Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • ERS Guidelines
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • ERS Guidelines
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

A randomised clinical trial of feedback on inhaler adherence and technique in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma

Imran Sulaiman, Garrett Greene, Elaine MacHale, Jansen Seheult, Matshediso Mokoka, Shona D'Arcy, Terence Taylor, Desmond M. Murphy, Eoin Hunt, Stephen J. Lane, Gregory B. Diette, J. Mark FitzGerald, Fiona Boland, Aoife Sartini Bhreathnach, Breda Cushen, Richard B. Reilly, Frank Doyle, Richard W. Costello
European Respiratory Journal 2018 51: 1701126; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.01126-2017
Imran Sulaiman
1Clinical Research Centre, Smurfit Building Beaumont Hospital, RCSI, Dublin, Ireland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Imran Sulaiman
Garrett Greene
1Clinical Research Centre, Smurfit Building Beaumont Hospital, RCSI, Dublin, Ireland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Elaine MacHale
1Clinical Research Centre, Smurfit Building Beaumont Hospital, RCSI, Dublin, Ireland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jansen Seheult
1Clinical Research Centre, Smurfit Building Beaumont Hospital, RCSI, Dublin, Ireland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matshediso Mokoka
1Clinical Research Centre, Smurfit Building Beaumont Hospital, RCSI, Dublin, Ireland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Shona D'Arcy
2Trinity Centre for Bioengineering, Trinity College, The University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Terence Taylor
2Trinity Centre for Bioengineering, Trinity College, The University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Desmond M. Murphy
3Dept of Respiratory Medicine, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland
4HRB Clinical Research Facility-Cork, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eoin Hunt
3Dept of Respiratory Medicine, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland
4HRB Clinical Research Facility-Cork, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Eoin Hunt
Stephen J. Lane
5Dept of Respiratory Medicine, AMNCH, Dublin, Ireland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gregory B. Diette
6Dept of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University Hospital, Baltimore, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J. Mark FitzGerald
7UBC Institute for Heart and Lung Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Fiona Boland
8Population Health Sciences (Psychology), RCSI, Dublin, Ireland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Aoife Sartini Bhreathnach
1Clinical Research Centre, Smurfit Building Beaumont Hospital, RCSI, Dublin, Ireland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Breda Cushen
1Clinical Research Centre, Smurfit Building Beaumont Hospital, RCSI, Dublin, Ireland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Richard B. Reilly
2Trinity Centre for Bioengineering, Trinity College, The University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
9School of Engineering, Trinity College, The University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
10School of Medicine, Trinity College, The University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Richard B. Reilly
Frank Doyle
8Population Health Sciences (Psychology), RCSI, Dublin, Ireland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Frank Doyle
Richard W. Costello
1Clinical Research Centre, Smurfit Building Beaumont Hospital, RCSI, Dublin, Ireland
11Dept of Respiratory Medicine, RCSI, Dublin, Ireland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: rcostello@rcsi.ie
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

In severe asthma, poor control could reflect issues of medication adherence or inhaler technique, or that the condition is refractory. This study aimed to determine if an intervention with (bio)feedback on the features of inhaler use would identify refractory asthma and enhance inhaler technique and adherence.

Patients with severe uncontrolled asthma were subjected to a stratified-by-site random block design. The intensive education group received repeated training in inhaler use, adherence and disease management. The intervention group received the same intervention, enhanced by (bio)feedback-guided training. The primary outcome was rate of actual inhaler adherence. Secondary outcomes included a pre-defined assessment of clinical outcome. Outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat and per-protocol basis.

The mean rate of adherence during the third month in the (bio)feedback group (n=111) was higher than that in the enhanced education group (intention-to-treat, n=107; 73% versus 63%; 95% CI 2.8%–17.6%; p=0.02). By the end of the study, asthma was either stable or improved in 54 patients (38%); uncontrolled, but poorly adherent in 52 (35%); and uncontrolled, but adherent in 40 (27%).

