Evaluation of real-life data on the use of inhaler devices, including satisfaction and adherence to treatment, by community pharmacists in partnership with pulmonary disease specialists

Abstract

Objective

The use of inhaler device (UID) and the satisfaction and adherence of patients to treatment were evaluated by Istanbul city community pharmacists to obtain real-life data from patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Methods

Pharmacists educated by pulmonary disease specialists asked patients who combined medications with inhaler devices to fill out a questionnaire prepared by the specialists. Each patient’s UID was checked, and their errors were corrected by showing them the already prepared standard video of their inhaler device. Afterward, the UID was repeated and rechecked. The visual analog scale (VAS), feeling of satisfaction with the inhaler (FSI-10) questionnaire, and the Morisky Green Levine (MGL) scale were used for symptom control, satisfaction, and adherence, respectively. Then, we compared the results of three different types of inhalers: metered dose inhalers (MDI), dry powder inhalers (DPI), and dry powder inhalation capsules (DPI Caps).

Results

Twenty-seven (19.3%) patients used MDI, 42 (30%) used DPI caps, and 71 (50.7%) used DPI. UID before training was better in patients with DPI than in those with MDI and DPI Cap (p < 0.001). After training, the UID increased in all three groups (p < 0.001). The VAS scores were high in the DPI Caps group than the other groups (p < 0.001). The FSI-10 score was not significantly different among the groups (p > 0.05). Full-adherence was observed in 36.8% of the MDI group, 39.1% of the DPI Caps group, and 21.7% of the DPI groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

The partnership between community pharmacists and pulmonary disease specialists improved patients’ UID.

Keywords:

• Inhaler technique
• inhaler device usage
• asthma
• chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
• education
• management

Acknowledgements

We thank all the community pharmacists of the city who conducted our study for doing their best for the education of their patients (Istanbul-Turkey).

Authors’ contributions

B. Gemicioglu: Literature search, data collection, study design, analysis of data, manuscript preparation, review of manuscript. N. Gungordu: Literature search, data collection, study design, analysis of data, review of manuscript. G. Can: Study design, analysis of data, manuscript preparation, review of manuscript. F.Ilkay Alp Yıldırım: Literature search, data collection, study design, review of manuscript. B. S. Uydeş Doğan: Literature search, data collection, study design, review of manuscript.

Declaration of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest related to the study. B. Gemicioglu declare that she had relevant financial activities to her faculty outside the submitted work; Research grant from AstraZeneca and Sanofi, speaker grant from Novartis, GSK, Deva, Abdi İbrahim, Sandoz and participation to advisory board of Chiesi.

Ethics

The cross-sectional study protocol was approved by our University Ethical Board of Cerrahpaşa Faculty of Medicine (83045809-604.01.02) and was in accordance to the provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki. The community pharmacists of the city obtained informed written consent from every patient.

Data availability statement

All the datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author, on reasonable request.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Funding

We thank the Istanbul Pharmacist Chamber and the Effective Pharmacy Society for their kind support of the educational meetings for the pharmacists and printed materials for patient’s questionnaires (Istanbul-Turkey).