Display options
Share it on

J Mark Access Health Policy. 2015 Sep 16;3. doi: 10.3402/jmahp.v3.28760. eCollection 2015.

A review of the value of innovation in inhalers for COPD and asthma.

Journal of market access & health policy

Johann Christian Virchow, Cezmi A Akdis, Josep Darba, Richard Dekhuijzen, Sylvia Hartl, Gisela Kobelt, Albert Roger, Steven Simoens, Mondher Toumi, Ben Woodhouse, Adam Plich, Saku Torvinen

Affiliations

  1. Department of Pneumology/Intensive Care Medicine, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
  2. Christine Kühne-Center for Allergy Research and Education (CK-CARE), Swiss Institute of Allergy and Asthma Research (SIAF), University of Zurich, Davos, Switzerland.
  3. Department of Teoria Econòmica, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
  4. Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
  5. Department of Respiratory and Critical Care, Otto Wagner Hospital, Vienna, Austria.
  6. European Health Economics, Mulhouse, France.
  7. Allergy Unit, University Hospital Germans Trias I Pujol, Badalona, Spain.
  8. Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
  9. Department of Public Health, University of Marseilles, Marseille, France.
  10. NHS Bolton Clinical Commissioning Group, Bolton, UK.
  11. TEVA Pharmaceuticals Europe B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

PMID: 27123170 PMCID: PMC4802681 DOI: 10.3402/jmahp.v3.28760

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Appropriate use of inhaled therapies for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is critical to ensuring good patient outcomes, efficient use of healthcare resources and limiting the effects of high-morbidity. The appropriate choice of inhaler and active therapy, incorporating patient preferences, can help improve treatment adherence and long-term outcomes. Despite this, many current inhalers are non-intuitive to use, and require extensive training.

METHODS: In this review, an expert panel considers the evidence for the use of inhaler devices in management of COPD and asthma. The panel also evaluates the value of innovation in inhaler technologies, which optimise the use of existing molecules from a clinical, economic and societal perspective.

CONCLUSIONS: The panel conclusion is that there remains a substantial unmet need in inhaler technology and that innovation in inhaler devices can provide real-world health benefits to patients. Furthermore, we recommend that these innovations should be supported by healthcare systems through appropriate pricing and reimbursement mechanisms.

Keywords: Asthma; Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; adherence; dry powder inhaler; innovation; medication errors; metered dose inhaler; patient compliance; patient preference; value

References

  1. Respir Med. 2000 May;94(5):496-500 - PubMed
  2. N Engl J Med. 2000 Aug 3;343(5):332-6 - PubMed
  3. Clin Ther. 2001 Aug;23(8):1296-310 - PubMed
  4. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002 Jan 15;165(2):195-9 - PubMed
  5. Postgrad Med J. 2002 Jan;78(915):37-9 - PubMed
  6. Eur Respir J. 2002 Feb;19(2):246-51 - PubMed
  7. J Aerosol Med. 2003 Summer;16(2):131-41 - PubMed
  8. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2004 Oct 15;170(8):836-44 - PubMed
  9. BMJ. 2005 Sep 3;331(7515):504-6 - PubMed
  10. Respir Care. 2005 Oct;50(10):1360-74; discussion 1374-5 - PubMed
  11. Respiration. 2008;75(1):18-25 - PubMed
  12. J Asthma. 2007 Oct;44(8):593-8 - PubMed
  13. Respir Med. 2008 Apr;102(4):593-604 - PubMed
  14. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv. 2008 Dec;21(4):321-8 - PubMed
  15. Curr Med Res Opin. 2008 Dec;24(12):3435-42 - PubMed
  16. BMC Pulm Med. 2009 Jan 02;9:1 - PubMed
  17. Thorax. 2009 Nov;64(11):939-43 - PubMed
  18. Prim Care Respir J. 2010 Mar;19(1):10-20 - PubMed
  19. Respir Med. 2010 Sep;104(9):1237-45 - PubMed
  20. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2010 Jun 24;4:197-205 - PubMed
  21. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv. 2010 Oct;23(5):323-8 - PubMed
  22. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv. 2010 Dec;23 Suppl 2:S25-37 - PubMed
  23. Prim Care Respir J. 2011 Mar;20(1):92-6 - PubMed
  24. Eur Respir J. 2011 Jun;37(6):1308-31 - PubMed
  25. Adv Ther. 2011 Mar;28(3):202-12 - PubMed
  26. Respir Med. 2011 Jun;105(6):930-8 - PubMed
  27. Eur Respir J. 2011 May;37(5):982-5 - PubMed
  28. J Med Econ. 2011;14(4):486-96 - PubMed
  29. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011 Dec;128(6):1185-1191.e2 - PubMed
  30. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2012 May;129(5):1229-35 - PubMed
  31. Eur Respir Rev. 2012 Mar 1;21(123):66-74 - PubMed
  32. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv. 2012 Jun;25(3):117-39 - PubMed
  33. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. 2012 Jun;10(3):201-10 - PubMed
  34. Can J Hosp Pharm. 2012 Mar;65(2):111-8 - PubMed
  35. Ther Deliv. 2011 Oct;2(10):1217-9 - PubMed
  36. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2013;160(1):93-101 - PubMed
  37. Ther Adv Respir Dis. 2013 Jun;7(3):139-50 - PubMed
  38. Respir Med. 2014 Feb;108(2):358-65 - PubMed
  39. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med. 2014 Jun 12;24:14009 - PubMed
  40. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med. 2014 Nov 13;24:14071 - PubMed
  41. Value Health. 2014 Nov;17(7):A600 - PubMed
  42. BMJ. 1995 Aug 5;311(7001):376-80 - PubMed
  43. Ann Pharmacother. 1993 Jul-Aug;27(7-8):922-7 - PubMed
  44. Eur Respir J. 1995 Oct;8(10):1634-6 - PubMed

Publication Types