Repeated feedback significantly improved inhaler adherence. After a programme of adherence and inhaler technique assessment, only 40 patients (27%) were refractory and adherent, and might therefore need add-on therapy.

Abstract

On a period of monitored adherence only 27% of patients were refractory and adherent and thus need add-on therapy http://ow.ly/ddQr30gTpmb

Introduction

Several new therapies are available for patients with severe uncontrolled asthma [1–3]. Practice guidelines recommend that in addition to profiling the phenotype of asthma, clinicians should also address adherence to therapy and inhaler technique before adding one of these treatments [4, 5]. Therefore, there is a need for clinicians to have a clear way to distinguish people who have poor asthma control due to issues related to adherence or inhaler technique, before using any add-on therapies.

Identifying inadequate adherence is difficult, as self-reporting is unreliable [6–11] and while pharmacy refill records may indicate that the patients have collected the prescriptions, this does not necessarily mean that they have used the inhaler either correctly or regularly. Even demonstrations of correct inhaler technique do not necessarily mean that the inhaler is used correctly when the individual is not being observed [12]. Electronic monitors provide objective measures of assessing adherence, and are therefore considered the gold standard [13]. However, most electronic devices do not indicate how well the inhaler has been used, i.e. they do not assess inhaler technique.

To address this problem, we developed a device, the INhaler Compliance Assessment (INCA), which could be attached to an inhaler to make a digital audio recording each time the inhaler is used. Automated analysis of the time and features of the audio provides objective assessment of both when and how the inhaler was used [14]. The technology has been validated in vitro and externally against other methods of assessing adherence [15–19]. Analysis of the audio and digital data graphically reports useful (bio)feedback: features of adherence such as time, habit and technique of use and the relationship of adherence to peak flow can be easily communicated to the patient by the clinicians. In addition, real-time information on inhaler adherence (including time of use and technique of use), peak expiratory flow and asthma control can be used to appropriately assess patients for step-up or even step-down therapy [4, 5].

To address the challenge of poor adherence in patients with severe unstable asthma, we devised an intensive, goal-orientated intervention, which includes several behaviour change techniques, as described by Michie et al. [20]. The details of the intervention have been described previously [21]. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that visual (bio)feedback to the patient on their specific components of adherence would improve adherence. To test this hypothesis, we studied patients with severe unstable asthma, who attended specialist asthma clinics, using the same enrolment criteria as those used in recent clinical trials that evaluated the use of additional bronchodilators [22, 23] and targeted biologics for uncontrolled asthma [1–3].

Methods

We followed the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDIER) guidelines to report this nurse-led, patient education intervention with visual (bio)feedback of the individual's patterns of inhaler use. This was a prospective, multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label clinical trial, conducted between February 7, 2012 and December 15, 2015. The protocol of the study and statistical plan has been published [21]. This study was sponsored by the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (RCSI), approved by the local hospitals Research Ethics Committees and registered on Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01529697.

Participants

Patients aged ≥18 years with stage 3 to 5 asthma, according to the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) management strategy, were recruited from five specialist asthma clinics. Visits were performed at the clinical research centres of these university hospitals. Asthma diagnosis was based on one of the following: airflow obstruction with at least 12% reversibility, a >20% fall from baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) during a standard bronchial provocation challenge or variability in the diurnal peak expiratory flow of more than 15%.

Inclusion criteria: patients already attending the specialist clinic and using a prescribed therapy equivalent to step 3 or higher on the Asthma Management Guidelines [4, 5] for more than 3 months, and who had at least one exacerbation that was treated with systemic glucocorticoids in the prior year, and whose condition was not controlled as per the GINA definition of uncontrolled asthma [4, 5].

Exclusion criteria included an unwillingness to participate in a clinical study or prior hypersensitivity to salmeterol/fluticasone. Prior to randomisation, all patients provided informed consent.

