Comparisons between In-Check DIAL® and PF810® in evaluation and training inspiratory capacity for using dry powder inhalers.
Asthma
Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases
Inhalers
Inspiratory capacity
Medical devices
Peak inspiratory flow
Journal
BMC pulmonary medicine
ISSN: 1471-2466
Titre abrégé: BMC Pulm Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968563
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Aug 2024
02 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
28
06
2023
accepted:
30
07
2024
medline:
3
8
2024
pubmed:
3
8
2024
entrez:
2
8
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) rely on both internal resistance and patients' inspiratory capacity for effective operation. Optimal inspiratory technique is crucial for DPI users. This study assessed the accuracy and repeatability of two available devices, PF810® and In-Check DIAL®, and analyzed their measurement errors and consistency in detecting inspiratory capacity. The accuracy and repeatability of peak inspiratory flow (PIF) and forced inspiratory vital capacity (FIVC) against various internal resistances of the two devices were assessed using standard waveforms generated by a breathing simulator. The agreement of PIF measurements between the two devices in healthy volunteers and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients was analyzed with the intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman graphical analysis. PF810® showed great accuracy and repeatability in measuring PIF, except for square waveforms at the lowest flow rate (20 L/min). In-Check DIAL® exhibited poor accuracy against high resistance levels. In scenarios with no resistance, In-Check DIAL® had significantly smaller measurement errors than PF810®, but larger errors against high resistance levels. The two devices showed excellent agreement (ICC > 0.80, P < 0.05), except for healthy volunteers against medium to high resistance (R3-R5) where the ICC was insignificant. Bland-Altman plots indicated small disagreements between the two devices for both healthy volunteers and COPD patients. In-Check DIAL® exhibited poor accuracy and larger measurement errors than PF810® when detecting PIFs against higher internal resistances. However, its good performance against lower internal resistances, along with its cost-effectiveness and convenience made it appropriate for primary care. PF810® showed good accuracy and repeatability and could detect additional parameters of inspiratory capacity beyond PIF, though required further studies to confirm its clinical benefits.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) rely on both internal resistance and patients' inspiratory capacity for effective operation. Optimal inspiratory technique is crucial for DPI users. This study assessed the accuracy and repeatability of two available devices, PF810® and In-Check DIAL®, and analyzed their measurement errors and consistency in detecting inspiratory capacity.
METHODS
METHODS
The accuracy and repeatability of peak inspiratory flow (PIF) and forced inspiratory vital capacity (FIVC) against various internal resistances of the two devices were assessed using standard waveforms generated by a breathing simulator. The agreement of PIF measurements between the two devices in healthy volunteers and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients was analyzed with the intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman graphical analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
PF810® showed great accuracy and repeatability in measuring PIF, except for square waveforms at the lowest flow rate (20 L/min). In-Check DIAL® exhibited poor accuracy against high resistance levels. In scenarios with no resistance, In-Check DIAL® had significantly smaller measurement errors than PF810®, but larger errors against high resistance levels. The two devices showed excellent agreement (ICC > 0.80, P < 0.05), except for healthy volunteers against medium to high resistance (R3-R5) where the ICC was insignificant. Bland-Altman plots indicated small disagreements between the two devices for both healthy volunteers and COPD patients.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In-Check DIAL® exhibited poor accuracy and larger measurement errors than PF810® when detecting PIFs against higher internal resistances. However, its good performance against lower internal resistances, along with its cost-effectiveness and convenience made it appropriate for primary care. PF810® showed good accuracy and repeatability and could detect additional parameters of inspiratory capacity beyond PIF, though required further studies to confirm its clinical benefits.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39095773
doi: 10.1186/s12890-024-03191-7
pii: 10.1186/s12890-024-03191-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Comparative Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
380Subventions
Organisme : Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality
ID : 19DZ1920104
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease. Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (2023 REPORT). https://goldcopd.org/2023-gold-reports-2/ . Accessed 10 Jan 2023.
