Back to Journals » Journal of Asthma and Allergy » Volume 4

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

Authors Price DB, Haughney J, Sims, Ali M, von Ziegenweidt, Hillyer, Lee A, Chisholm, Barnes N

Published 28 April 2011 Volume 2011:4 Pages 37—47

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/JAA.S17709

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewer comments 2


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

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]