Interventions

All participants were asked to measure their peak expiratory flow (PEF) using an electronic monitor (ASMA-1, Vitalograph, Ireland) and to use their salmeterol/fluticasone Diskus inhaler, one puff, twice per day. Although they used the INCA device, the intensive education group did not receive (bio)feedback based on this device. Participants were not blinded to group assignment, but this group was blinded to INCA-(bio)feedback.

Specific behaviour change techniques for both groups are outlined in supplementary table S1. All intervention techniques were standardised using an intervention manual. Fidelity of the intervention was checked by timing the consultation, and in a sample cohort of 10%, by direct observation of the intervention being performed.

Outcomes

Adherence

The primary outcome was the rate of actual inhaler adherence, expressed as cumulative drug exposure for the last month of the intervention, calculated from INCA data.

The design, validation and use of the INCA have all been reported [14, 15, 17–19]. Proficiency of inhaler use was assessed using an automated signal processing based algorithm [14]. Our prior studies have identified that, in addition to not opening the inhaler, there are three critical errors in handling the Diskus [16–19]. These included: incorrect priming of the device; exhalation into the inhaler after priming, but before inhalation; or inhalation effort resulting in insufficient inspiratory flow. Analysis of the audio features recorded to the device can detect these critical errors. Critical errors in inhaler use, along with missed doses were combined into a single measure of adherence calculated as an area under the curve [24]. This was termed “actual adherence”, and in prior studies we have shown that this method of analysis is more reflective of clinical outcomes than other standard methods of assessing adherence [25, 26]. Non-critical errors, such as short breath holds or multiple inhalations that do not affect medication delivery [27], were not included in the calculation of adherence. This measure incorporated the time of use, interval between doses and technique of use, and was calculated as a ratio of expected drug accumulation, if adherence could be matched to what was actually taken [26].

Clinical outcomes

At the end of the 3 months, data on PEF, asthma control (Asthma Control Test (ACT) and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ)) and inhaler adherence (from the INCA device) were combined to provide a clinically meaningful and personalised assessment of each patient's asthma. This provided a clinician with important information on aspects of uncontrolled severe asthma, as suggested by GINA [4, 5] as follows: 1) assess adherence (patient is uncontrolled and adherence is poor); 2) review comorbidities (patient is uncontrolled, adherence is good and PEF is stable); 3) step-up therapy (patient is uncontrolled, adherence is good and PEF is unstable); 4) consider reducing therapy, if the patient has both PEF >80% and is controlled.

Sample size

A sample size of 200 was estimated to have a power of 80% at the 0.05 significance level, with a 10% difference between the two study groups in the actual adherence rate and a 0.25 standard deviation, assuming that the rate of actual adherence was 0.65 in the first month. It was assumed that since the intensive education group was receiving enhanced care over the standard, that there would be improved adherence in this group compared to a ‘true demonstration’ group. The sample size baseline adherence rate was based on our preliminary findings in asthma patients [15], primary care [25], chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients [28] and the relatively modest effect of adherence interventions generally described [29]. With an expected dropout rate of 10%, the target sample size to recruit was 220 patients.

Randomisation

Patients were block randomised by an electronic system and stratified by site. Block sizes were also random and varied from eight to 12, with a 1:1 allocation. The only blinding utilised was that of participants in the intensive education group not being provided (bio)feedback from the INCA, as described above.

Study implementation

The study design is summarised in a prior publication [21]. Each subsequent month, the patient was given a new inhaler with the INCA device attached, they were asked to demonstrate their inhaler use, and errors were corrected in the intensive education group using a checklist score [30, 31], or in the (bio)feedback group using visual feedback from the INCA device. Other data collected and recorded each month included: the AQLQ, ACT, reliever medication use, PEF and exacerbations.

Statistical analysis

All subjects who completed at least 1 month of the study were included in an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis of the primary outcome (n=203), actual adherence at month 3. In order to include participants with missing data in the analysis, we used multiple imputation techniques [32]. Missing adherence data were multiply imputed (20 imputations) using chained linear regression equations. Variables used for imputation were age, sex, body mass index (BMI), FEV1 (baseline) and any available adherence data. Imputation was performed separately for intensive education and (bio)feedback groups. A secondary per-protocol analysis was also conducted.

