BACKGROUND: Asthma attacks are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality but are preventable in most if detected and treated promptly. However, the changes that occur physiologically and behaviourally in the days and weeks preceding an attack are not always recognised, highlighting a potential role for technology. The aim of this study \'DIGIPREDICT\' is to identify early digital markers of asthma attacks using sensors embedded in smart devices including watches and inhalers, and leverage health and environmental datasets and artificial intelligence, to develop a risk prediction model to provide an early, personalised warning of asthma attacks.
METHODS: A prospective sample of 300 people, 12 years or older, with a history of a moderate or severe asthma attack in the last 12 months will be recruited in New Zealand. Each participant will be given a smart watch (to assess physiological measures such as heart and respiratory rate), peak flow meter, smart inhaler (to assess adherence and inhalation) and a cough monitoring application to use regularly over 6 months with fortnightly questionnaires on asthma control and well-being. Data on sociodemographics, asthma control, lung function, dietary intake, medical history and technology acceptance will be collected at baseline and at 6 months. Asthma attacks will be measured by self-report and confirmed with clinical records. The collected data, along with environmental data on weather and air quality, will be analysed using machine learning to develop a risk prediction model for asthma attacks.
BACKGROUND: Ethical approval has been obtained from the New Zealand Health and Disability Ethics Committee (2023 FULL 13541). Enrolment began in August 2023. Results will be presented at local, national and international meetings, including dissemination via community groups, and submission for publication to peer-reviewed journals.
BACKGROUND: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12623000764639; Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and bronchial asthma pose significant threats and challenges to global health care, emphasizing the need for precise inhaler therapies to overcome this burden. The optimal peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) is a crucial determinant for the right selection and effective use of an inhaler device. It also helps to improve the treatment effectiveness of obstructive airway diseases worldwide as it allows effective drug delivery to distal airways and lung parenchyma. It is used as a selection criterion by physicians around the world for selecting personalized inhaler devices.
OBJECTIVE: To find out the optimal and non-optimal PIFR prevalence and its influencing factors in stable and exacerbation phases of COPD and bronchial asthma in Tamil Nadu, India.
METHODS: It is a single-center, observational, cross-sectional study conducted from February 2022 to August 2023. The patients who meet the diagnostic criteria specified by the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines for COPD and the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines for bronchial asthma are enrolled in our study. The PIFR was measured using a hand-held digital spirometry device, along with demographic data collection. Statistical analyses, including t-tests and chi-square tests, were performed using SPSS version 21 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).
RESULTS: Gender, height, and disease severity significantly impacted the PIFR. Females, normal BMI individuals, and those with moderate disease severity exhibited higher optimal PIFR rates. Stable or exacerbation phases, disease, and smoking status do not influence either optimal or non-optimal PIFR. Notably, substantial differences in lung function parameters were observed between optimal (60-90 L/min) and non-optimal PIFR (insufficient: <30 L/min, suboptimal: 30-60 L/min, excessive: >90 L/min) groups, highlighting their impact on respiratory health.
CONCLUSIONS: This study emphasizes the importance of personalized inhaler strategies, considering gender, height, and disease severity. Proper inhaler device selection, continuous monitoring of inhaler technique, and tailored inhaler education at every OPD visit are vital for optimizing effective COPD and bronchial asthma management and improving adherence to treatment.

BACKGROUND: Inhaler concordance and the peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) are important determinants of treatment effects in patients with chronic airway diseases. Adequate PIFR is required for driving aerosol medication into the lower respiratory tract. However, the relationship between them has not been discussed previously. This study aimed to describe the characteristics of inhaler concordance and PIFR in Chinese patients with chronic airway diseases and discuss the associated variables and the relationship between them.
METHODS: In this single-centre, observational study, a total of 680 patients with chronic airway diseases were enrolled from July 2021 to April 2023. We collected data on the socio-demographic and clinical variables of inhaler concordance using the test of adherence to inhalers (TAI) and PIFR. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to examine variables related to inhaler concordance and PIFR.
RESULTS: A total of 49.4% of patients had low concordance. Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were more concordant than patients with asthma (mean TAI score: 43.60 vs 41.20; p<0.01), while there was no difference in concordance between the asthma-COPD overlap group and the asthma or COPD group. Suboptimal PIFR (adjusted OR, 1.61; 95% CI 1.04 to 2.51) increased the risk of poor concordance among all patients, while triple therapy (adjusted OR, 0.60; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.86) reduced the risk. A total of 54.9% of patients had suboptimal PIFR. Older age, lower educational level, use of dry powder inhalers and lower forced expiratory volume in 1 s % predicted were significantly correlated with insufficient PIFR. Subgroup analysis revealed a greater proportion of patients with insufficient PIFR during exacerbation than during the stable phase (61.7% vs 43.5%, p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Inhaler concordance was low, and suboptimal PIFR was a risk factor for poor concordance among Chinese patients with chronic airway diseases. In addition, current inhalation devices may not be suitable, and PIFR reassessment should be considered for patients with COPD during exacerbation.
BACKGROUND: The study was registered in chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2100052527) on 31 October 2021.

