Errors in the use of different inhalers were investigated in patients naive to the devices under investigation in a multicentre, single-visit, randomised, open-label, cross-over study. Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or asthma were assigned to ELLIPTA vs DISKUS (Accuhaler), metered-dose inhaler (MDI) or Turbuhaler. Patients with COPD were also assigned to ELLIPTA vs Handihaler or Breezhaler. Patients demonstrated inhaler use after reading the patient information leaflet (PIL). A trained investigator assessed critical errors (i.e., those likely to result in the inhalation of significantly reduced, minimal or no medication). If the patient made errors, the investigator demonstrated the correct use of the inhaler, and the patient demonstrated inhaler use again. Fewer COPD patients made critical errors with ELLIPTA after reading the PIL vs: DISKUS, 9/171 (5%) vs 75/171 (44%); MDI, 10/80 (13%) vs 48/80 (60%); Turbuhaler, 8/100 (8%) vs 44/100 (44%); Handihaler, 17/118 (14%) vs 57/118 (48%); Breezhaler, 13/98 (13%) vs 45/98 (46%; all P<0.001). Most patients (57–70%) made no errors using ELLIPTA and did not require investigator instruction. Instruction was required for DISKUS (65%), MDI (85%), Turbuhaler (71%), Handihaler (62%) and Breezhaler (56%). Fewer asthma patients made critical errors with ELLIPTA after reading the PIL vs: DISKUS (3/70 (4%) vs 9/70 (13%), P=0.221); MDI (2/32 (6%) vs 8/32 (25%), P=0.074) and significantly fewer vs Turbuhaler (3/60 (5%) vs 20/60 (33%), P<0.001). More asthma and COPD patients preferred ELLIPTA over the other devices (all P⩽0.002). Significantly, fewer COPD patients using ELLIPTA made critical errors after reading the PIL vs other inhalers. More asthma and COPD patients preferred ELLIPTA over comparator inhalers.

Aims: To evaluate the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) '3 questions' in the assessment of asthma control.Methods: This was a prospective observational study. Subjects (20 adults and 15 children) were assessed 2-weekly over 12 weeks, with data collection on RCP scores (yes/no for each question, 0-3), lung function, asthma control questionnaire (ACQ), asthma quality of life questionnaires (AQLQ), bronchodilator use, and exhaled nitric oxide level.Results: Between-subject analysis showed that the RCP score correlated strongly with the ACQ (correlation coefficient 0.79, p<0.001), AQLQ (-0.71, p=0.001) and bronchodilator use (0.52, p=0.02) in adults, although in children the correlations were weaker and nonsignificant. Within-subject analysis showed strong correlations between changes in the RCP score and ACQ score in adults (0.67, p<0.001) and children (0.61, p<0.001), between quality of life scores in adults (-0.67, p<0.001) and children (-0.69, p<0.001), and changes in bronchodilator use in adults (0.49, p<0.001) and children (0.48, p<0.001). Weaker or absent correlations existed with lung function and no correlations with exhaled nitric oxide levels. An RCP score of 1 or more identified 89% of occasions when the ACQ was >1.Conclusions: The RCP 3 questions reliably quantify current asthma control in this dataset, with a negative response to all 3 questions indicating good control. These data support the use of the 3 questions, but larger validation studies are needed.

BackgroundInhaled therapies are key components of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatments. Although the use of pressurised metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) accounts for <0.1% of global greenhouse gas emissions, their contribution to global warming has been debated and efforts are underway to reduce the carbon footprint of pMDIs. Our aim was to establish the extent to which different scenarios led to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions associated with inhaler use, and their clinical implications.MethodsWe conducted a series of scenario analyses using asthma and COPD inhaler usage data from 2019 to model carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions reductions over a 10-year period (2020–2030) in the UK, Italy, France, Germany and Spain: switching propellant-driven pMDIs for propellant-free dry-powder inhalers (DPIs)/soft mist inhalers (SMIs); transitioning to low global warming potential (GWP) propellant (hydrofluoroalkane (HFA)-152a) pMDIs; reducing short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) use; and inhaler recycling.ResultsTransition to low-GWP pMDIs and forced switching to DPI/SMIs (excluding SABA inhalers) would reduce annual CO2e emissions by 68%–84% and 64%–71%, respectively, but with different clinical implications. Emission reductions would be greatest (82%–89%) with transition of both maintenance and SABA inhalers to low-GWP propellant. Only minimising SABA inhaler use would reduce CO2e emissions by 17%–48%. Although significant greenhouse gas emission reductions would be achieved with high rates of end-of-life recycling (81%–87% of the inhalers), transition to a low-GWP propellant would still result in greater reductions.ConclusionsWhile the absolute contribution of pMDIs to global warming is very small, substantial reductions in the carbon footprint of pMDIs can be achieved with transition to low-GWP propellant (HFA-152a) inhalers. This approach outperforms the substitution of pMDIs with DPI/SMIs while preserving patient access and choice, which are essential for optimising treatment and outcomes. These findings require confirmation in independent studies.

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) management represents a significant health resource use burden. Understanding of current resource use, treatment strategies and outcomes can improve future COPD management, for patient benefit and to aid efficient service delivery. This study aimed to describe exacerbation frequency, pharmacotherapy and health resource use in COPD management in routine UK primary care. A retrospective, observational study using routine clinical records of 511 patients with COPD, was undertaken in 10 General Practices in England. Up to 3 years' patient data were collected and analysed. 75% (234/314) patients with mild-moderate COPD (≥50% predicted FEV1) received inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). 11% of patients (54/511) received ICS monotherapy. Mean (standard deviation) annual exacerbation frequency was 1.1 (1.2) in mild-moderate, 1.7 (1.6) in severe (30-49% predicted FEV1) and 2.2 (2.0) in very severe (<30% predicted FEV1) COPD. 14% patients (69/511) had a mean exacerbation frequency of ≥3/year ('frequent-exacerbators'); 9% (27/314) of patients with mild-moderate, 19% (27/145) with severe and 29% (15/52) with very severe COPD. 14% (10/69) of frequent-exacerbators failed to receive inhaled long-acting beta agonists (LABA), 25% (17/69) inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), and 12% (`/69) ICS. Frequent-exacerbators had a median of 6.67 primary care contacts/year, 1.0 secondary care visits/year and 21% were hospitalised for COPD/year. Inhaled therapy was frequently inappropriate, with over-use of ICS in patients with mild-moderate COPD. COPD exacerbations were associated with high health resource use and occurred at all levels of disease severity. COPD management strategies should encompass risk-stratification for both exacerbation frequency and physiological impairment.

Asthma imposes a substantial burden on individuals and societies. Patients with asthma need high-quality primary care management; however, evidence suggests the quality of this care can be highly variable. Here we identify and report factors contributing to high-quality management. Twelve primary care global asthma experts, representing nine countries, identified key factors. A literature review (past 10 years) was performed to validate or refute the expert viewpoint. Key driving factors identified were: policy, clinical guidelines, rewards for performance, practice organisation and workforce. Further analysis established the relevant factor components. Review evidence supported the validity of each driver; however, impact on patient outcomes was uncertain. Single interventions (e.g. healthcare practitioner education) showed little effect; interventions driven by national policy (e.g. incentive schemes and teamworking) were more effective. The panel’s opinion, supported by literature review, concluded that multiple primary care interventions offer greater benefit than any single intervention in asthma management.