Measuring Peak Inspiratory Flow in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. [Review]

MedStar author(s):
Citation: International Journal of Copd. 17:79-92, 2022.PMID: 35023914Institution: MedStar Washington Hospital CenterDepartment: Respiratory TherapyForm of publication: Journal ArticleMedline article type(s): Journal Article | ReviewSubject headings: *Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive | Administration, Inhalation | Dry Powder Inhalers | Humans | Lung | Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive/di [Diagnosis] | Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive/dt [Drug Therapy]Year: 2022Name of journal: International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseAbstract: Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) are breath actuated, and patients using DPIs need to generate an optimal inspiratory flow during the inhalation maneuver for effective drug delivery to the lungs. However, practical and standardized recommendations for measuring peak inspiratory flow (PIF)-a potential indicator for effective DPI use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)-are lacking. To evaluate recommended PIF assessment approaches, we reviewed the Instructions for Use of the In-Check TM DIAL and the prescribing information for eight DPIs approved for use in the treatment of COPD in the United States. To evaluate applied PIF assessment approaches, we conducted a PubMed search from inception to August 31, 2021, for reports of clinical and real-life studies where PIF was measured using the In-Check TM DIAL or through a DPI in patients with COPD. Evaluation of collective sources, including 47 applicable studies, showed that instructions related to the positioning of the patient with their DPI, instructions for exhalation before the inhalation maneuver, the inhalation maneuver itself, and post-inhalation breath-hold times varied, and in many instances, appeared vague and/or incomplete. We observed considerable variation in how PIF was measured in clinical and real-life studies, underscoring the need for a standardized method of PIF measurement. Standardization of technique will facilitate comparisons among studies. Based on these findings and our clinical and research experience, we propose specific recommendations for PIF measurement to standardize the process and better ensure accurate and reliable PIF values in clinical trials and in daily clinical practice. Copyright (c) 2022 Ohar et al.All authors: Anzueto A, Dhand R, Drescher GS, Drummond MB, Ferguson GT, Halpin DMG, Haughney J, Hess MW, Hoy HM, Mahler DA, Ohar JA, Pleasants RA, Price DB, Usmani OSOriginally published: International Journal of Copd. 17:79-92, 2022.Fiscal year: FY2022Digital Object Identifier: Date added to catalog: 2022-02-21
Holdings
Item type Current library Collection Call number Status Date due Barcode
Journal Article MedStar Authors Catalog Article 35023914 Available 35023914

Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) are breath actuated, and patients using DPIs need to generate an optimal inspiratory flow during the inhalation maneuver for effective drug delivery to the lungs. However, practical and standardized recommendations for measuring peak inspiratory flow (PIF)-a potential indicator for effective DPI use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)-are lacking. To evaluate recommended PIF assessment approaches, we reviewed the Instructions for Use of the In-Check TM DIAL and the prescribing information for eight DPIs approved for use in the treatment of COPD in the United States. To evaluate applied PIF assessment approaches, we conducted a PubMed search from inception to August 31, 2021, for reports of clinical and real-life studies where PIF was measured using the In-Check TM DIAL or through a DPI in patients with COPD. Evaluation of collective sources, including 47 applicable studies, showed that instructions related to the positioning of the patient with their DPI, instructions for exhalation before the inhalation maneuver, the inhalation maneuver itself, and post-inhalation breath-hold times varied, and in many instances, appeared vague and/or incomplete. We observed considerable variation in how PIF was measured in clinical and real-life studies, underscoring the need for a standardized method of PIF measurement. Standardization of technique will facilitate comparisons among studies. Based on these findings and our clinical and research experience, we propose specific recommendations for PIF measurement to standardize the process and better ensure accurate and reliable PIF values in clinical trials and in daily clinical practice. Copyright (c) 2022 Ohar et al.

English

Powered by Koha