4.6 Article

A randomised clinical trial of feedback on inhaler adherence and technique in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma

期刊

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
卷 51, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/13993003.01126-2017

关键词

-

资金

  1. Health Research Board of Ireland [HRA POR/2011/59]
  2. Dublin Clinical Centre for Research
  3. Crossref Funder Registry
  4. Health Research Board (HRB) [HRA-POR-2011-59] Funding Source: Health Research Board (HRB)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In severe asthma, poor control could reflect issues of medication adherence or inhaler technique, or that the condition is refractory. This study aimed to determine if an intervention with (bio) feedback on the features of inhaler use would identify refractory asthma and enhance inhaler technique and adherence. Patients with severe uncontrolled asthma were subjected to a stratified-by-site random block design. The intensive education group received repeated training in inhaler use, adherence and disease management. The intervention group received the same intervention, enhanced by (bio) feedback-guided training. The primary outcome was rate of actual inhaler adherence. Secondary outcomes included a pre-defined assessment of clinical outcome. Outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat and per-protocol basis. The mean rate of adherence during the third month in the (bio) feedback group (n=111) was higher than that in the enhanced education group (intention-to-treat, n=107; 73% versus 63%; 95% CI 2.8%-17.6%; p=0.02). By the end of the study, asthma was either stable or improved in 54 patients (38%); uncontrolled, but poorly adherent in 52 (35%); and uncontrolled, but adherent in 40 (27%). Repeated feedback significantly improved inhaler adherence. After a programme of adherence and inhaler technique assessment, only 40 patients (27%) were refractory and adherent, and might therefore need add-on therapy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据