Results

Participants

Between February 2012 and December 2015, 218 patients were recruited and randomised (111 to (bio)feedback and 107 to intensive education). The flow of patients through the study is shown in figure 1. 50 patients (28 in the (bio)feedback group) were switched to the discus device from another inhaler device. The baseline characteristics of both groups are shown in table 1.

FIGURE 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1

Study enrolment and outcomes: 218 patients were randomised to (bio)feedback and intensive education groups. A total of 23 patients were lost to follow-up and there were 47 device failures over the 3-month study protocol.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Baseline characteristics of all recruited patients

Inhaler adherence and technique

Including all consented participants who had at least 1 month of calculated adherence (n=206, 105 (bio)feedback and 101 intensive education) as part of an ITT analysis, a significant difference was observed in the primary outcome, favouring the (bio)feedback treatment group (table 2). The rate of actual adherence during the third month in the (bio)feedback group was 73% (95% CI 69–77%) versus 63% (95% CI 57–70%) in the intensive education group (p≤0.01). Comparing (bio)feedback and intensive education groups, a significant difference was observed in the change in adherence from month 1 to month 3 (p=0.02). In the (bio)feedback group, the rate of adherence rose from month 1 to the end of the study by 7.5% (95% CI 2.6–12.5%; p<0.01), but this rate fell in the intensive education group −3.4% (95% CI −10.2–3.3; p<0.01).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

Different measures of adherence calculated over the 3-month study period with between group and within group comparisons.

Per-protocol analysis, excluding patients with missing data, showed similar findings (75% versus 64% in the (bio)feedback and intensive education groups, respectively; p<0.007). An ordinary least squares regression model, controlling for age, BMI, gender, FEV1, smoking history, previous salmeterol/fluticasone Diskus use and GINA classification at recruitment, showed a significant difference in actual adherence at month 3, between (bio)feedback and intensive education groups (p≤0.01). Changes in individual patient data are shown in figure 2.

FIGURE 2
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 2

Adherence over time: Individual actual adherence rates of patients from month 1 to month 3. The overall month 3 actual adherence rate of intensive education patients was significantly lower than that of the (bio)feedback patients. Actual adherence, accounting for time of use, interval between doses and technique of use was calculated from INCA device data for each month.

The rates of technique errors, missed doses, overdoses and habit of use are shown in table 2. The most common critical errors were low peak inspiratory flow (n=460; 50% of all errors) and exhalation into the Diskus before inhalation (n=359; 39% of all errors). There were 14 separate episodes of dose dumping (more than 10 drug blisters within one audio file) in the intensive education group and none in the (bio)feedback group. 20 cases (20%) in the (bio)feedback group and 27 (28%) in the demonstration group showed <50% adherence in month 3.

Clinical outcomes, refractory and difficult-to-manage asthma

At the end of the third month, as defined in the per-protocol analysis plan [21], general clinical outcomes were assessed (figure 3). Of these 146 participants, 54 were controlled and 92 patients still had some persisting issue related to asthma control. Among these, 52 (35%) were uncontrolled and had an actual adherence rate <80% (mean 51.8%), and could therefore be considered “difficult to manage”, requiring more attention on adherence. 40 patients (27%) were uncontrolled with an adherence >80% (figure 3). There was no difference in clinical allocation between the (bio)feedback and demonstration groups.

FIGURE 3
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 3

Clinical outcomes at the end of the study. After 3 months, patient data on peak expiratory flow (PEF), asthma control (Asthma Control Test (ACT) and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire) and inhaler adherence (from the INCA device) were combined to provide an assessment of each patient's asthma, as suggested by Global Initiative for Asthma. These included: 1) assess adherence (patient is uncontrolled and adherence is poor); 2) review comorbidities (patient is uncontrolled, adherence is good and PEF is stable); 3) step-up therapy (patient is uncontrolled, adherence is good and PEF is unstable); 4) consider reducing therapy if the patient has both good control and PEF >80%. Results of the decision tool are shown and indicate that after the monitored adherence programme, 40 (27%) patients needed additional medication as the next step.

