Sarah Pankovitch, Michael Frohlich, Bader AlOthman, Jeffrey Marciniuk, Joanie Bernier, Dorcas Paul-Emile, Jean Bourbeau, Bryan A Ross
{"title":"专业慢性阻塞性肺病临床项目中的峰值吸入流量和吸入器处方策略:真实世界观察研究","authors":"Sarah Pankovitch, Michael Frohlich, Bader AlOthman, Jeffrey Marciniuk, Joanie Bernier, Dorcas Paul-Emile, Jean Bourbeau, Bryan A Ross","doi":"10.1016/j.chest.2024.09.031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>COPD inhaler regimens should be appropriate for the patient's peak inspiratory flow (PIF) and should ideally consist of single or similar device(s).</p><p><strong>Research questions: </strong>In a subspecialized COPD clinic: (1) What is the prevalence of patients with suboptimal PIF and with inappropriate device(s) for measured PIF? (2) Are there patient-related risk factors associated with suboptimal PIF? (3) What is the prevalence of patients with non-single inhaler therapy (SIT)/nonsimilar devices? (4) Does point-of-care PIF affect clinical decision-making?</p><p><strong>Study design and methods: </strong>In this single-center real-world observational study, PIF was measured systematically at every outpatient visit in a subspecialized COPD clinic, and point-of-care results were provided to the clinician. Coprimary outcomes were the prevalence of outpatients with suboptimal PIF and with inappropriate devices for measured PIF. Secondary outcomes were patient-related risk factors associated with suboptimal PIF, the prevalence of non-SIT/nonsimilar devices, the prevalence of regimens consisting of either inappropriate device(s) for measured PIF and/or non-SIT/nonsimilar devices, and the effect of point-of-care PIF on clinical decision-making.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Suboptimal PIF was identified in 45 of 161 participants (28%), and inappropriate device(s) for measured PIF were identified in 18 participants (11.2%). Significant associations were observed between suboptimal PIF and age (1.09; 95% CI, 1.04-1.15), female sex (10.30; 95% CI, 4.45-27.10), height (0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.96), BMI (0.90; 95% CI, 0.84-0.96), and FEV<sub>1</sub> (0.09; 95% CI, 0.03-0.26). After adjustment for age and sex, the association between suboptimal PIF and BMI, but not height, remained significant. Non-SIT and/or nonsimilar devices were identified in 50 participants (31.1%). Regimens consisting of either inappropriate device(s) for measured PIF and/or non-SIT/nonsimilar devices were observed in 59 participants (36.6%). Inhaler prescription changes were observed in this latter group (3.39; 95% CI, 1.76-6.64), as well as in patients with suboptimal PIF who already had SIT/similar regimens (2.93; 95% CI, 1.07-7.92).</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Suboptimal PIF and inappropriate devices for measured PIF are highly prevalent among outpatients from a subspecialized COPD clinic. Female sex, reduced FEV<sub>1</sub>, and low BMI are important, readily identifiable risk factors for suboptimal PIF, and point-of-care PIF can inform clinical decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":9782,"journal":{"name":"Chest","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Peak Inspiratory Flow and Inhaler Prescription Strategies in a Specialized COPD Clinical Program: A Real-World Observational Study.\",\"authors\":\"Sarah Pankovitch, Michael Frohlich, Bader AlOthman, Jeffrey Marciniuk, Joanie Bernier, Dorcas Paul-Emile, Jean Bourbeau, Bryan A Ross\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.chest.2024.09.031\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>COPD inhaler regimens should be appropriate for the patient's peak inspiratory flow (PIF) and should ideally consist of single or similar device(s).</p><p><strong>Research questions: </strong>In a subspecialized COPD clinic: (1) What is the prevalence of patients with suboptimal PIF and with inappropriate device(s) for measured PIF? (2) Are there patient-related risk factors associated with suboptimal PIF? (3) What is the prevalence of patients with non-single inhaler therapy (SIT)/nonsimilar devices? (4) Does point-of-care PIF affect clinical decision-making?</p><p><strong>Study design and methods: </strong>In this single-center real-world observational study, PIF was measured systematically at every outpatient visit in a subspecialized COPD clinic, and point-of-care results were provided to the clinician. Coprimary outcomes were the prevalence of outpatients with suboptimal PIF and with inappropriate devices for measured PIF. Secondary outcomes were patient-related risk factors associated with suboptimal PIF, the prevalence of non-SIT/nonsimilar devices, the prevalence of regimens consisting of either inappropriate device(s) for measured PIF and/or non-SIT/nonsimilar devices, and the effect of point-of-care PIF on clinical decision-making.