↓ Skip to main content

Inhalation characteristics of asthma patients, COPD patients and healthy volunteers with the Spiromax® and Turbuhaler® devices: a randomised, cross-over study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pulmonary Medicine, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Inhalation characteristics of asthma patients, COPD patients and healthy volunteers with the Spiromax® and Turbuhaler® devices: a randomised, cross-over study
Published in
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12890-015-0043-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wahida Azouz, Philip Chetcuti, Harold Hosker, Dinesh Saralaya, Henry Chrystyn

Abstract

Spiromax(®) is a novel dry-powder inhaler containing formulations of budesonide plus formoterol (BF). The device is intended to provide dose equivalence with enhanced user-friendliness compared to BF Turbuhaler(®) in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The present study was performed to compare inhalation parameters with empty versions of the two devices, and to investigate the effects of enhanced training designed to encourage faster inhalation. This randomised, open-label, cross-over study included children with asthma (n = 23), adolescents with asthma (n = 27), adults with asthma (n = 50), adults with COPD (n = 50) and healthy adult volunteers (n = 50). Inhalation manoeuvres were recorded with each device after training with the patient information leaflet (PIL) and after enhanced training using an In-Check Dial device. After PIL training, peak inspiratory flow (PIF), maximum change in pressure (∆P) and the inhalation volume (IV) were significantly higher with Spiromax than with the Turbuhaler device (p values were at least <0.05 in all patient groups). After enhanced training, numerically or significantly higher values for PIF, ∆P, IV and acceleration remained with Spiromax versus Turbuhaler, except for ∆P in COPD patients. After PIL training, one adult asthma patient and one COPD patient inhaled <30 L/min through the Spiromax compared to one adult asthma patient and five COPD patients with the Turbuhaler. All patients achieved PIF values of at least 30 L/min after enhanced training. The two inhalers have similar resistance so inhalation flows and pressure changes would be expected to be similar. The higher flow-related values noted for Spiromax versus Turbuhaler after PIL training suggest that Spiromax might have human factor advantages in real-world use. After enhanced training, the flow-related differences between devices persisted; increased flow rates were achieved with both devices, and all patients achieved the minimal flow required for adequate drug delivery. Enhanced training could be useful, especially in COPD patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 85 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Student > Master 10 12%
Other 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Other 18 21%
Unknown 20 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 8%
Engineering 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 26 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 June 2016.
All research outputs
#5,767,013
of 19,211,930 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#402
of 1,524 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,312
of 239,567 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,211,930 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,524 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 239,567 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them