4.5 Review

The need to improve inhalation technique in Europe: A report from the Aerosol Drug Management Improvement Team

期刊

RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
卷 100, 期 9, 页码 1479-1494

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2006.01.008

关键词

inhalation technique; asthma; pressurised metered dose inhaler; inhaler device

资金

  1. MRC [G9805965] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Medical Research Council [G9805965] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although the principles of asthma management are welt established in Europe, the available data indicate that asthma in patients is not well controlled. Many patients derive incomplete benefit from their inhaled medication because they do not use inhaler devices correctly and this may compromise asthma control. The Aerosol Drug Management Improvement Team (ADMIT), incorporating clinicians from the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain and The Netherlands, reviewed published evidence to examine ways to improve the treatment of reversible airways disease in Europe. Data indicate that there is a clear need for specific training of patients in correct inhalation technique for the various devices currently available, and this should be repeated frequently to maintain correct inhalation technique. Devices which provide reassurance to patients and their physicians that inhalation is performed correctly should help to improve patient compliance and asthma control. Educational efforts should also focus on primary prescribers of inhaler devices. ADMIT recommends dissemination of information on the correct inhalation technique for each model of device by the use of an accessible dedicated literature base or website which would enable to match the appropriate inhaler to the individual patient. There is also a need for standardisation of prescribing practices throughout Europe. Regular checking of inhalation technique by prescribers is crucial as correct inhalation is one of the keystones of successful asthma management. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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