PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Marta Miszczuk AU - Izabela Domagała AU - Marta Dąbrowska AU - Marta Maskey-Warzęchowska AU - Rafał Krenke TI - How to assess inhalation technique in patients with asthma and COPD – comparison ofthree different methods AID - 10.1183/13993003.congress-2020.3180 DP - 2020 Sep 07 TA - European Respiratory Journal PG - 3180 VI - 56 IP - suppl 64 4099 - http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/56/suppl_64/3180.short 4100 - http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/56/suppl_64/3180.full SO - Eur Respir J2020 Sep 07; 56 AB - There are few different methods of inhalation technique (IT) assessment in patients with asthma and COPD, however none of these methods is regarded clearly superior to the others. The aim of the study was to compare 3 methods of IT assessment in patients with asthma and COPD. These included: 1) a checklist of inhalation mistakes ,2) a 4 grade scale (good, rather good, rather poor and very poor IT), 3) assessment by Vitalograph ® AIM.The study was a part of a larger project launched in October 2019. Patients with asthma or COPD regularly treated with at least one inhaler have been prospectively included.In each patient IT was evaluated at the same time point by two independent observers. The concordance between the 3 assessment methods was rated.To date, 22 patients were enrolled (11F, 11M; 13 asthma, 11 COPD; median age 64 yrs, IQR 62-72). Four patients used DPI and 6 patients used MDI only, while the remaining subjects (12/22) used both types of inhalers. The median number of IT mistakes measured by checklist was 3 (IQR 2-4) and 2.5 for MDI and DPI (IQR 1.75-4), respectively.The interobserver agreement for the checklist of mistakes measured by weighted kappa coefficient was 0.62 (95%CI 0.41 to 0.84) for MDI users and 0.51 (95%CI 0.31 to 0.71) forDPI users, and was higher for the 4 grade scale - 0.82 (0.65 to 0.98) for MDI users and 0.57 (0.33 to 0.82) for DPI users, respectively.A full concordance of all the investigated methods was found in 7/18 (39%) and 7/16 (44%)MDI and DPI users, respectively.We conclude that the 4 grade scale was more reliable than the checklist of mistakes and concordance between the 3 investigated methods of IT assessment was poor.FootnotesCite this article as: European Respiratory Journal 2020; 56: Suppl. 64, 3180.This abstract was presented at the 2020 ERS International Congress, in session “Respiratory viruses in the "pre COVID-19" era”.This is an ERS International Congress abstract. No full-text version is available. Further material to accompany this abstract may be available at www.ers-education.org (ERS member access only).