TY - JOUR
T1 - Sufficient inspiratory effort for a dry powder inhaler - do we have to measure it, or can we observe it?
T2 - European Respiratory Society (ERS) International Congress.
AU - Leving, Marika
AU - Bosnic-Anticevich, Sinthia Z
AU - van Cooten, Joyce
AU - Correia de Sousa, Jaime
AU - Cvetkovski, Biljana
AU - Dekhuijzen, P N Richard
AU - Dijk, Lars
AU - Garcia Pardo, Marina
AU - Gardev, Asparuh
AU - Gawlik, Radosław
AU - van der Ham, Iris
AU - Janse, Ymke
AU - Lavorini, Federico
AU - Maricoto, Tiago
AU - Meijer, Jiska
AU - Metz, Boyd
AU - Price, David
AU - Roman-Rodriguez, Miguel
AU - Schuttel, Kirsten
AU - Stoker, Nilouq
AU - Tsiligianni, Ioanna
AU - Usmani, Omar
AU - Zijlema, Wilma
AU - Kocks, Janwillem W H
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - Background: The PIFotal study found that nearly a third of COPD patients on dry powder inhaler (DPI) maintenance therapy did not generate an optimal peak inspiratory flow (PIF) for their device during a typical inhalation manoeuvre. PIF can be assessed by either observing inhalation technique or by measuring it objectively. However, it is unclear whether these methods differ in their accuracy to guide optimal DPI use.Method: Cross-sectional observational multinational study in 1,389 COPD patients (mean±SD: 69±9yrs) on DPI maintenance therapy. PIF was assessed by 1) videorecording and rated with checklists (i.e. ‘inspiratory effort’) and 2) measurement at the resistance of patient’s DPI with In-Check Dial G16. Health status was assessed with Clinical COPD Questionnaire.Results: Patients with sufficient inspiratory effort, as assessed with video (n = 987), but with suboptimal PIF (sPIF n = 365), as measured with In-Check Dial G16, had significantly worse health status compared to patients with optimal PIF and sufficient inspiratory effort (Fig. 1, β* 0.19; 95%CI [0.03, 0.35]; p = 0.02).Conclusion: Even when PIF was observed to be sufficient, 37% of patients had sPIF when measured. Thus, observations were inadequate to identify sPIF, a factor associated with poorer health status. Objective measurements of PIF should guide the DPI selection process.FootnotesCite this article as Eur Respir J 2022; 60: Suppl. 66, 2052.This article was presented at the 2022 ERS International Congress, in session “-”.This is an ERS International Congress abstract. No full-text version is available. Further material to accompany this abstract may be available at www.ers-education.org (ERS member access only).
AB - Background: The PIFotal study found that nearly a third of COPD patients on dry powder inhaler (DPI) maintenance therapy did not generate an optimal peak inspiratory flow (PIF) for their device during a typical inhalation manoeuvre. PIF can be assessed by either observing inhalation technique or by measuring it objectively. However, it is unclear whether these methods differ in their accuracy to guide optimal DPI use.Method: Cross-sectional observational multinational study in 1,389 COPD patients (mean±SD: 69±9yrs) on DPI maintenance therapy. PIF was assessed by 1) videorecording and rated with checklists (i.e. ‘inspiratory effort’) and 2) measurement at the resistance of patient’s DPI with In-Check Dial G16. Health status was assessed with Clinical COPD Questionnaire.Results: Patients with sufficient inspiratory effort, as assessed with video (n = 987), but with suboptimal PIF (sPIF n = 365), as measured with In-Check Dial G16, had significantly worse health status compared to patients with optimal PIF and sufficient inspiratory effort (Fig. 1, β* 0.19; 95%CI [0.03, 0.35]; p = 0.02).Conclusion: Even when PIF was observed to be sufficient, 37% of patients had sPIF when measured. Thus, observations were inadequate to identify sPIF, a factor associated with poorer health status. Objective measurements of PIF should guide the DPI selection process.FootnotesCite this article as Eur Respir J 2022; 60: Suppl. 66, 2052.This article was presented at the 2022 ERS International Congress, in session “-”.This is an ERS International Congress abstract. No full-text version is available. Further material to accompany this abstract may be available at www.ers-education.org (ERS member access only).
U2 - 10.1183/13993003.congress-2022.2052
DO - 10.1183/13993003.congress-2022.2052
M3 - Article
SN - 0903-1936
VL - 60
JO - European Respiratory Journal
JF - European Respiratory Journal
IS - suppl 66
M1 - 2052
Y2 - 4 September 2022 through 6 September 2022
ER -