Global Initiative for asthma. Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention (2021 update). https://ginasthma.org/gina-reports/ . Accessed 10 Jan 2023.
Markham A, Jarvis B. Inhaled salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination: a review of its use in persistent asthma. Drugs. 2000;60(5):1207–33.
doi: 10.2165/00003495-200060050-00012
pubmed: 11129128
Molimard M, Raherison C, Lignot S, Depont F, Abouelfath A, Moore N. Assessment of handling of inhaler devices in real life: an observational study in 3811 patients in primary care. J Aerosol Med. 2003;16(3):249–54.
doi: 10.1089/089426803769017613
pubmed: 14572322
Pasqua E, Hamblin N, Edwards C, Baker-Glenn C, Hurley C. Developing inhaled drugs for respiratory diseases: A medicinal chemistry perspective. Drug Discov Today. 2022;27(1):134–50.
doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2021.09.005
pubmed: 34547449
Sorino C, Negri S, Spanevello A, Visca D, Scichilone N. Inhalation therapy devices for the treatment of obstructive lung diseases: the history of inhalers towards the ideal inhaler. Eur J Intern Med. 2020;75:15–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2020.02.023
pubmed: 32113944
Laube BL, Janssens HM, de Jongh FHC, Devadason SG, Dhand R, Diot P, et al. What the pulmonary specialist should know about the new inhalation therapies. Eur Respir J. 2011;37(6):1308–31.
doi: 10.1183/09031936.00166410
pubmed: 21310878
Ghosh S, Ohar JA, Drummond MB. Peak inspiratory flow rate in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: implications for dry powder inhalers. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv. 2017;30(6):381–7.
doi: 10.1089/jamp.2017.1416
pubmed: 28933581
pmcid: 5915227
Ghosh S, Pleasants RA, Ohar JA, Donohue JF, Drummond MB. Prevalence and factors associated with suboptimal peak inspiratory flow rates in COPD. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2019;14:585–95.
doi: 10.2147/COPD.S195438
pubmed: 30880948
pmcid: 6402615
Hua JL, Ye XF, Du CL, Xie N, Zhang JQ, Li M, et al. Optimizing inhalation therapy in the aspect of peak inhalation flow rate in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma. BMC Pulm Med. 2021;21(1):302.
doi: 10.1186/s12890-021-01674-5
pubmed: 34560863
pmcid: 8464087
Gosselink R, De Vos J, van den Heuvel SP, Segers J, Decramer M, Kwakkel G. Impact of inspiratory muscle training in patients with COPD: what is the evidence? Eur Respir J. 2011;37(2):416–25.
doi: 10.1183/09031936.00031810
pubmed: 21282809
Loh CH, Peters SP, Lovings TM, Ohar JA. Suboptimal inspiratory flow rates are associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and all-cause readmissions. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2017;14(8):1305–11.
doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201611-903OC
pubmed: 28406710
Mahler DA. Peak inspiratory flow rate as a criterion for dry powder inhaler use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2017;14(7):1103–7.
pubmed: 28481631
Mahler DA, Ohar JA, Yun J, Moran EJ, Crater GD. Suboptimal PIFR associated with greater dyspnea in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) [Meeting Abstract]. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;199:2.
Cooper A, Parker J, Berry M, Wallace R, Ward J, Allan R. Wixela Inhub: dosing performance in vitro and inhaled flow rates in healthy subjects and patients compared with Advair Diskus. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv. 2020;33(6):323–41.
doi: 10.1089/jamp.2019.1584
pubmed: 32429788
pmcid: 7757596
Laube BL. In vivo measurements of aerosol dose and distribution: clinical relevance. J Aerosol Med. 1996;9(Suppl 1):S77-91.
doi: 10.1089/jam.1996.9.Suppl_1.S-77
pubmed: 10160061
Chen HI, Kuo CS. Relationship between respiratory muscle function and age, sex, and other factors. J Appl Physiol (1985). 1989;66(2):943–8.