Discussion

Monitored adherence, including inhaler technique and regularity of use, with (bio)feedback to the individual on their inhaler use, significantly increased and sustained adherence in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma. Further, relative to the (bio)feedback group, adherence fell significantly over time in the intensive education group, highlighting the value of personalised (bio)feedback in maintaining adherence. Monitored adherence also identified that over half of the patients who remained poorly controlled during the study were also poorly adherent. Thus, a monitoring programme can both improve adherence for many patients, as well as identify the cause of poor asthma control in others.

The intensive education received by our comparator group is far superior to what occurs in routine clinical practice, which could explain why adherence in both groups was far higher than we have reported in observational studies of patients using this technology [33, 34]. The intensive education approach in both groups used several key behaviour change approaches [15, 21], which might be the reason for the relatively high levels of adherence observed. Understanding how to use an inhaler, a major feature of poor adherence [20], was addressed by repeatedly reinforcing the key messages on regular habit formation, and correcting inhaler technique errors and asthma education at each visit. Opportunities to access asthma medications [20], another cause of poor adherence, were optimised, as all patients were given salmeterol/fluticasone inhalers at each visit. Motivation [20], a key aspect of behaviour change, was addressed at each visit by focusing on the patient's individual goals for asthma outcomes. The scripted intervention used in this study took less than 20 minutes to perform, was delivered by clinical research nurses and required little specific training.

There have been major developments in the field of monitored adherence in the last few years, with two notable recent studies. Chan et al. [35] showed clinically relevant outcomes in a group of children with asthma, who were given audio-visual reminders, as did Foster et al. [36], who studied poorly controlled patients attending primary care. As in the present study, both studies achieved significant improvements in clinical outcomes. The present study is different in a number of ways. Firstly, the source of recruitment differed, in that we enrolled patients who were attending specialist clinics, where inhaler training and adherence had been previously or concurrently addressed. The nature of feedback was also different, as one-on-one patient education was given that included information on inhaler technique and patient-identified routines to develop habit of use. Finally, a major difference in the present study is the clinical outcome of distinguishing refractory from difficult-to-control asthma.

The GINA guidelines indicate that assessment of uncontrolled asthma includes the assessment of adherence, management of comorbidities and consideration of step-up treatment [4, 5]. However, before considering comorbidities or step-up treatment, it is clear that adherence needs to be assessed first and deemed adequate. With monitored inhaler adherence, including inhaler technique, overall adherence can be appropriately assessed in real-time, thereby providing clinicians with crucial information to guide treatment that is in line with GINA recommendations.

Even within this short, focused study, adherence was not perfect, as 20% of the intensive education patients had adherence <50% during the third month. Identifying poor adherence as the potential cause of poor control is another outcome of the study, as this suggests that such patients might benefit from more specific interventions, such as motivational interviewing, rather than additional or further therapy. This finding also indicates that patient adherence within clinical trials or in clinical practice cannot be assumed to be good. Therefore, prior to starting an advanced biological therapy, an assessment of adherence with electronic devices could be beneficial to patients with severe asthma.

Limitations of the present study include the relatively short follow-up, which prevented an assessment of the impact of the intervention on exacerbations, and the restriction to one, albeit commonly used, inhaler. This will be addressed in a follow-on study (NCT02307669). That study will incorporate information on adherence along with a biomarker profile of the patients. A longer observation period might lead to further improvements, such as reduced hyper-responsiveness and improved outcomes, as reported in the Gaining Optimal Asthma ControL (GOAL) study [37]. Furthermore, the enhanced education group received an intervention that comprised multiple behaviour change techniques, which are proven to change behaviour, over multiple visits. This “control” group received far beyond usual care, and this could have served to mask some of the effects of the intervention. It is not known how many behaviour change techniques, or indeed whether a certain mixture of them, is optimal. Notwithstanding, a significant difference in the primary outcome was seen when the INCA (bio)feedback was incorporated, suggesting a robust effect of the device.