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Suboptimal PIF was identified in 45 of 161 participants (28%), and inappropriate device(s) for measured PIF were identified in 18 participants (11.2%). Significant associations were observed between suboptimal PIF and age (1.09; 95% CI, 1.04-1.15), female sex (10.30; 95% CI, 4.45-27.10), height (0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.96), BMI (0.90; 95% CI, 0.84-0.96), and FEV<sub>1</sub> (0.09; 95% CI, 0.03-0.26). After adjustment for age and sex, the association between suboptimal PIF and BMI, but not height, remained significant. Non-SIT and/or nonsimilar devices were identified in 50 participants (31.1%). Regimens consisting of either inappropriate device(s) for measured PIF and/or non-SIT/nonsimilar devices were observed in 59 participants (36.6%). Inhaler prescription changes were observed in this latter group (3.39; 95% CI, 1.76-6.64), as well as in patients with suboptimal PIF who already had SIT/similar regimens (2.93; 95% CI, 1.07-7.92).</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Suboptimal PIF and inappropriate devices for measured PIF are highly prevalent among outpatients from a subspecialized COPD clinic. Female sex, reduced FEV<sub>1</sub>, and low BMI are important, readily identifiable risk factors for suboptimal PIF, and point-of-care PIF can inform clinical decision-making.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chest\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chest\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2024.09.031\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chest","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2024.09.031","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Peak Inspiratory Flow and Inhaler Prescription Strategies in a Specialized COPD Clinical Program: A Real-World Observational Study.
Background: COPD inhaler regimens should be appropriate for the patient's peak inspiratory flow (PIF) and should ideally consist of single or similar device(s).
Research questions: In a subspecialized COPD clinic: (1) What is the prevalence of patients with suboptimal PIF and with inappropriate device(s) for measured PIF? (2) Are there patient-related risk factors associated with suboptimal PIF? (3) What is the prevalence of patients with non-single inhaler therapy (SIT)/nonsimilar devices? (4) Does point-of-care PIF affect clinical decision-making?
Study design and methods: In this single-center real-world observational study, PIF was measured systematically at every outpatient visit in a subspecialized COPD clinic, and point-of-care results were provided to the clinician. Coprimary outcomes were the prevalence of outpatients with suboptimal PIF and with inappropriate devices for measured PIF. Secondary outcomes were patient-related risk factors associated with suboptimal PIF, the prevalence of non-SIT/nonsimilar devices, the prevalence of regimens consisting of either inappropriate device(s) for measured PIF and/or non-SIT/nonsimilar devices, and the effect of point-of-care PIF on clinical decision-making.
Results: Suboptimal PIF was identified in 45 of 161 participants (28%), and inappropriate device(s) for measured PIF were identified in 18 participants (11.2%). Significant associations were observed between suboptimal PIF and age (1.09; 95% CI, 1.04-1.15), female sex (10.30; 95% CI, 4.45-27.10), height (0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.96), BMI (0.90; 95% CI, 0.84-0.96), and FEV1 (0.09; 95% CI, 0.03-0.26). After adjustment for age and sex, the association between suboptimal PIF and BMI, but not height, remained significant. Non-SIT and/or nonsimilar devices were identified in 50 participants (31.1%). Regimens consisting of either inappropriate device(s) for measured PIF and/or non-SIT/nonsimilar devices were observed in 59 participants (36.6%). Inhaler prescription changes were observed in this latter group (3.39; 95% CI, 1.76-6.64), as well as in patients with suboptimal PIF who already had SIT/similar regimens (2.93; 95% CI, 1.07-7.92).
Interpretation: Suboptimal PIF and inappropriate devices for measured PIF are highly prevalent among outpatients from a subspecialized COPD clinic. Female sex, reduced FEV1, and low BMI are important, readily identifiable risk factors for suboptimal PIF, and point-of-care PIF can inform clinical decision-making.
期刊介绍:
At CHEST, our mission is to revolutionize patient care through the collaboration of multidisciplinary clinicians in the fields of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. We achieve this by publishing cutting-edge clinical research that addresses current challenges and brings forth future advancements. To enhance understanding in a rapidly evolving field, CHEST also features review articles, commentaries, and facilitates discussions on emerging controversies. We place great emphasis on scientific rigor, employing a rigorous peer review process, and ensuring all accepted content is published online within two weeks.