doi: 10.1152/jappl.1989.66.2.943
pubmed: 2708222
Pegorari MS, Ruas G, Patrizzi LJ. Relationship between frailty and respiratory function in the community-dwelling elderly. Braz J Phys Ther. 2013;17(1):9–16.
doi: 10.1590/S1413-35552012005000065
pubmed: 23538454
Vidal MB, Pegorari MS, Santos EC, Matos AP, Pinto ACPN, Ohara DG. Respiratory muscle strength for discriminating frailty in community-dwelling elderly: a cross-sectional study. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2020;89:104082.
doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2020.104082
pubmed: 32442847
Clement Clarke International. In-Check DIAL
Alliance Tech Medical. In-Check™ DIAL G16: Inhaler Technique Training and Assessment Tool. https://alliancetechmedical.com/check-dial-training-device/ . Accessed 29 Dec 2023.
e-LinkCare. UBREATH
Mahler DA, Waterman LA, Gifford AH. Prevalence and COPD phenotype for a suboptimal peak inspiratory flow rate against the simulated resistance of the Diskus® dry powder inhaler. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv. 2013;26(3):174–9.
doi: 10.1089/jamp.2012.0987
pubmed: 23025451
Kawamatawong T, Khiawwan S, Pornsuriyasak P. Peak inspiratory flow rate measurement by using In-Check DIAL for the different inhaler devices in elderly with obstructive airway diseases. J Asthma Allergy. 2017;10:17–21.
doi: 10.2147/JAA.S127580
pubmed: 28260934
pmcid: 5328129
Sharma G, Mahler DA, Mayorga VM, Deering KL, Harshaw O, Ganapathy V. Prevalence of low peak inspiratory flow rate at discharge in patients hospitalized for COPD exacerbation. Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis. 2017;4(3):217–24.
pubmed: 28848933
pmcid: 5556913
Ohar JA, Ferguson GT, Mahler DA, Drummond MB, Dhand R, Pleasants RA, et al. Measuring peak inspiratory flow in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2022;17:79–92.
doi: 10.2147/COPD.S319511
pubmed: 35023914
pmcid: 8747625
Sanders MJ. Guiding inspiratory flow: development of the In-Check DIAL G16, a tool for improving inhaler technique. Pulm Med. 2017;2017:1495867.
doi: 10.1155/2017/1495867
pubmed: 29348936
pmcid: 5733915
Curvo-Semedo L, Lambregts DM, Maas M, Thywissen T, Mehsen RT, Lammering G, et al. Rectal cancer: assessment of complete response to preoperative combined radiation therapy with chemotherapy–conventional MR volumetry versus diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Radiology. 2011;260(3):734–43.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.11102467
pubmed: 21673229
Barnes CN, Mahler DA, Ohar JA, Lombardi DA, Crater GD. Peak inspiratory flows: defining repeatability limits and a predictive equation for different inhalers. Chest. 2020;158(4):1413–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.072
pubmed: 32343967
Broeders MEAC, Molema J, Vermue NA, Folgering HTM. In Check dial: accuracy for Diskus and Turbuhaler. Int J Pharm. 2003;252(1–2):275–80.
doi: 10.1016/S0378-5173(02)00650-6
pubmed: 12550805
Sylvester KP, Clayton N, Cliff I, Hepple M, Kendrick A, Kirkby J, et al. ARTP statement on pulmonary function testing 2020. BMJ Open Respir Res. 2020;7(1):e000575.
doi: 10.1136/bmjresp-2020-000575
pubmed: 32631927
pmcid: 7337892
Cheng YS. Aerosol Deposition in the Extrathoracic Region. Aerosol Sci Technol. 2003;37(8):659–71.
doi: 10.1080/02786820300906
pubmed: 19011693
pmcid: 2582879
Usmani OS, Biddiscombe MF, Barnes PJ. Regional lung deposition and bronchodilator response as a function of beta2-agonist particle size. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2005;172(12):1497–504.
doi: 10.1164/rccm.200410-1414OC
pubmed: 16192448