Are outcomes the same with all dry powder inhalers?

M Thomas, A E Williams

Research output: Contribution to journalLiterature review

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Most clinicians and patients would intuitively say that the inhaler device used influences the outcome achieved in asthma. However, it is important to have objective evidence to support or refute this view. Systematic reviews have suggested that there is no difference in clinical effectiveness between dry powder inhalers and metered-dose inhalers. However, the studies included in the review were randomised clinical trials and not studies based on real-life clinical practice. In the real world, the efficacy of products as determined in a specified and well-monitored population is only one aspect of product performance - patient characteristics and behaviour are critical. Observational studies in real-world primary care settings suggest that the choice of inhaler device has an important impact on asthma outcomes.

The IMS Mediplus database has now been used to compare outcomes among patients receiving initial maintenance therapy with beclometasone dipropionate administered via different dry powder inhalers. Patients using the DISKHALER(TM) dry powder inhaler used significantly less short-acting beta(2)-agonist than those using the ROTAHALER(TM) dry powder inhaler. This suggests a difference in the level of asthma control with the different devices, even when the same chemical entity is delivered.

Real-world studies suggest, therefore, that outcomes are not always the same with all dry powder inhalers. This indicates the need for further studies to investigate the impact of inhaler device choice and the impact of switching between devices.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)33-35
Number of pages3
JournalInternational Journal of Clinical Practice
Volume59
Issue numbers149
Early online date8 Nov 2005
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Dec 2005

Keywords

  • dry powder inhalers
  • asthma control
  • health outcomes
  • beclometasone dipropionate
  • rotahaer(TM)
  • diskhaler(TM)
  • database
  • disease
  • asthma

Cite this

Are outcomes the same with all dry powder inhalers? / Thomas, M ; Williams, A E .

In: International Journal of Clinical Practice, Vol. 59, No. s149, 01.12.2005, p. 33-35.

Research output: Contribution to journalLiterature review

Thomas, M ; Williams, A E . / Are outcomes the same with all dry powder inhalers?. In: International Journal of Clinical Practice. 2005 ; Vol. 59, No. s149. pp. 33-35.
@article{78515adc48db4b0ea878397ffdf49b24,
title = "Are outcomes the same with all dry powder inhalers?",
abstract = "Most clinicians and patients would intuitively say that the inhaler device used influences the outcome achieved in asthma. However, it is important to have objective evidence to support or refute this view. Systematic reviews have suggested that there is no difference in clinical effectiveness between dry powder inhalers and metered-dose inhalers. However, the studies included in the review were randomised clinical trials and not studies based on real-life clinical practice. In the real world, the efficacy of products as determined in a specified and well-monitored population is only one aspect of product performance - patient characteristics and behaviour are critical. Observational studies in real-world primary care settings suggest that the choice of inhaler device has an important impact on asthma outcomes.The IMS Mediplus database has now been used to compare outcomes among patients receiving initial maintenance therapy with beclometasone dipropionate administered via different dry powder inhalers. Patients using the DISKHALER(TM) dry powder inhaler used significantly less short-acting beta(2)-agonist than those using the ROTAHALER(TM) dry powder inhaler. This suggests a difference in the level of asthma control with the different devices, even when the same chemical entity is delivered.Real-world studies suggest, therefore, that outcomes are not always the same with all dry powder inhalers. This indicates the need for further studies to investigate the impact of inhaler device choice and the impact of switching between devices.",
keywords = "dry powder inhalers, asthma control, health outcomes, beclometasone dipropionate, rotahaer(TM), diskhaler(TM), database, disease, asthma",
author = "M Thomas and Williams, {A E}",
year = "2005",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.1368-504X.2005.00726.x",
language = "English",
volume = "59",
pages = "33--35",
journal = "International Journal of Clinical Practice",
issn = "1368-5031",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "s149",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Are outcomes the same with all dry powder inhalers?

AU - Thomas, M

AU - Williams, A E

PY - 2005/12/1

Y1 - 2005/12/1

N2 - Most clinicians and patients would intuitively say that the inhaler device used influences the outcome achieved in asthma. However, it is important to have objective evidence to support or refute this view. Systematic reviews have suggested that there is no difference in clinical effectiveness between dry powder inhalers and metered-dose inhalers. However, the studies included in the review were randomised clinical trials and not studies based on real-life clinical practice. In the real world, the efficacy of products as determined in a specified and well-monitored population is only one aspect of product performance - patient characteristics and behaviour are critical. Observational studies in real-world primary care settings suggest that the choice of inhaler device has an important impact on asthma outcomes.The IMS Mediplus database has now been used to compare outcomes among patients receiving initial maintenance therapy with beclometasone dipropionate administered via different dry powder inhalers. Patients using the DISKHALER(TM) dry powder inhaler used significantly less short-acting beta(2)-agonist than those using the ROTAHALER(TM) dry powder inhaler. This suggests a difference in the level of asthma control with the different devices, even when the same chemical entity is delivered.Real-world studies suggest, therefore, that outcomes are not always the same with all dry powder inhalers. This indicates the need for further studies to investigate the impact of inhaler device choice and the impact of switching between devices.

AB - Most clinicians and patients would intuitively say that the inhaler device used influences the outcome achieved in asthma. However, it is important to have objective evidence to support or refute this view. Systematic reviews have suggested that there is no difference in clinical effectiveness between dry powder inhalers and metered-dose inhalers. However, the studies included in the review were randomised clinical trials and not studies based on real-life clinical practice. In the real world, the efficacy of products as determined in a specified and well-monitored population is only one aspect of product performance - patient characteristics and behaviour are critical. Observational studies in real-world primary care settings suggest that the choice of inhaler device has an important impact on asthma outcomes.The IMS Mediplus database has now been used to compare outcomes among patients receiving initial maintenance therapy with beclometasone dipropionate administered via different dry powder inhalers. Patients using the DISKHALER(TM) dry powder inhaler used significantly less short-acting beta(2)-agonist than those using the ROTAHALER(TM) dry powder inhaler. This suggests a difference in the level of asthma control with the different devices, even when the same chemical entity is delivered.Real-world studies suggest, therefore, that outcomes are not always the same with all dry powder inhalers. This indicates the need for further studies to investigate the impact of inhaler device choice and the impact of switching between devices.

KW - dry powder inhalers

KW - asthma control

KW - health outcomes

KW - beclometasone dipropionate

KW - rotahaer(TM)

KW - diskhaler(TM)

KW - database

KW - disease

KW - asthma

U2 - 10.1111/j.1368-504X.2005.00726.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1368-504X.2005.00726.x

M3 - Literature review

VL - 59

SP - 33

EP - 35

JO - International Journal of Clinical Practice

JF - International Journal of Clinical Practice

SN - 1368-5031

IS - s149

ER -