Saiphoklang Narongkorn, Siriyothipun Thiravit, Panichaporn Sarawut
Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani 12120, Thailand.
Med Sci (Basel). 2025 Apr 29;13(2):50. doi: 10.3390/medsci13020050.
: Peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) measurement is an essential tool for assessing the effectiveness of inhaler therapy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of three different inhaler testers compared to the In-Check DIAL device. : A cross-sectional study was conducted in clinically stable COPD patients. Participants performed PIFR measurements using the In-Check DIAL device and three inhaler testers (Accuhaler, Ellipta, and Turbuhaler). Optimal PIFR was defined as ≥60 L/min. Minimum PIFR was defined as ≥30 L/min. : A total of 82 COPD patients (93.9% male) were included, with a mean age of 73.3 ± 8.8 years. Post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second was 69.2 ± 21.0%. The prevalence of optimal PIFR was 78%, 74%, and 52% for the Accuhaler, Ellipta, and Turbuhaler testers, respectively. For detecting optimal PIFR, the Accuhaler tester demonstrated an accuracy of 80.5%, sensitivity of 100%, and specificity of 11.1%. The Ellipta tester showed an accuracy of 78.1%, sensitivity of 100%, and specificity of 14.3%, while the Turbuhaler tester achieved an accuracy of 56.1%, sensitivity of 100%, and specificity of 7.7%. All devices showed excellent accuracy (>95%), sensitivity (>98%), and specificity (100% except for the Turbuhaler tester) in detecting minimum PIFR. : The majority of COPD patients achieved optimal PIFR across the three different devices, with the highest prevalence observed for the Accuhaler tester. All three inhaler testers demonstrated excellent accuracy in assessing PIFR in COPD patients, suggesting their potential as reliable alternatives to the In-Check DIAL device in clinical practice.
吸气峰流速（PIFR）测量是评估慢性阻塞性肺疾病（COPD）吸入器治疗效果的重要工具。本研究旨在评估三种不同吸入器测试器与In-Check DIAL装置相比的准确性。
一项横断面研究在临床稳定的COPD患者中进行。参与者使用In-Check DIAL装置和三种吸入器测试器（准纳器、易纳器和都保）进行PIFR测量。最佳PIFR定义为≥60升/分钟。最低PIFR定义为≥30升/分钟。
共纳入82例COPD患者（93.9%为男性），平均年龄为73.3±8.8岁。支气管扩张剂后一秒用力呼气容积为69.2±21.0%。准纳器、易纳器和都保测试器的最佳PIFR患病率分别为78%、74%和52%。对于检测最佳PIFR，准纳器测试器的准确率为80.5%，灵敏度为100%，特异性为11.1%。易纳器测试器的准确率为78.1%，灵敏度为100%，特异性为14.3%，而都保测试器的准确率为56.1%，灵敏度为100%，特异性为7.7%。在检测最低PIFR方面，所有装置均显示出优异的准确率（>95%）、灵敏度（>98%）和特异性（都保测试器除外为100%）。
大多数COPD患者在三种不同装置上均达到了最佳PIFR，准纳器测试器的患病率最高。所有三种吸入器测试器在评估COPD患者的PIFR方面均显示出优异的准确性，表明它们在临床实践中作为In-Check DIAL装置可靠替代品的潜力。
