Display options
Cite
Dal Negro RW, Povero M. The economic impact of educational training assessed by the Handling Questionnaire with three inhalation devices in asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2016;8:171-6doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S104066.
Dal Negro, R. W., & Povero, M. (2016). The economic impact of educational training assessed by the Handling Questionnaire with three inhalation devices in asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients. ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 8171-6. https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S104066
Dal Negro, Roberto W, and Povero, Massimiliano. "The economic impact of educational training assessed by the Handling Questionnaire with three inhalation devices in asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients." ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR vol. 8 (2016): 171-6. doi: https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S104066
Dal Negro RW, Povero M. The economic impact of educational training assessed by the Handling Questionnaire with three inhalation devices in asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2016 May 10;8:171-6. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S104066. eCollection 2016. PMID: 27274291; PMCID: PMC4869654.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2016 May 10;8:171-6. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S104066. eCollection 2016.

The economic impact of educational training assessed by the Handling Questionnaire with three inhalation devices in asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients.

ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR

Roberto W Dal Negro, Massimiliano Povero

Affiliations

  1. National Centre for Respiratory Phamacoeconomics and Pharmacoepidemiology - CESFAR, Verona, Italy.
  2. AdRes Health Economics and Outcome Research, Torino, Italy.

PMID: 27274291 PMCID: PMC4869654 DOI: 10.2147/CEOR.S104066

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The usability of inhalation devices depends on several factors, eg, the drug to inhale, device handling, and patients' training. Usability is then presumed to have economic consequences.

AIM: To assess and compare the cost of patients' training for proper usability of Breezhaler and Genuair (both dry powder inhalers) and Respimat (a soft mist inhaler) in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) outpatients.

METHODS: The acceptance and handling of the three devices were investigated by means of the Handling Questionnaire. The time spent in specific training for ensuring a proper actuation and the corresponding costs were also calculated. Linear and logistic regressions were used in order to investigate the factors influencing proper handling of the devices. A significance level of P<0.05 was accepted.

RESULTS: According to both the patients' and the nurse's judgments, Genuair and Respimat were perceived as the easiest devices to use, while Breezhaler required the highest number of attempts for achieving the first proper actuation (2.6 vs 1.6; P<0.0001). The total training cost per patient (including the nurse's time for demonstration and that for attending the patients' maneuvers) was €1.38±€1.21. Breezhaler was found to be the most expensive as the cost per patient was €2.35±€1.26, which was three to four times higher than that of Genuair and Respimat (both devices involved a cost of <€1 per patient, with negligible differences between each other). Asthma and COPD patients showed a similar trend, with better outcomes reported for asthma patients probably due to lower age.

CONCLUSION: Substantial differences were found to exist in patients' acceptability and handling of the three devices. The economic impact of specific training was also different and strictly related to the comprehension of the procedure for actuation of each device. Respimat as a soft mist inhaler and Genuair as an metered-dose inhaler proved to be the most convenient in economic terms also.

Keywords: Breezhaler; COPD; Genuair; Handling Questionnaire; Respimat; bronchial asthma; device usability; economic impact of training; patient preference

References

  1. Curr Med Res Opin. 2005;21 Suppl 4:S1-3 - PubMed
  2. Rev Mal Respir. 2010 Dec;27(10):1141-9 - PubMed
  3. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2008 Jan-Feb;26(1):45-51 - PubMed
  4. Arch Bronconeumol. 2008 Jul;44(7):346-52 - PubMed
  5. Acta Biomed. 2007 Dec;78(3):233-45 - PubMed
  6. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2011 Jul 1;68(13):1221-32 - PubMed
  7. Respir Med. 2000 May;94(5):496-500 - PubMed
  8. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2015 Jan 06;10:69-77 - PubMed
  9. Int J Clin Pract Suppl. 2005 Dec;(149):19-25 - PubMed
  10. Respiration. 2008;75(1):18-25 - PubMed
  11. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis. 2008 Dec;69(4):170-7 - PubMed
  12. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2006;1(3):251-9 - PubMed
  13. Curr Med Res Opin. 2005;21 Suppl 4:S39-46; discussion S47 - PubMed
  14. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med. 2015 Apr 30;25:15018 - PubMed
  15. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2011;6:353-63 - PubMed
  16. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2014 Jun 26;9:675-83 - PubMed
  17. Respir Med. 2002 May;96(5):293-304 - PubMed
  18. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2014 Jan;11(1):1-3 - PubMed
  19. J Aerosol Med. 2001;14 Suppl 1:S3-7 - PubMed
  20. Multidiscip Respir Med. 2015 Apr 03;10(1):13 - PubMed
  21. J Asthma. 2007 Oct;44(8):593-8 - PubMed
  22. Multidiscip Respir Med. 2016 Feb 10;11:7 - PubMed
  23. Respir Med. 2008 Jan;102(1):10-9 - PubMed

Publication Types