Extract
We thank L. Lehtimäki and colleagues for their letter, and acknowledge and apologise for the error they identify relating to the country of the study [1]. All respiratory inhaled treatments are a combination of the drug and device, and we cited the Icelandic study to illustrate that an enforced switch of treatment by the government, here to low-cost alternatives, led to poorer clinical outcomes [1]. In this context, the mandated recommendations of the UK government for environmental reasons, give cause for concern. Our editorial stresses the necessity for patient engagement and choice, as well as clinical efficacy, to be considered in all steps of inhaler prescribing.
Abstract
The greenest inhaler is an appropriately prescribed device, that the patient has been properly taught and assessed how to use, is happy with and most important of all, gives them clinical benefit https://bit.ly/2VKicQW
Footnotes
Conflict of interest: D. Keeley has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: J.E. Scullion reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Napp, Mundipharma, Sandoz, Teva, Roche, Guidelines for nurses, MA healthcare, Orion and MIMS, outside the submitted work.
Conflict of interest: O.S. Usmani reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and Chiesi, grants from GlaxoSmithKline, Prosonix and Edmond Pharma, personal fees from Aerocrine, Napp, Mundipharma, Sandoz, Takeda, Zentiva, Cipla and Pearl Therapeutics, outside the submitted work.
- Received April 11, 2020.
- Accepted April 11, 2020.
- Copyright ©ERS 2020
LIBRARY USERS
Log in through your institution
Purchase access