BACKGROUND: Errors using inhaled delivery systems for COPD are common and it is assumed that these lead to worse clinical outcomes. Previous systematic reviews have included patients with both asthma and COPD and much of the evidence related to asthma. More studies in COPD have now been published. Through systematic review, the relationship between errors using inhalers and clinical outcomes in COPD, including the importance of specific errors, was assessed.MethodsElectronic databases were searched on 27 October 2023 to identify cohort, case-control or randomised controlled studies, which included patients with COPD, an objective assessment of inhaler errors and data on at least one outcome of interest (forced expiratory volume in 1 s, (FEV1), dyspnoea, health status and exacerbations). Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle and Ottawa scales. A narrative synthesis of the results was performed as there was insufficient detail in the publications to allow quantitative synthesis. There was no funding for the review.
RESULTS: 19 publications were included (7 cohort and 12 case-control) reporting outcomes on 6487 patients. 15 were considered low quality, and most were confounded by the absence of adherence data. There was weak evidence that lower error rates are associated with better FEV1, symptoms and health status and fewer exacerbations. Only one considered the effects of individual errors and found that only some were related to worse outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Evidence about the importance of specific errors using inhalers and outcomes would optimise the education and training of patients with COPD. Prospective studies, including objective monitoring of inhalation technique and adherence, are needed.
UNASSIGNED: CRD42023393120.

UNASSIGNED: The choice of inhaler device type can play a crucial role in managing asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). With various devices available, differences in choice and application may lead to confusion for both prescribers and patients. Furthermore, improper use of a device may lead to suboptimal or inadequate treatment.
UNASSIGNED: The primary objective was to identify factors that prescribers consider when selecting an inhaler device for a patient. The secondary objective was to evaluate the rankings of these factors, including identification of which factors had greater importance and frequency for prescribers\' choice of inhaler device for patients.
UNASSIGNED: A 10-question online survey was developed and distributed in late 2021 to prescribers (physicians, nurse practitioners, and pharmacists) in western Canada in an outpatient setting. Prescribers were asked to use their own words to describe the factors they considered important and were then asked to rank the stated factors in order of importance for 2 scenarios: an 83-year-old woman with COPD and a 21-year-old man with asthma. The results were examined qualitatively and quantitatively. Recurring themes were identified, and each response was categorized on the basis of its corresponding theme.
UNASSIGNED: In all, 82 respondents completed the survey (yielding a total of 164 responses across the 2 scenarios). Overall, prescriber experience (84/164, 51%), cost (84/164, 51%), patient ease of use (59/164, 36%), and other patient considerations (49/164, 30%) were the factors most frequently mentioned. The prescriber\'s experience was most often mentioned as a factor for scenario 1 (COPD), whereas cost was most often mentioned for scenario 2 (asthma). In both scenarios, prescriber experience was the highest-ranked factor.
UNASSIGNED: When determining the appropriate type of inhaler device, respondents frequently prioritized their own experience, as well as cost and ease of use. However, many respondents ranked prescriber experience higher than all other factors.
UNASSIGNED: Le choix du type d’inhalateur peut jouer un rôle crucial dans la gestion de l’asthme et de la maladie pulmonaire obstructive chronique (MPOC). Étant donné la diversité des dispositifs disponibles, les différences de choix et d’application peuvent prêter à confusion tant pour les prescripteurs que pour les patients. De plus, la mauvaise utilisation d’un appareil peut conduire à un traitement sous-optimal ou inadéquat.
UNASSIGNED: L’objectif principal consistait à identifier les facteurs pris en compte par les prescripteurs lors de la sélection de l’inhalateur pour un patient. L’objectif secondaire consistait à évaluer le classement de ces facteurs, notamment l’identification des facteurs les plus importants et des inhalateurs les plus fréquemment choisis par les prescripteurs.
UNASSIGNED: Un sondage en ligne de 10 questions a été préparé et distribué fin 2021 aux prescripteurs (médecins, infirmières praticiennes et pharmaciens) de l’ouest du Canada en milieu ambulatoire. Les prescripteurs devaient, dans leurs propres mots, décrire les facteurs qui leur semblaient importants avant de les classer par ordre d’importance dans le cadre de deux scénarios : une femme de 83 ans atteinte de MPOC et un homme de 21 ans avec de l’asthme. Les résultats ont fait l’objet d’un examen qualitatif et quantitatif. Des thèmes récurrents ont été identifiés et chaque réponse a été catégorisée en fonction du thème correspondant.
UNASSIGNED: Au total, 82 répondants ont répondu au sondage (total de 164 réponses dans les 2 scénarios). Dans l’ensemble, l’expérience du prescripteur (84/164, 51 %), le coût (84/164, 51 %), la facilité d’utilisation pour le patient (59/164, 36 %) et d’autres considérations en rapport avec le patient (49/164, 30 %) étaient les facteurs déterminants les plus fréquemment mentionnés. Pour le scénario 1 (MPOC), l’expérience du prescripteur était le facteur le plus souvent mentionné, alors que le coût l’était pour le scénario 2 (asthme). Dans les deux scénarios, l’expérience du prescripteur était le facteur le plus important.
UNASSIGNED: Lors de la détermination du type d’inhalateur approprié, les répondants ont souvent donné la priorité à leur expérience personnelle, ainsi qu’au coût et à la facilité d’utilisation. Cependant, de nombreux répondants ont accordé une note plus élevée à l’expérience du prescripteur qu’à d’autres facteurs.

