation rate ratios were 0.83 (0.71–0.98) for BAIs and 0.85 (0.74–0.98) for DPIs, compared with pMDIs.
Conclusion: Inhaler device selection may have a bearing on clinical outcomes. Differences in real-world effectiveness among these devices require closer evaluation in well-designed prospective trials.

Keywords: asthma control, dry powder inhaler, breath-actuated inhaler, metered-dose inhaler, primary care






Readers of this article also read:

Treatment of moderate to severe asthma: patient perspectives on combination inhaler therapy and implications for adherence
Viral asthma: implications for clinical practice
The impact of asthma on the gastrointestinal tract (GIT)
Current recommendations for the treatment of mild asthma
Methicillin resistance of Staphylococcus species among health care and nonhealth care workers undergoing cataract surgery
New therapies and management strategies in the treatment of asthma: patient-focused developments
Lack of paradoxical bronchoconstriction after administration of tiotropium via Respimat® Soft Mist™ Inhaler in COPD
Effect of gene environment interactions on lung function and cardiovascular disease in COPD
Update on optimal use of omalizumab in management of asthma
Successful treatment of reactive airways dysfunction syndrome by high-dose vitamin D