Mashaal Hyfaa, Fogel Joshua, Sayedy Najia, Sahota Ruchi Jalota, Akella Jagadish
Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, Nassau University Medical Center, East Meadow, New York, NY, USA.
Department of Business Management, Brooklyn College, Brooklyn, New York, NY, USA.
Can J Respir Ther. 2022 Mar 25;58:44-48. doi: 10.29390/cjrt-2021-041. eCollection 2022.
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.
This cross-sectional survey of 58 patients compared the patient's experience with Trelegy ( = 18) versus any other inhaler ( = 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.
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; = 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 ( = 0.29, < 0.05) and their use of a rescue inhaler ( = 0.42, < 0.01). Patients with more concern about their medications were negatively correlated with the use of a rescue inhaler ( = -0.31, < 0.05).
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.
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.
三联吸入器是一种组合式吸入器,经常有报告称它比多种吸入器更具优势。我们比较了使用三联吸入器与使用多种吸入器在依从性、症状、用药信念和用药态度方面的情况。
这项对58名患者的横断面调查比较了患者使用三联吸入器(n = 18)与使用其他任何吸入器(n = 40)的体验。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-担忧子量表。
我们发现,与使用其他任何吸入器的组相比,使用三联吸入器的患者有更严重的CAT症状(M = 19.8,SD = 7.75),而其他吸入器组为(M = 15.7,SD = 11.10;P = 0.04)。我们未发现两组在依从性或任何用药态度或信念方面存在差异。CAT评分与患者使用当前吸入器的月数呈正相关(r = 0.29,P < 0.05),与他们使用急救吸入器的情况也呈正相关(r = 0.42,P < 0.01)。对药物更为担忧的患者与急救吸入器的使用呈负相关(r = -0.31,P < 0.05)。
我们发现,与使用其他任何吸入器的组相比,使用三联吸入器的患者症状更严重,但在依从性、用药态度或用药信念方面没有差异。
我们建议临床医生应定期重新评估他们对三联吸入器的推荐,因为对于某些患者,使用三联吸入器可能并非最佳治疗方法。此外,进行更大样本量的研究可能有助于证实这些发现。