In summary, the results of this study suggest (bio)feedback of adherence, leads to both significant clinical improvements in adherence and facilitates clinicians in directing future care, either towards additional treatments for refractory patients or towards specific interventions to address medication adherence.

Supplementary material

Supplementary Material

Please note: supplementary material is not edited by the Editorial Office, and is uploaded as it has been supplied by the author.

Supplement Tables ERJ-01126-2017_Supplement

Disclosures

Supplementary Material

R.W. Costello ERJ-01126-2017_Costello

G.B. Diette ERJ-01126-2017_Diette

J.M. FitzGerald ERJ-01126-2017_FitzGerald

R.B. Reilly ERJ-01126-2017_Reilly

Acknowledgements

Author contributions are as follows. I. Sulaiman and R.W. Costello were involved in all aspects required for this manuscript, including patient recruitment, data management and data analysis. E. MacHale, A.S. Bhreathnach, D.M. Murphy, E. Hunt and S.J. Lane were primarily involved in patient recruitment. S. D'Arcy, G. Greene, T. Taylor and R.B. Reilly were primarily involved in the audio analysis. F. Boland and G. Greene were primarily involved in the statistical analysis. B. Cushen, J. Seheult, G.B. Diette, J.M. FitzGerald, F. Doyle and M. Mokoka were involved in data analysis and all authors were involved in writing the manuscript.

Footnotes

  • This article has supplementary material available from erj.ersjournals.com

  • Support statement: This was a researcher-initiated study, funded by the Health Research Board of Ireland (HRA POR/2011/59). The authors acknowledge support from the Dublin Clinical Centre for Research. GSK provided the Diskus inhaler for this study (GSK Study Code 114882). The funder of the study had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation or writing of the report. The corresponding author had full access to all data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and accuracy of the data analysis. Funding information for this article has been deposited with the Crossref Funder Registry.

  • Conflict of interest: Disclosures can be found alongside this article at erj.ersjournals.com

  • This study is registered at http://Clinicaltrials.gov with identifier NCT01529697.

  • Received June 21, 2017.
  • Accepted September 29, 2017.
  • Copyright ©ERS 2018