BACKGROUND: Poorly controlled asthma is associated with increased morbidity and healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU). Therefore, to quantify the environmental impact of asthma care, this retrospective, cohort, healthCARe-Based envirONmental cost of treatment (CARBON) study estimated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the UK associated with the management of well-controlled versus poorly controlled asthma.
METHODS: Patients with current asthma (aged ≥12 years) registered with the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (2008‒2019) were included. GHG emissions, measured as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), were estimated for asthma-related medication use, HCRU and exacerbations during follow-up of patients with asthma classified at baseline as well-controlled (<3 short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) canisters/year and no exacerbations) or poorly controlled (≥3 SABA canisters/year or ≥1 exacerbation). Excess GHG emissions due to suboptimal asthma control included ≥3 SABA canister prescriptions/year, exacerbations and any general practitioner and outpatient visits within 10 days of hospitalisation or an emergency department visit.
RESULTS: Of the 236 506 patients analysed, 47.3% had poorly controlled asthma at baseline. Scaled to the national level, the overall carbon footprint of asthma care in the UK was 750 540 tonnes CO2e/year, with poorly controlled asthma contributing excess GHG emissions of 303 874 tonnes CO2e/year, which is equivalent to emissions from >124 000 houses in the UK. Poorly controlled versus well-controlled asthma generated 3.1-fold higher overall and 8.1-fold higher excess per capita carbon footprint, largely SABA-induced, with smaller contributions from HCRU.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that addressing the high burden of poorly controlled asthma, including curbing high SABA use and its associated risk of exacerbations, may significantly alleviate asthma care-related carbon emissions.

BACKGROUND: The potential association between the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and the risk of pneumonia among adults is disputed and paediatric-specific evidence is scarce.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential association between ICS, use and the risk of hospitalisation for pneumonia among children (age 2-17 years) with asthma.
METHODS: This was a cohort study based on nationwide data from routine clinical practice in Sweden (January 2007 to November 2021). From 425 965 children with confirmed asthma, episodes of new ICS use and no use were identified using records of dispensed drugs. We adjusted for potential confounders with propensity score overlap weighting and the risk of a hospitalisation with pneumonia as primary diagnosis was estimated. Multiple subgroup and sensitivity analyses were also performed.
RESULTS: We identified 249 351 ICS (mean follow-up of 0.9 years) and 214 840 no-use (mean follow-up of 0.7 years) episodes. During follow-up, 369 and 181 events of hospitalisation for pneumonia were observed in the ICS and no-use episodes, respectively. The weighted incidence rates of hospitalisation for pneumonia was 14.5 per 10 000 patient-years for ICS use episodes and 14.6 for no-use episodes. The weighted HR for hospitalisation for pneumonia associated with ICS use was 1.06 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.28) and the absolute rate difference was -0.06 (95% CI -2.83 to 2.72) events per 10 000 patient-years, compared with no use.
CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide cohort study, we found no evidence of an association between ICS use and the risk of hospitalisation for pneumonia among children with asthma, as compared with no use.

