A collaboration of multidisciplinary experts on the delivery of pharmaceutical aerosols was facilitated by the European Respiratory Society (ERS) and the International Society for Aerosols in Medicine (ISAM), in order to draw up a consensus statement with clear, up-to-date recommendations that enable the pulmonary physician to choose the type of aerosol delivery device that is most suitable for their patient. The focus of the consensus statement is the patientuse aspect of the aerosol delivery devices that are currently available.The subject was divided into different topics, which were in turn assigned to at least two experts. The authors searched the literature according to their own strategies, with no central literature review being performed. To achieve consensus, draft reports and recommendations were reviewed and voted on by the entire panel.Specific recommendations for use of the devices can be found throughout the statement. Healthcare providers should ensure that their patients can and will use these devices correctly. This requires that the clinician: is aware of the devices that are currently available to deliver the prescribed drugs; knows the various techniques that are appropriate for each device; is able to evaluate the patient's inhalation technique to be sure they are using the devices properly; and ensures that the inhalation method is appropriate for each patient.
Health professionals tasked with advising patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) how to use inhaler devices properly and what to do about unwanted effects will be aware of a variety of commonly held precepts. The evidence for many of these is, however, lacking or old and therefore in need of re-examination. Few would disagree that facilitating and encouraging regular and proper use of inhaler devices for the treatment of asthma and COPD is critical for successful outcomes. It seems logical that the abandonment of unnecessary or ill-founded practices forms an integral part of this process: the use of inhalers is bewildering enough, particularly with regular introduction of new drugs, devices and ancillary equipment, without unnecessary and pointless adages. We review the evidence, or lack thereof, underlying ten items of inhaler ‘lore’ commonly passed on by health professionals to each other and thence to patients. The exercise is intended as a pragmatic, evidence-informed review by a group of clinicians with appropriate experience. It is not intended to be an exhaustive review of the literature; rather, we aim to stimulate debate, and to encourage researchers to challenge some of these ideas and to provide new, updated evidence on which to base relevant, meaningful advice in the future. The discussion on each item is followed by a formal, expert opinion by members of the ADMIT Working Group.
A broad range of inhaler devices is available for physicians to prescribe. Although newer devices are often easier to use than conventional pressurised metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs), many patients still use inhalers sub-optimally. Physicians must become familiar with the characteristics of several inhalers and choose the device that their patients can use correctly and beneficially if they are to prescribe successfully to those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The selection of a device may also be influenced by patient comorbidities and by their ability to handle and inhale correctly from the device. A further challenge in the COPD setting is measuring the desired treatment outcome.A simple algorithm or checklist can guide device selection in primary care. The device must be affordable for the patient, the patient must be able to handle it correctly and the practitioner or other trained professional should monitor that it is being used correctly. The patient's and physician's preferences should also be taken into account. The most important device-handling skills that should be assessed are whether the patient can: properly prepare and actuate the device; take an adequate inspiration; and coordinate actuation of a pMDI with inspiration.Testing the practicality and advantages of such checklists will mean better use can be made of the inhaler types currently available as well as newer designs. In the interim, caregiver and patient education are needed.
Spirometry is a simple test and considered the gold standard in lung function. An obstructive ventilatory defect is a disproportionate reduction of maximal airflow from the lung in relation to the maximal volume that can be displaced from the lung. It implies airway narrowing and is defined by a reduced FEV1/FVC ratio below the 5th percentile of the predicted value (lower limit of normal, LLN). A restrictive disorder may be suspected when vital capacity (FVC) is reduced and FEV1/FVC is normal. It is definitely proven, however, only by a decrease in TLC below the 5th percentile of predicted value (LLN). The measurement of TLC by body plethysmography is necessary to confirm or exclude a restrictive defect or hyperinflation of the lung when FVC is below the LLN. 2012 a task force of the ERS published new reference values based on 74,187 records from healthy non-smoking males and females from 26 countries. The new reference equations for the 3-95 age range are now available that include appropriate age-dependent mean values and lower limits of normal (LLN). This presentation aims at providing the reader with recommendations dealing with standardization and interpretation of spirometry.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.