Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26769482›Full record

Trial reportBMC pulmonary medicine2016

Comparison of serious inhaler technique errors made by device-naïve patients using three different dry powder inhalers: a randomised, crossover, open-label study.

Henry Chrystyn, David B Price, Mathieu Molimard, John Haughney, Sinthia Bosnic-Anticevich, Federico Lavorini, John Efthimiou, Dawn Shan, Erika Sims, Anne Burden and 2 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01794390 (Critical Errors in Pulmojet and Other Devices), which is not on this map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT01794390 completednot on this map

Critical Errors in Pulmojet and Other Devices

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorResearch in Real-Life LtdRan2013 to 2014Enrolled431ConditionsPulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive, Asthma
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Factors associated with appropriate inhaler use in patients with COPD - lessons from the REAL survey.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2018
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Henry ChrystynInhalation Consultancy Ltd, Yeadon, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK.
David B PriceResearch in Real-Life, 5a Coles Lane, Oakington, Cambridge, UK. dprice@rirl.org.
Mathieu MolimardDepartment of Medical Pharmacology, CHU et Univ. de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
John HaughneyAcademic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Polwarth Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK.
Sinthia Bosnic-AnticevichWoolcock Institute of Medical Research, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia.
Federico LavoriniDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy.
John EfthimiouHorizon Respiratory Consultancy, Oxford, UK.
Dawn ShanResearch in Real-Life, 5a Coles Lane, Oakington, Cambridge, UK.
Erika SimsResearch in Real-Life, 5a Coles Lane, Oakington, Cambridge, UK.
Anne BurdenResearch in Real-Life, 5a Coles Lane, Oakington, Cambridge, UK.
Catherine HuttonResearch in Real-Life, 5a Coles Lane, Oakington, Cambridge, UK.
Nicolas RocheUniversity Paris Descartes (EA2511), Respiratory and Intensive Care Medicine Department, Cochin Hospital Group, AP-HP, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSerious inhaler technique errors can impair drug delivery to the lungs. This randomised, crossover, open-label study evaluated the proportion of patients making predefined serious errors with Pulmojet compared with Diskus and Turbohaler dry powder inhalers.

methodsPatients ≥18 years old with asthma and/or COPD who were current users of an inhaler but naïve to the study devices were assigned to inhaler technique assessment on Pulmojet and either Diskus or Turbohaler in a randomised order. Patients inhaled through empty devices after reading the patient information leaflet. If serious errors potentially affecting dose delivery were recorded, they repeated the inhalations after watching a training video. Inhaler technique was assessed by a trained nurse observer and an electronic inhalation profile recorder.

resultsBaseline patient characteristics were similar between randomisation arms for the Pulmojet-Diskus (n = 277) and Pulmojet-Turbohaler (n = 144) comparisons. Non-inferiority in the proportions of patients recording no nurse-observed serious errors was demonstrated for both Pulmojet versus Diskus, and Pulmojet versus Turbohaler; therefore, superiority was tested. Patients were significantly less likely to make ≥1 nurse-observed serious errors using Pulmojet compared with Diskus (odds ratio, 0.31; 95 % CI, 0.19-0.51) or Pulmojet compared with Turbohaler (0.23; 0.12-0.44) after reading the patient information leaflet with additional video instruction, if required.

conclusionsThese results suggest Pulmojet is easier to learn to use correctly than the Turbohaler or Diskus for current inhaler users switching to a new dry powder inhaler.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01794390 (February 14, 2013).

Indexed as

Dry Powder InhalersEquipment DesignAdministration, InhalationAdrenal Cortex HormonesAdrenergic beta-AgonistsAdultAgedAsthmaCross-Over StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOdds RatioPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveAdrenal Cortex HormonesAdrenergic beta-Agonists

Identifiers

PMID26769482
PMCPMC4712500

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.