Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients’ experience using Trelegy as compared with other inhalers

H. Mashaal, Joshua Fogel, N. Sayedy, Ruchi Jalota Sahota, J. Akella
{"title":"Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients’ experience using Trelegy as compared with other inhalers","authors":"H. Mashaal, Joshua Fogel, N. Sayedy, Ruchi Jalota Sahota, J. Akella","doi":"10.29390/cjrt-2021-041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Trelegy is a combination inhaler that is often reported to offer benefits over multiple inhalers. We compared Trelegy use with multiple inhalers for adherence, symptoms, medication beliefs, and medication attitudes. Methods This cross-sectional survey of 58 patients compared the patient’s experience with Trelegy (n = 18) versus any other inhaler (n = 40). Outcome variables consisted of Test of the Adherence to Inhalers scale, the Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease Assessment Test (CAT) scale, attitude items from the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire, the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ)-necessity subscale, and the BMQ-concerns subscale. Results We found that patients using Trelegy had greater CAT symptoms (M = 19.8, SD = 7.75) in comparison with the any other inhaler group (M = 15.7, SD = 11.10; P = 0.04). We did not find any difference between the groups for adherence or any of the medication attitudes or beliefs. CAT score was positively correlated with the number of months patients were on their current inhaler (rs = 0.29, P < 0.05) and their use of a rescue inhaler (rs = 0.42, P < 0.01). Patients with more concern about their medications were negatively correlated with the use of a rescue inhaler (rs = −0.31, P < 0.05). Discussion We found that patients using Trelegy had greater symptoms in comparison with the any other inhaler group, but did not differ for adherence, medication attitudes, or medication beliefs. Conclusion We recommend that clinicians should regularly re-evaluate their Trelegy recommendations, as Trelegy use may not be the best therapy for certain patients. Also, a study with a larger sample size can be beneficial to confirm these findings.","PeriodicalId":9533,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy: CJRT = Revue Canadienne de la Thérapie Respiratoire : RCTR","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy: CJRT = Revue Canadienne de la Thérapie Respiratoire : RCTR","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29390/cjrt-2021-041","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction Trelegy is a combination inhaler that is often reported to offer benefits over multiple inhalers. We compared Trelegy use with multiple inhalers for adherence, symptoms, medication beliefs, and medication attitudes. Methods This cross-sectional survey of 58 patients compared the patient’s experience with Trelegy (n = 18) versus any other inhaler (n = 40). Outcome variables consisted of Test of the Adherence to Inhalers scale, the Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease Assessment Test (CAT) scale, attitude items from the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire, the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ)-necessity subscale, and the BMQ-concerns subscale. Results We found that patients using Trelegy had greater CAT symptoms (M = 19.8, SD = 7.75) in comparison with the any other inhaler group (M = 15.7, SD = 11.10; P = 0.04). We did not find any difference between the groups for adherence or any of the medication attitudes or beliefs. CAT score was positively correlated with the number of months patients were on their current inhaler (rs = 0.29, P < 0.05) and their use of a rescue inhaler (rs = 0.42, P < 0.01). Patients with more concern about their medications were negatively correlated with the use of a rescue inhaler (rs = −0.31, P < 0.05). Discussion We found that patients using Trelegy had greater symptoms in comparison with the any other inhaler group, but did not differ for adherence, medication attitudes, or medication beliefs. Conclusion We recommend that clinicians should regularly re-evaluate their Trelegy recommendations, as Trelegy use may not be the best therapy for certain patients. Also, a study with a larger sample size can be beneficial to confirm these findings.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者使用Trelegy与其他吸入器的比较
Trelegy是一种组合吸入器,经常被报道比多种吸入器更有好处。我们比较了Trelegy与多种吸入器的使用依从性、症状、用药信念和用药态度。方法对58例患者进行横断面调查,比较患者使用Trelegy (n = 18)和其他吸入器(n = 40)的经验。结果变量包括吸入器依从性测试量表、慢性阻塞性肺疾病评估测试(CAT)量表、圣乔治呼吸问卷中的态度项目、药物信念问卷(BMQ)-必要性子量表和BMQ-关注子量表。结果与其他吸入器组(M = 15.7, SD = 11.10)相比,使用Trelegy的患者CAT症状更严重(M = 19.8, SD = 7.75);P = 0.04)。我们没有发现两组之间的依从性或任何药物态度或信念有任何差异。CAT评分与患者使用当前吸入器的月数(rs = 0.29, P < 0.05)和使用抢救吸入器的月数(rs = 0.42, P < 0.01)呈正相关。患者对用药的担忧程度与抢救吸入器的使用呈负相关(rs = - 0.31, P < 0.05)。我们发现使用Trelegy的患者与其他任何吸入器组相比有更大的症状,但在依从性、用药态度或用药信念方面没有差异。结论我们建议临床医生应定期重新评估他们的Trelegy建议,因为Trelegy使用可能不是某些患者的最佳治疗方法。此外,更大样本量的研究可能有助于证实这些发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A cross-sectional survey on the effects of ambient temperature and humidity on health outcomes in individuals with chronic respiratory disease Impact of telephone follow-up on COPD outcomes in pulmonary rehabilitation patients: A randomized clinical trial A survey on the attitudinal differences between acute and community settings Strategies to achieve adherence to prone positioning in awake COVID-19 patients with high-flow nasal oxygen. A case series Winning Posters from the Canadian Society of Respiratory Therapists 2022 Annual Conference
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1