Inhaled corticosteroids have been widely reported as a preventive measure against the development of severe forms of COVID-19 not only in patients with asthma.
In 654 Czech and Slovak patients with asthma who developed COVID-19, we investigated whether the correct use of inhaler containing corticosteroids was associated with a less severe course of COVID-19 and whether this had an impact on the need for hospitalisation, measurable lung functions and quality of life (QoL).
Of the studied cohort 51.4% had moderate persistent, 29.9% mild persistent and 7.2% severe persistent asthma. We found a significant adverse effect of poor inhaler adherence on COVID-19 severity (p=0.049). We also observed a lower hospitalisation rate in patients adequately taking the inhaler with OR of 0.83. Vital capacity and forced expiratory lung volume deterioration caused by COVID-19 were significantly reversed, by approximately twofold to threefold, in individuals who inhaled correctly.
Higher quality of inhalation technique of corticosteroids measured by adherence to an inhaled medication application technique (A-AppIT) score had a significant positive effect on reversal of the vital capacity and forced expiratory lung volume in 1 s worsening (p=0.027 and p<0.0001, respectively) due to COVID-19. Scoring higher in the A-AppIT was also associated with significantly improved QoL. All measured variables concordantly and without exception showed a positive improvement in response to better adherence. We suggest that corticosteroids provide protection against the worsening of lungs in patients with COVID-19 and that correct and easily assessable adherence to corticosteroids with appropriate inhalation technique play an important role in preventing severe form of COVID-19.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may be prescribed multiple inhalers that require different techniques for optimal performance. Mixing devices has been associated with poorer COPD outcomes suggesting that it leads to inappropriate inhaler technique. However, empirical evidence is lacking.
Compare the nature and frequency of dry powder inhaler (DPI) technique errors in patients with COPD using (1) a single DPI or (2) mixed-devices (a DPI and pressurised metered dose inhaler (pMDI)).
Data from the PIFotal study-a cross-sectional study on Peak Inspiratory Flow in patients with COPD using a DPI as maintenance therapy, capturing data from 1434 patients on demographic characteristics, COPD health status and inhaler technique-were used to select 291 patients using mixed-devices. Frequency matching based on country of residence and DPI device type was used to select 291 patients using a DPI-only for comparison. Predetermined checklists were used for the evaluation of DPI video recordings and complemented with additional errors that were observed in ≥10%. Error proportions were calculated for the (1) individual and total number of errors, (2) number of critical errors and (3) number of pMDI-related errors.
The study sample contained 582 patients (mean (SD) age 69.6 (9.4) years, 47.1% female). DPI technique errors were common, but not significantly different between the groups. The majority of patients made at least one critical error (DPI-only: 90.7% vs mixed-devices: 92.8%). Proportions of total, \'pMDI-related\' and critical errors did not significantly differ between the groups.
The nature and frequency of inhaler technique errors did not substantially differ between patients prescribed with a single DPI and mixed-devices. Currently, \'pMDI-related errors\' in DPI use are not accounted for in existing checklists.
ENCEPP/EUPAS48776.

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) are associated with an increased risk of pneumonia among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The introduction of extrafine particle ICS has aimed to improve the distribution of medicine in the airways by altering deposition within the lungs, potentially affecting efficacy and side effects. It remains unclear if extrafine particle ICS administration alters the risk of pneumonia compared with standard particle size ICS.
An observational cohort study including all Danish COPD outpatients receiving ICS from 2010 to 2017. The primary outcome was pneumonia hospitalisation in the different ICS particle dosing regimens. The primary analysis was an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model. For sensitivity analysis, a subgroup analysis of patients receiving spray devices was done. Further, we created a propensity score matched cohort, in which we matched for the same covariates as adjusted for in the main analysis.
A total of 35 691 patients were included of whom 1471 received extrafine particle ICS. Among these patients, 4657 were hospitalised due to pneumonia. Patients with COPD receiving extrafine particle ICS had a lower risk of hospitalisation due to pneumonia compared with patients receiving standard particle size ICS in our primary analysis (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.89; p=0.002), subgroup analysis (HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.65; p<0.0001) and the propensity-matched population (HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.87; p=0.0006).
The use of extrafine particle ICS administration was associated with a lower risk of pneumonia hospitalisation in patients with COPD compared with those who received standard size treatment.