References

  1. ↵
    1. Haldar P,
    2. Brightling CE,
    3. Hargadon B
    , et al. Mepolizumab and exacerbations of refractory eosinophilic asthma. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 973–984.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Solèr M,
    2. Matz J,
    3. Townley R
    , et al. The anti-IgE antibody omalizumab reduces exacerbations and steroid requirement in allergic asthmatics. Eur Respir J 2001; 18: 254–261.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. De Boever EH,
    2. Ashman C,
    3. Cahn AP
    , et al. Efficacy and safety of an anti-IL-13 mAb in patients with severe asthma: A randomized trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2014; 133: 989–996.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    1. Bousquet J,
    2. Clark T,
    3. Hurd S
    , et al. GINA guidelines on asthma and beyond. Allergy 2007; 62: 102–112.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  4. ↵
    Global Initiative for Asthma. Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention 2016. Available from: www.ginaasthma.org
  5. ↵
    1. Klok T,
    2. Kaptein AA,
    3. Duiverman EJ
    , et al. It's the adherence, stupid (that determines asthma control in preschool children)! Eur Respir J 2014; 43: 783–791.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Jerant A,
    2. DiMatteo R,
    3. Arnsten J
    , et al. Self-report adherence measures in chronic illness: retest reliability and predictive validity. Med Care 2008; 46: 1134–1139.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Klok T,
    2. Kaptein AA,
    3. Duiverman EJ
    , et al. Long-term adherence to inhaled corticosteroids in children with asthma: observational study. Respir Med 2015; 109: 1114–1119.
    OpenUrl
    1. Garfield S,
    2. Clifford S,
    3. Eliasson L
    , et al. Suitability of measures of self-reported medication adherence for routine clinical use: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011; 11: 149.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. de Groot EP,
    2. Kreggemeijer WJ,
    3. Brand PLP
    . Getting the basics right resolves most cases of uncontrolled and problematic asthma. Acta Paediatr 2015; 104: 916–921.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Nguyen TM,
    2. La Caze A,
    3. Cottrell N
    . What are validated self-report adherence scales really measuring?: a systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2014; 77: 427–445.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Price D
    . Do healthcare professionals think that dry powder inhalers can be used interchangeably? Int J Clin Pract Suppl 2005; 149: 26–29.
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Jentzsch NS,
    2. Camargos PAM
    . Methods of assessing adherence to inhaled corticosteroid therapy in children and adolescents: adherence rates and their implications for clinical practice. J Bras Pneumol 2008; 34: 614–621.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Holmes MS,
    2. D'arcy S,
    3. Costello RW
    , et al. Acoustic analysis of inhaler sounds from community-dwelling asthmatic patients for automatic assessment of adherence. IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med 2014; 2: 1–10.
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. D'arcy S,
    2. MacHale E,
    3. Seheult J
    , et al. A method to assess adherence in inhaler use through analysis of acoustic recordings of inhaler events. PLoS ONE 2014; 9: e98701.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Seheult JN,
    2. Costello S,
    3. Tee KC
    , et al. Investigating the relationship between peak inspiratory flow rate and volume of inhalation from a Diskus™ Inhaler and baseline spirometric parameters: a cross-sectional study. Springerplus 2014; 3: 496.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Seheult JN,
    2. O'Connell P,
    3. Tee KC
    , et al. The acoustic features of inhalation can be used to quantify aerosol delivery from a Diskus™ dry powder inhaler. Pharm Res 2014; 31: 2735–2747.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Holmes MS,
    2. Seheult JN,
    3. Geraghty C
    , et al. A method of estimating inspiratory flow rate and volume from an inhaler using acoustic measurements. Physiol Meas 2013; 34: 903–914.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Holmes MS,
    2. Seheult JN,
    3. O'Connell P
    , et al. An acoustic-based method to detect and quantify the effect of exhalation into a dry powder inhaler. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv 2015; 28: 247–253.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Michie S,
    2. van Stralen MM,
    3. West R
    . The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci 2011; 6: 42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Sulaiman I,
    2. Mac Hale E,
    3. Holmes M
    , et al. A protocol for a randomised clinical trial of the effect of providing feedback on inhaler technique and adherence from an electronic device in patients with poorly controlled severe asthma. BMJ Open 2016; 6: e009350.
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    1. Busse WW,
    2. Dahl R,
    3. Jenkins C
    , et al. Long-acting muscarinic antagonists: a potential add-on therapy in the treatment of asthma? Eur Respir Rev 2016; 25: 54–64.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Timmer W,
    2. Moroni-Zentgraf P,
    3. Cornelissen P
    , et al. Once-daily tiotropium Respimat(®) 5 µg is an efficacious 24-h bronchodilator in adults with symptomatic asthma. Respir Med 2015; 109: 329–338.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Urso R,
