Preferences and Inhalation Techniques for Inhaler Devices Used by Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inhaler technique and patient preferences are often overlooked when selecting maintenance treatments for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but are important issues in ensuring drug efficacy and patient adherence. Few data on these issues are available for new inhalation devices. OBJECTIVES: inhalation devices, and patient preferences for the three latter inhalers that were recently developed. METHODS: A prospective two-center cross-sectional study of COPD patients was conducted. The patients were required to be current HandiHaler users who had not previously used the new inhalers (Breezhaler, Genuair, Respimat). The patients were given the new devices and asked to identify the one they preferred before and after using the inhaler. Each patient tried the HandiHaler and two devices out of the three new inhalers: one preferred by the patient and one imposed by the investigator. Their inhalation technique was evaluated using an assessment checklist. A logistic regression model was used to determine which device was used with the fewest errors. RESULTS: Of the 98 patients who completed the study, 57.1% (95% CI: 47.4-66.9) had an adequate HandiHaler technique. There was no difference between the proportions of patients with an adequate Breezhaler and Genuair inhalation technique (aOR 1.08, 95% CI: 0.51-2.30), but 62% fewer patients using Respimat had an adequate technique than those using Genuair (aOR for adequate technique 0.38, 95% CI: 0.18-0.82). There were no significant differences in the initial patient preferences for the three new inhalers, and no association between the patient's preference and an adequate inhaler technique. CONCLUSION: Inhalation techniques were suboptimal and varied between inhalers. The arrival of new inhalers is an opportunity to reassess patient techniques and preferences. Further studies should also explore the association between the inhaler preferences and treatment adherence of patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".