    2. Blardi P,
    3. Giorgi G
    . A short introduction to pharmacokinetics. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2002; 6 (2–3): 33–44.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Sulaiman I,
    2. MacHale E,
    3. D'arcy S
    , et al. INhaler compliance assessment in the community (INCA GP). Eur Respir J 2014; 44: Suppl. 58, 3024.
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Sulaiman I,
    2. Seheult J,
    3. Killane I
    , et al. A new clinically relevant method of calculating adherence. Eur Respir J 2015; 46: Suppl. 59, 3932.
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. Sulaiman I,
    2. Seheult J,
    3. Sadasivuni N
    , et al. Inhaler technique errors have an impact on drug delivery. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2016; 193: A1715.
  22. ↵
    1. McCormack N,
    2. Costello R,
    3. Sulaiman I
    . Observational study of patients following an acute exacerbation of COPD: medication adherence, its associations and possible consequences. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2015; 191: A2534.
  23. ↵
    1. Nieuwlaat R,
    2. Wilczynski N,
    3. Navarro T
    , et al. Interventions for enhancing medication adherence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 11: CD000011.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Long D,
    2. Lyons AM,
    3. Byrne T
    , et al. Inhaler proficiency following the introduction of a new inhaler management policy for hospitalised patients. Eur Respir J 2014; 44: Suppl. 58, 1298.
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    1. Mac Hale E,
    2. Costello RW,
    3. Cowman S
    . A nurse-led intervention study: Promoting compliance with Diskus Inhaler use in asthma patients. Nurs Open 2014; 1: 42–52.
    OpenUrl
  26. ↵
    1. Rubin DB
    . Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. New Jersey, John Wiley & Sons, 2004.
  27. ↵
    1. Sulaiman I,
    2. Seheult J,
    3. MacHale E
    , et al. Irregular and ineffective: a quantitative observational study of the time and technique of inhaler use. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2016; 4: 900–909.e2.
    OpenUrl
  28. ↵
    1. Sulaiman I,
    2. Cushen B,
    3. Greene G
    , et al. Objective assessment of adherence to inhalers by patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2017; 195: 1333–1343.
    OpenUrl
  29. ↵
    1. Chan AM,
    2. Stewart AW,
    3. Harrison J
    , et al. The effect of an electronic monitoring device with audiovisual reminder function on adherence to inhaled corticosteroids and school attendance in children with asthma: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med 2015; 3: 210–219.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Foster JM,
    2. Usherwood T,
    3. Smith L
    , et al. Inhaler reminders improve adherence with controller treatment in primary care patients with asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2014; 134: 1260–1263.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  31. ↵
    1. Bateman ED,
    2. Boushey HA,
    3. Bousquet J
    , et al. Can guideline-defined asthma control be achieved? The Gaining Optimal Asthma ControL study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2004; 170: 836–844.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 51 Issue 1 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Journal: 51 (1)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A randomised clinical trial of feedback on inhaler adherence and technique in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
A randomised clinical trial of feedback on inhaler adherence and technique in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma
Imran Sulaiman, Garrett Greene, Elaine MacHale, Jansen Seheult, Matshediso Mokoka, Shona D'Arcy, Terence Taylor, Desmond M. Murphy, Eoin Hunt, Stephen J. Lane, Gregory B. Diette, J. Mark FitzGerald, Fiona Boland, Aoife Sartini Bhreathnach, Breda Cushen, Richard B. Reilly, Frank Doyle, Richard W. Costello
European Respiratory Journal Jan 2018, 51 (1) 1701126; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.01126-2017

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
A randomised clinical trial of feedback on inhaler adherence and technique in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma
Imran Sulaiman, Garrett Greene, Elaine MacHale, Jansen Seheult, Matshediso Mokoka, Shona D'Arcy, Terence Taylor, Desmond M. Murphy, Eoin Hunt, Stephen J. Lane, Gregory B. Diette, J. Mark FitzGerald, Fiona Boland, Aoife Sartini Bhreathnach, Breda Cushen, Richard B. Reilly, Frank Doyle, Richard W. Costello
European Respiratory Journal Jan 2018, 51 (1) 1701126; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.01126-2017
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Supplementary material
    • Disclosures
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • Asthma and allergy
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

Original articles

  • Viable virus aerosol propagation by PAP circuit leak
  • Ambulatory management of secondary spontaneous pneumothorax
  • Systematic assessment of respiratory health in illness susceptible athletes
Show more Original articles

Asthma

  • MCID for impulse oscillometry in adults with asthma
  • Tool to detect small airways dysfunction in asthma clinical practice
  • Ecleralimab blocks responses to allergen in mild asthma
Show more Asthma

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • Podcasts
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN:  0903-1936
Online ISSN: 1399-3003

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society